32 weeks pregnant freaking out Videos

I ment to say I wish I could meet justin bieber

Or both.

+Harrison Bowman *$200 million

So going broke is being worth 500 million to you?

False...

That's also the difference between you and I. You think you are entitled to the substantiation of my opinion, when in fact you are far from it bud. You can gather consensus from another person because it isn't gonna be here. The only one blind is you because I am not giving you satisfaction of knowing why.  Like I said before, I already knew where this was going and as predicted, its ended up where I'd thought it be. With that being said, you have a good day and I'm gonna have a good night brah. Gonna go listen to some good ol' beiber. 

+Myron Gaines Well the difference between you bringing up my sexuality and you saying he's a nice guy, is that I answered your question about it, you still haven't answered my simple question about your statement online. If you can't explain why he's a nice guy, then I'm afraid you've shown how he's not a nice guy. You just blindly think something about him because you can't bear the fact he's a criminal who should be in jail.

See my point now? The bi bit is none of my business, and it isn't necessary to give me an answer to it. You have your perspective, I have mine. He's a nice dude. Sorry man. You can do, whatever the FUCK ya wanna do...

+Myron Gaines Not sure what my sexuality has to do with this, and no I actually had and still have an amazing environment around me being bi, so really I'm not sure why you even asked that. Also my demeanour is justified, you said he was a nice guy, you can't explain why you think that, and you're still pretending that you can.

Your sense of entitlement is up a couple notches. Did you have a rough environment being bi and all? Is this a major factor in your little demeanor this day? ;P

+Myron Gaines So you can't explain it? Thank you for clearing that up.

I'm just surprised you have so much endurance to pursue explanation of my "short" opinion. I'm flattered to be honest. 

+Myron Gaines You still haven't answered the question, wow, you keep writing paragraphs without answering anything. It's like your brain shuts down whenever you're about to type. If you can't explain why he's a nice guy then that just proves my point. And if you still think he's a nice guy when he's committed crimes that could have killed people then that also proves my point.

I think you are worth the time for an explanation, don't you? Wether he should or shouldn't be in jail doesn't influence my attitude man. That's your battlefield that you have issues dealing with. I hope you learn to cope better with simple things without getting worked up in the future.

+Myron Gaines You managed to write an essay when the question only required a one word answer, and you still didn't answer the question after all that. You're blind if you think he deserves a second chance (when he's had second chances, third chances, fourth chances, fifth chances) He should be in jail, end of story.

Look, I know where this is going. I've seen these type of e-battles countless times to consider this just hot air and it'll either end with you thinking you won or me trying to convince you of my opinion. You are not my English teacher, I do not owe you a persuasive paper. Just a bit of digging I quote this, "I deal with those types of comments in different ways depending on how I am feeling emotionally at the time. For instance sometimes I doubt myself a lot and I'm not very confident with myself, but other times I'm extremely confident and I don't doubt myself as much. " With that I can already make my call that you are just bored. Why else would you be at Beibers video? lol. I actually enjoy his music. Sometimes things can be simple man. You don't have to blow everything up. I think he's a nice guy, end of story. 

+Myron Gaines I didn't ask for you to spout that religious bullshit. Answer my question with a yes or a no.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone. 

+Myron Gaines Well he did commit crimes, crimes which any normal person would go to jail for, so is he nice for committing those crimes? Answer the question.

oh hush

Nice dudes commit crimes do they?

+DiamondsOnDeck76 oh my gosh!! You replied!! I expected this to get lost in the comments! :O I love you girls and your videos! Keep up the awesomeness!!

You are definitely not the only one. In fact while filming this tutorial there was a point where I though it was too much and I almost wiped everything off and started over with anything but black. Thankfully I stuck with it and between the under eyeshadow and the lashes it evened out. The good thing is it's Halloween! So it's okay if it looks a little over dramatic or bold :) When all else fails practice makes perfect!

Okay you said it twice

Why

Thanks! :)

Cover girl ready set gorgeous in the lightest shade. :)

+MadBunnyRabbit If I understand correctly, government funded research has to be accessible to the public, for free, a year after it's been published. Depending on what you were looking at there may have been a better way to access it.

+アキムゲン Precisely. You will probably find these terms used in highly reputed, peer-reviewed, scientific journals. It's the way these words can be mis-interpreted (by both the reader and the journalist who is writing the article) that can cause the problem. It's perhaps more dangerous if a journalist obtains some source material which only claims there to be a correlation, but the journalist then reports that it is a cause. In that way the reader is non-the-wiser, even if they understand the difference between correlation and causality! It's perhaps one of the easiest ways for bad-science to spread...

+TheMarcosMantis So the issue here is how the layman interprets such terms, and not with the terms themselves.Thanks for clearing that up, its just that i occasionally encounter these terms when reading some scientific journals, so it was funny being told that 'link', 'correlation' and 'association' are only used in so called fraud articles

The problem is that these words are often incorrectly used to mean "caused". For instance, there may well be a correlation between increased usage of the internet and decreased consumption of dohnuts (I'm completely making this up, but it's just to illustrate my point). Bad science journalism and reporting may then may give you headlines and stories such as "Using the internet has resulted in decreased dohnut sales". This is, of course, farcical, as the two are not linked in anyway. Just because there is a correlation, it does not mean that variable x caused variable y to happen. The two data sets would need to be related to one another for one to suggest that it is more than a correlation, but is in fact a causality. There is nothing wrong with using "link", "correlation" or "association". There is something wrong with using these terms incorrectly and jumping to conclusions.

+yollam If you're scared of facts, does that make it "scaremongering"? You're being very dishonest.

+MuskarFor me and my friends it's just because we like to discuss about scientific topics and this system, you'd want to create, would make us more confident that the sources we use are trustworthy. It's not always easy to know for sure or it can be time consuming to always have to check. So for us, it would really make it more easy to pursue our dream of knowledge.For schools it just seems like an easier method for teachers to find trustworthy sources they can use for their lessons and this goes for students too when working on papers and such.Universities, I think, also would be stimulated more to publish trustworthy articles.But it would really need to be a well thought through and high rated plugin before teachers and universities will start to use it.

+Sebastiaan De Bruyn No problem, my native language is Danish. Me and a few of my friends would also very much like this plugin of course - otherwise I wouldn't be that passionate about it. But I would like to hear more about how and why you think it may interest you, your friends, schools and universities. That insight could help understanding the primary audience.

+Muskar Well, I have no experience with starting these kinds of projects. So I don't know what the hardships of it may be and if it's even possible. but I can tell you, that among me and my friends, such a system would be much appreciated. Also it seems to me, like something that would be very helpful for schools and universities.I hope that you could make it workSorry if my english is bad. My native language is actually dutch.

+Sebastiaan De Bruyn I'd like to develop it. Although I probably couldn't do it alone (since I'd lack funding, management experience and network - but that may change). Since I wrote the first post here, I've had some additional stray thoughts though.First of all, Trustpilot may have been a bad example, since they're increasingly skewed in their reportings. At least I've seen claims that companies can filter their reviews to exclude the bad ones. I haven't been able to confirm it myself from Trustpilot's publicly listed services though - but I've seen several sites with bot-like reviews at the top, and rarely any negative reviews.But perhaps they are a good example, because I can't escape the fact that running a service costs money. Finding a business model for a free service can be tough. Wikipedia can make it through donations, but I doubt a support plugin can. Something to think about at least.Secondly, I encountered the story behind anti-vaxxers, where the whole misunderstanding came from a single story where the journalists had completely misquoted a scientific journal, and as they quoted each other, it spun out of control. Since it was from a single source, it would've helped a lot, to even just have the author of the journal confirm the article's validity. I'm sure the vast majority (whom are not famous) would like to do this. The few academics, that I know, like to find and read articles that refer their research, to see how it is received in the public. For them it could just make it easier to correct the misinterpretations (rather than emails, for example). Plus they could even be notified when articles reference their work.So study-author-confirmation could be the first step of credibility, and then broad scientific validity could be a second rating.I'm thinking the biggest challenges would be reliable and accurate verification/identification of the scientists/authors and sustainable funding. And then how to get enough scientists on board to be able to make convincing arguments to the first few news organizations. And lastly, I have yet to research whether this is actually something most people would like. But otherwise, I don't see much difficulty ;)

I think it's a great idea and I would be verry pleased if you could make it work. It would benefit society a lot.It does seem like a hard thing to accomplish though

+havoc092 Well, I don't care that much about how I personally find the right information. I live in Denmark, and our journalists are generally much less biased and scientific than most of the world, to my experience. We have many news sites, magazines and documentaries that scrutinize their own results throughout their shows. I rarely see that approach in English media (I don't speak more languages fluently, so I don't have personal experience with other media).But most of the world don't understand Danish (plus, we obviously don't cover all issues, being such a small country), so I want to find a solution that will make it easier for everyone (also because I'd enjoy getting good media from other cultures). Especially for those who don't reflect over the philosophy of knowledge or science.

+MuskarNo problem.  I'm not trying to pick on any one crowd; but, from the background I have, the places I've been and seen, I know that most of the major news outlets lie like a rug.  There have been a lot of times when I saw one thing being said about certain things going on overseas, say in Britain.  So I'd talk to guys online from Britain and get a completely different story and a lot more facts.  That's generally why I said what I said and just tried to give some examples.  You really can't trust anyone in the Major media.  They just serve as a propaganda mouthpiece for the guys that actually run the two parties here in the states.  It's one party backfilled with a lot of guys who have the same actual political views, who ran in the same crowds in school, belonged to the same clubs, etc.  The journalists were right there with them and carry water for them to the extent they're on the same page.  And that's not a theory, it's just the way Washington has worked for a long time. As to having the time to fact check, I have no answer for that.  The closest thing I could tell you is maybe try Drudge; but, he's just linking to a lot of the typical mouthpieces.  I guess it's like anything, you're going to get out of it what you put into it.  If you can't invest the time to make sure you're news is actually news, you should just prepare to be lied to 24/7.  You might consider looking for an online news discussion group like FreeRepublic.  That isn't a sales pitch because I'm not sure I'd recommend anyone to go there as it's largely managed by GOP insiders.  But something like that with no stated agenda with a local, national and international membership can get you individual insight from other people who don't necessarily have anything to do with the news outlets or with politics.  That can give you a little better chance at getting the straight dope; but, I really don't know what else to tell you there.  The information age has largely turned into the age of 'how can I decieve you next.'  So it's tough getting anything that isn't slanted.The interesting thing is that if you get to understand what the slant is nowadays, you can pretty well figure out what the truth of the matter actually is.  There isn't a liberal bias or conservative bias to Any of the MSM.  It's a globalist/socialist bias.  If you start looking at what they report and take it in that context, that might help.  I just wish I knew something better to tell you.  The bottom line is everyone is going to lie to you.  If you can figure out what the slant is you can figure out where the lie might be parked and if you don't have time to check further you're stuck.

+havoc092 I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed answer.I haven't looked into any of the numbers you've pointed out, and haven't seen "No Intelligence Allowed". Honestly, I'm also confused what you're really arguing here.I agree that you cannot completely trust any sources, but not everyone is able to fact check. Me included (on some subjects at least). Both out of ability, but also out of time (and as humanity's available knowledge exponentially increases, it will require an ever-increasing amount time to fully understand things). The main problem I've experienced is that many people who try to fact check, are selective and biased with their fact checking, which means that all facts usually align with their own views. This is not the way I know science to work (although I'm not a scientific academic, so I cannot say if there's hypocrisy present in the scientific community).My thought with this idea was to make fact checking easier and dispute ill-informed articles before spreading the wrong information too far. I have made no research on whether this is a good approach, or if there is a more effective one. But I know I would personally like it, and I know that many people need reminders (nudging) sometimes. I do not believe it's realistic to pursue a public so educated that they are all unbiased, rational and always do their fact checks - if that is what you're suggesting.I find it more reasonable to pursue trust, transparency, sincerity and leading by example. If we don't work together, I don't see how we're gonna make it in the long run. We have to be able to trust each other.Thanks again for the reply.

"Similar to trustpilot, it would be a service that would tell you if a news source was factual, skewing facts or completely non-scientific"We have this thing called the scientific method.  It may tend to destroy things that are offered up as science as well as people offering it up as science.  It deals with evidence, testability, observation... People applied it to the mainstream media over a long period of time and the MSM lost viewership as a result.  Evolutionists seem to have the same problem but in reverse, they were less than 9% of the american public in the 1980s but as the schools fell to the bottom of the rankings in the US, the Evolutionists numbers climbed to 16% and then dropped in the face of public debates.  It's the one thing that we could directly gauge that as the schools got dumber, evolutionists increased in numbers.  When confronted with it in public debate, the numbers receded. The cautionary tale here is that Science has lost credibility because of Evolution and because of things like the use of the sciences as political tools as aptly demonstrated by both evolution and climate change.  Prior to East Anglia there was a lot of specific talk about people losing jobs, tenure, grants, access to publication and to the review process.  This seems to have been distilled in a movie that hit the bigscreens subtitled "no intelligence allowed".  The interesting point about East Anglia isn't the fact of the same things happening.  It is that these things were discussed as tools to silence dissent from knowingly bad science in a manner that wasn't exploratory.  They didn't need to ask each other how it might be possible to lock these guys out of review, keep them from publishing, etc.  It was referenced in the same casual way that a mechanic says in a shop "I need a Torx 10 with a number 1 shank length'.  These guys weren't building methods of silencing criticism that could expose what they'd been up to.  They, rather, were using methods which were well enough established that they only needed to be referenced casually in conversation.  They single-handedly proved what the detractors to evolution theory had been saying all along and without intending to do so - which is the really salient point to make. That leads me ultimately to the final point.  Don't trust single sources because that's what the MSM used to lie to people.  They built trust by seeming to be trustworthy.  But as time goes on, people being dishonest tend to get bolder and bolder about their dishonesty - testing the limits of it and seeing how far they can actually go.  In the end, it's just like the theif pushing his luck (just one more drawer, one more bag of money, one more...) to the point they get sloppy and get caught.Once caught, credibility isn't something you just get back, it has to be earned.  And this is the point we should always be at with journalists - the cards always have to be on the table.  The evidence has to be confrontable and documentable, testable...  If it isn't, then all you are getting is unsubstantiated assertions.  On scene journalists go onscene to show you rather than tell you what's going on.  If they are onscene telling you rather than showing you, something is wrong.  If we are fighting an enemy in one country at the same time we're fighting alongside them in another, there's a problem - obviously.  That isn't how we won WWII - by fighting alongside the Nazis Against the SS.  We fought the Nazis including the SS the whole way through the war until we nearly defeated them and then announced victory.  When we all process and act on information daily the worth of our actions is only of weight equal to the worth of the information that gave rise to them.  If that information is bad, we waste our time and effort.  Trusted sources - they don't exist.  Fact check them all.