Published By
Created On
17 Apr 2021 16:54:25 UTC
Transaction ID
Cost
Safe for Work
Free
Yes
This Video is Not Age-Restricted (but it should be)
This video is not age-restricted and it should be.
It used to be your lower-body couldn’t be shown shaking on camera. Now it may be the only thing shown. I don’t suggest we turn back the clock to the 1950s, but we’ve lost the middle ground between family values and personal pleasure.
YouTube shouldn’t remove s*xually-provocative videos, but it should age-restrict them in order to protect the minds (and values) of children and young adults.
When a video is age-restricted a user has to sign in and agree they are 18+ and the video won’t be featured on the Trending page or recommended as much to viewers.
I’m a social moderate, but since social media / mainstream media / blockbuster films are controlled by social progressives it makes my reasonable positions sound like I’m some nutty honey-grab-my-bible-and-gun-we-got-some-work-to-do zealot.
(constant pressure social media, liberal media affecting youth)
Here are the lyrics to the above song (not to be confused with Elvis). You tell me if I’m being unreasonable:
No, she ain't get no DM from me (b*tch)
This rich n*gga d*ck, it ain't free
She be throwin' that a*s, yeah, she good at it
Turn around when we f*ck, make her look at it (uh, she like, hah)
85 million views with a large segment coming from the under 18 demographic.
The thing I really want parents and young adults to consider is that YOUR LIKES ARE NOT YOUR LIKES.
(constant pressure social media, liberal media affecting youth)
Yes, there is some biological basis in our preferences, but if you grab a microscope and inspect the DNA of a 16-year-old girl you will not find a handstand-twerking-gene nor will you find in the DNA of a 16-year-old boy a throw-money-at-that-hoe gene.
I had written a detailed explanation for what influences “likes”, which got taken down by Quora under BNBR so you can watch it here if you’d like.
But isn’t it interesting how social media is more afraid of moderate conservative viewpoints than they are of consistently feeding young people a narrative of, “you are not popular enough, pretty enough, sexual enough”?
Conservative values threaten those with power because it means they’ll be held to a higher standard: don’t lie, cheat, steal.
If those with power can convince you it’s okay to sometimes lie, cheat, and steal then that gives them free rein to do whatever they want with whomever they want so long as they can convince their target that they like to be used like a disposable paper cup, which isn’t particularly hard to do when you have money and fame in a money-fame driven world.
Who benefits the most from the breakdown of the family? It’s the top 1% alpha males who can now sleep with a larger segment of the population without any of the pesky cultural stigmas that used
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-VAuDeR26Q
It used to be your lower-body couldn’t be shown shaking on camera. Now it may be the only thing shown. I don’t suggest we turn back the clock to the 1950s, but we’ve lost the middle ground between family values and personal pleasure.
YouTube shouldn’t remove s*xually-provocative videos, but it should age-restrict them in order to protect the minds (and values) of children and young adults.
When a video is age-restricted a user has to sign in and agree they are 18+ and the video won’t be featured on the Trending page or recommended as much to viewers.
I’m a social moderate, but since social media / mainstream media / blockbuster films are controlled by social progressives it makes my reasonable positions sound like I’m some nutty honey-grab-my-bible-and-gun-we-got-some-work-to-do zealot.
(constant pressure social media, liberal media affecting youth)
Here are the lyrics to the above song (not to be confused with Elvis). You tell me if I’m being unreasonable:
No, she ain't get no DM from me (b*tch)
This rich n*gga d*ck, it ain't free
She be throwin' that a*s, yeah, she good at it
Turn around when we f*ck, make her look at it (uh, she like, hah)
85 million views with a large segment coming from the under 18 demographic.
The thing I really want parents and young adults to consider is that YOUR LIKES ARE NOT YOUR LIKES.
(constant pressure social media, liberal media affecting youth)
Yes, there is some biological basis in our preferences, but if you grab a microscope and inspect the DNA of a 16-year-old girl you will not find a handstand-twerking-gene nor will you find in the DNA of a 16-year-old boy a throw-money-at-that-hoe gene.
I had written a detailed explanation for what influences “likes”, which got taken down by Quora under BNBR so you can watch it here if you’d like.
But isn’t it interesting how social media is more afraid of moderate conservative viewpoints than they are of consistently feeding young people a narrative of, “you are not popular enough, pretty enough, sexual enough”?
Conservative values threaten those with power because it means they’ll be held to a higher standard: don’t lie, cheat, steal.
If those with power can convince you it’s okay to sometimes lie, cheat, and steal then that gives them free rein to do whatever they want with whomever they want so long as they can convince their target that they like to be used like a disposable paper cup, which isn’t particularly hard to do when you have money and fame in a money-fame driven world.
Who benefits the most from the breakdown of the family? It’s the top 1% alpha males who can now sleep with a larger segment of the population without any of the pesky cultural stigmas that used
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-VAuDeR26Q
Author
Content Type
Unspecified
video/mp4
Language
English
More from the publisher
Controlling
VIDEO
NANCY
nancy-pelosi-paints-a-disturbing-picture
Let's take a look at Nancy Pelosi' recent tweet...
"The Mueller Report paints a disturbing picture of a president who has been weaving a web of deceit, lies and improper behavior and acting as if the law doesn’t apply to him."
I don’t care what “picture” Nancy Pelosi thinks the report “paints”.
The report concluded:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Let’s compare that with the picture Nancy Pelosi painted for 2+ years:
“The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. It is staggering that the President has chosen to surround himself with people who violated the integrity of our democracy.”
“What does Putin have on the President, politically, personally or financially? Why has the Trump Administration continued to discuss pulling the U.S. out of NATO, which would be a massive victory for Putin?
We saw cold, hard evidence of the Trump campaign, the Trump family eagerly intending to collude possibly with Russia.
Did you like her picture?
Did it justify your hatred of the president?
Did you believe it because you wanted it to be true?
Or were you an educated person who said, “Let’s wait and see what the report concludes before jumping to any conclusions. Innocent until proven guilty.”
Unfortunately though there are enough ignorant Americans who can’t even name the 3 branches of government and who vote purely based on emotion... these are the voters that decide our elections... and so if you tell them a lie frequently enough they’ll start to believe it.
When the lie is disproved years later… so what?!
The damage would have already been done (Democrats retook the House by using “Russian collusion” as their central 2018 campaign issue).
And they would have already moved onto a new attack line, which the emotional masses eat up with the same ferocity as previous lies.
Before you comment please keep in mind that reading the Mueller report or watching the news doesn’t make you a lawyer. A team of America’s top legal professionals couldn’t establish collusion so the fact that you think there is enough evidence to establish it is of little importance for such a grave accusation.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR9LtHZWmMo
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
GUARA
guarantee-jobs-to-free-the-free-market
One of my key political beliefs is that cheap is better than free!
You see we hear politicians promise “free” stuff, but what they’re really promising is a government monopoly, but monopolies are never good, whether they be public or private because they lead to rising costs and diminishing quality.
This is why I not only differ with the socialist-left, but also the libertarian-right because the free market can lead to the consolidation of power too, but instead of being in a few government officials hands it’ll be in a few private individuals hands, which is preferable to the former because they won't have a trillion-dollar military behind them, but it’s still far from ideal because once these corporate monopolies become entrenched they can be very difficult to break up. To break up a corporate monopoly, you either need to embrace your inner Teddy Roosevelt, increase taxes on them to level the playing field, or hope some new technology that could be 10, 50, 100 years away will be capable of dislodging them.
So I believe rather than the government trying to make things “free” by taking over the market it should make things “cheap” by growing the market.
Using this chart, we can see Americans spend the most amount of money on housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and education…
So I think the central question we should be asking ourselves is, “How can we reduce costs in these areas so Americans can have more disposable income?”
And don't get it twisted... making things cheaper is not an ideological purity test. There are proposals on the left and on the right that can help reduce costs.
For example, a “public option” in housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and education could help spur competition and therefore reduce costs and increase quality. Most conservatives support a “public option” for K - 12 education, aka vouchers. Most conservatives support a “public option” for transportation, i.e. trains, buses, and sidewalks. But the problem with a “public option” is that the government is not operating on the same market based incentives as the rest of the competition, which means a “public option” can be sabotaged by conservatives who want to make sure it’s underfunded so they can say, “See! I told you it would be bad!” or conversely it could be so well-funded that private companies couldn’t compete to the point where the “public option” overtime would turn into a government monopoly, which is what a lot of Democrats openly hope for and believe will happen when it comes to healthcare, i.e. Pete Buttigieg saying in the debates that his “public option” would eventually become medicare-for-all because everyone would want it. But personally, I believe if there is to be a “publi
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzZX3V44A6g
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
DONAL
donald-trump-goes-low-on-mini-mike
Donald Trump received a standing ovation at CPAC for dropping down to mimic Mike Bloomberg’s height…
Now I know some of you found it funny, but let’s explore the effectiveness and morality of the name-calling tactic...
Does name-calling work?
Well the fact Donald Trump is President of the United States suggests it does.
Interestingly enough some people who oppose Donald Trump’s name-calling do it themselves, which they justify their hypocrisy by saying a president should be held to a higher standard, which he should be, but a president is a reflection of the people he represents. Change starts with you, always.
But to further highlight name-calling’s political effectiveness, how many of Hillary Clinton’s policy proposals do you remember?
Okay, now how many of Trump’s monikers do you remember: Mini Mike, Crazy Bernie, Crooked Hillary, Lyin Ted, Little Marco, Low-Energy Jeb?
But then if name-calling does work, the deeper question becomes is it the morally right thing to do?
Allow me to get up on my high-horse for a second, but I have NEVER in my life called someone a name with the intent to hurt their feelings. I may be unusual in this regard, but as Abraham Lincoln said, “I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.”
But what if by calling just one person bad names you could save millions of lives THEN would it be morally right?
If you are running for President of the United States then you should believe that you are superior to the other candidates running and therefore by extension you could save and improve more American lives. Winning the White House is literally a matter of life and death.
So does the end justify the means?
Maybe in Mike Bloomberg’s eyes he may think, ”In order to create a cleaner future I may need to sling some mud.”
Can anyone get elected president nowadays without getting their hands dirty?
Most Republicans seem to think Trump’s name-calling is justified because it worked. They think it’s no big deal because in the grand scheme of things if Trump has to do that in order to win reelection then so be it if it means having more conservative judges on the Supreme Court, enforcing the borders, and keeping taxes and regulations low.
But my problem with name-calling is it makes us stup*d.
Let’s say Bloomberg responds to Trump in kind, “You can call me Mini Mike, but at least I don’t have a mini brain, Mini Brain!”
An ol’ fashion: “I know I am but what are you!”
If Bloomberg responded this way, I bet he’d see a bump in his poll numbers as the mainstream media would pick up on the story and Democrats adopt the new moniker to further annoy Trump.
I can then see the comment sections all around the internet descending further into the mud, which then makes it more di
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq8TMErATQI
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
5 PIL
5-pillars-of-design
Episode 2, day 2 of vlogging about working and improving my startup, Live to Challenge. This episode was also about website design.
5 PILLARS OF WEBSITE DESIGN
1) Intuitive
2) Simple
3) Cohesive
4) Gorgeous
5) Wow Factor
These aren't pillars for every website just the things I look for when building Live to Challenge into the #1 startup for bucket list and goal-setting websites.
LIVE TO CHALLENGE
http://www.livetochallenge.com
LIVE TO CHALLENGE BLOG
http://www.livetochallenge.com/blog
LIVE TO CHALLENGE FACEBOOK PAGE
http://www.facebook.com/livetochallenge
ANTHONY GALLI INSTAGRAM
http://www.instagram.com/rallywithgalli
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_SgnI2zjWQ
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
WHEN
when-to-stop-ai
Few people have called for stopping AI and even fewer have thought about when. Here's my attempt at providing a rough framework in which to approach this question.
Don't give up. We can beat the machines.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePwctXHEXAs
Transaction
Created
6 months ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
ROBIN
robin-williams-would-be-fired-today
Robin Williams never seemed to hold back any of the thoughts that popped into his head.
He was willing to say and do whatever it took to get a laugh!
But if today he used his Indian accent…
Asian accent…
or dressed as a woman…
or used one of his many other stereotypical tropes…
then I think he would get fired for it, or at the very least reprimanded and expected to make some sort of public apology until eventually his comedy would be castrated.
“When in doubt… make a d*ck joke.” — Robin Williams
Robin Williams is a symbol of freedom. The freedom to be who you want to be and say what you want to say. The freedom of expression. The freedom to offend!
It has been said,
“Oppression is not hearing a word that offends you. Oppression is being told that you cannot say certain words because you will offend someone else.” — Blaire White
We are becoming so oversensitive and politically correct as a society that I worry our future will be free of laughter because it will be free of offense. I think it’s important we permit offensive language because ALL language is offensive to someone somewhere, especially in our politically polarized world where if someone isn’t part of our party or tribe we assume the worst intentions.
“I was once on a German talk show, and this woman said to me, “Mr. Williams, why do you think there is not so much comedy in Germany?” And I said, “Did you ever think you killed all the funny people?”
From a psychological perspective, when we like a person we’re more likely to laugh at their jokes, or at the very least excuse them.
Part of the reason why Robin Williams could get away with was because he was so well-liked by everyone. He could make fun of you to your face and you’d still laugh.
“Jack’s [Nicholson] done every drug known to mankind. He’s the only guy in the world where Keith Richards will go, “I have to go home now, Jack.” — Robin Williams
But I’m not suggesting we should be forced to like everyone because forced laughter isn’t fun for anyone, but what I am suggesting is that despite not liking someone we should still give that someone the benefit of the doubt by assuming their well-intentioned.
Looking at the world from an easily-offended lens only pushes people away thereby making the world that much more offensive.
Laughter brings us together, and some times the best way to bridge the gap is by poking fun at our differences.
R.I.P. Robin Williams, AUGUST 11, 2014
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJx47JPW45k
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
PARIS
paris-climate-agreement-was-a-charade
Paris Climate Change Agreement in Paris 2015 explained from the perspective of why politicians agreed, why Trump pulled out, and what is the path forward to actually addressing climate change/air pollution so we can live in a cleaner future.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMAkinVLF0
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
HOW T
how-to-stop-china-global-domination-the
Free Speech Doctrine: Stop China from World Supremacy
Hi, I'm Anthony Galli and RBG said, “The right to speak my mind out, that’s America!” Her frenemy Anton Scalia agreed, “If you had to pick one freedom that is the most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech.”
You are fat, stup*d, and lazy. You are too handsome, smart, and humble. You see WE MUST protect each other’s right to call each other names, but globalization could strip us of this first amendment right because free speech threatened anywhere is threatened everywhere.
This is because corporations are competing with each other to make money. For example, if Apple can make their smartphones in China for 50% less money and then more importantly sell those smartphones to China’s massive consumer market without having to pay a tariff then what choice will Google have but to relocate there too in order to stay price competitive with Apple? This gives enormous power to the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist Party can then tell these big tech giants that if they want to continue to have access to their consumer workers then they need to play by their totalitarian rules.
Free speech lovers should find this graph horrifying…
Most sources, however, point to the U.S. as having a bigger economy, but no matter how we slice it, the U.S. and China are neck-in-neck…
As China’s market continues to grow in size, its ability to pressure global corporations to relocate within their borders will also grow. Once these tech giants are within arms reach of the Chinese Communist Party then how much freedom will the rest of us have on these platforms? What influencers and stories will they ban for spreading Anti-Chinese conspiracy theories and “hate speech” while boosting content that puts China in the most positive light? The mechanisms are already in place to make this a reality.
To prevent this global dystopia the President of the United States should commit to what I call: The Free Speech Doctrine.
How it works is we’d categorize countries based on three tiers of free speech: free, restricted, suppressed. We could use the 2020 World Press Freedom Index as a guide…
Tier 1 (yellow) countries would face a 0% tariff.
Tier 2 (orange-red) countries would face a 5% tariff.
Tier 3 (black) countries would face a 10% tariff.
This free speech tariff would be in addition to existing tariffs. We would also work closely with other free speech countries to encourage them to implement the Free Speech Doctrine so we can leverage our combined economies for maximum pressure.
Once it becomes more profitable to be free then these totalitarian states will be in a conundrum: watch their economy shrink or expand free speech rights. Some nations as evidenced
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5wP67S24Kg
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English
Controlling
VIDEO
CLEOP
cleopatra-how-to-get-whatever-you-want
Caesar was staying in Alexandra to collect additional funds for his army when a rug was brought into his bedroom chambers.
The servant unraveled the rug and out flowed the notorious Cleopatra.
Startled, Caesar asked, “What’s the meaning of this?”
Cleopatra regained her footing and complained to Caesar how her lying scheming siblings exiled her from the city so they could keep all the power for themselves!
She begged Caesar to restore her to the Egyptian throne. She would do anything he commanded!
Caesar was intrigued.
The servant was asked to leave and the door was shut.
To the shock of her siblings, the following morning Cleopatra emerged from Caesar’s bedroom chambers and was pronounced the new Pharaoh!
Well, actually co-pharaoh. In a disturbing turn-of-events, Caesar forced Cleopatra to to marry her younger brother in the name of reestablishing family unity.
I’m sure many parents have yelled at their bickering children, “You two are like an old married couple so if you keep it up I’ll have you married!”… okay maybe not… but historically it was an Egyptian custom for the royal family to intermarry to keep power in the bloodline.
9 months later, Cleopatra had Caesar’s son who she named co-pharaoh after the “unexpected” death of her husband-brother (she likely poisoned him).
A few years later Cleopatra came to visit Caesar in Rome with baby in hand. Many Romans were stunned when he erected a gilded statue of her in the temple of love. Keep in mind, he was a married man.
Then one morning in Rome, Cleopatra was awakened to learn her beloved had just been stabbed to death in the senate.
She immediately fled the city as a roman civil ... broke out.
Antony’s faction needed assistance to win the ... so he summoned Cleopatra to gauge her level of loyalty to his cause.
With a continued flare for the dramatic, she entered the city by sailing up the Cydnus River in a golden boat, with purple sails, rowed by oars made of silver. She dressed in the robes of the Greek goddess
Aphrodite and sat beneath a gilded canopy while attendants dressed as cupids fanned her and burned sweet-smelling incense. Antony, who equated himself with the Greek god of wine, was instantly aroused.
9 months later, she gave birth to Antony’s twins.
After years of civil ..., Antony and Cleopatra were surrounded by their enemy. And in honorable Roman tradition, Antony fell on his sword, supposedly dying in Cleopatra’s arms.
But Cleopatra, not one to follow tradition, tried to negotiate a surrender. Her main condition was that they let her son Caesarian live, but Octavian responded, “Two Caesars are one too many” and ordered the child’s death.
Upon learning of the news, Cleopatra walked into her bedroom chambers and shut the door.
T
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFp4lqyGTuE
Transaction
Created
1 year ago
Content Type
Language
video/mp4
English