Because for some reason everyone thinks that if two males are close enough to do things like this, that they HAVE to be gay. It's the way people have been conditioned to think.
Tbh all these sexual ones make me uncomfortable if it was lisa id be fine
but i see shane as straight and him acting gay just weirds me out. Just my
opinion
WTF they're both straight thats why. I'm not homophobic at all and I'm sorry if i sounded that way. i didn't mean acting gay in a negative way i mean just because he has a gf and idk geez
I love imagining Shane proposing these challenge ideas to people, haha :P
Shane: So, yeah... we put on a blindfold and uh.... touch each other. On
the body.
Chris: Touching each other on the body?
Shane: That is correct.
Chris: With a blindfold on?
Shane: You will not be able to see.
And so on.
According to the video she deleted, we fans are in love with the image of them that they put on camera and/or that she edited them to be. :/ I am STILL kinda hoping this is actually a huge conspiracy they put together so their relationship could be private until the wedding and then on 10-10-15 they are like "Psych! Welcome to our wedding!" Pipe dreams FTW.
B02 Funny Reactions To Mods | Fun Lobby's
Hope you enjoyed the video if you did hit that like button subscribe if your new near to daily uploads so make sure to stick around for more amazing content ...
Yes. Because living literally by the ocean means you can't get enough
water... Shouldn't California be world leading in water-based technology?
Is it really that difficult to pump water from the ocean, remove the salt
then purify it? We already have facilities that does this with the water
that's already in circulation.
+Fond3ll - Bitpop Music! I'm pretty sure nuclear waste has a cancer inducing amount of radiation in it. That's why we keep it underground and in the desert... A massive radioactive spill would have a HUGE negative impact on the environment especially if its 2.4-7.3 tones of radioactive waste. Cleaning it up would be expensive, time consuming and not healthy for any human working to clean it up.
+Fond3ll - Bitpop Music! That is horrible logic because non-environmentally friendly factories are used to build giant cement nuclear power plants and use the same non-environmentally friendly trucks that run on diesel to transport the construction materials AS WELL as their wastes (whereas solar or wind power do not face that problem at all). The great thing about wind and solar power is that it is a clean, renewable resource; it will never deplete and it will not have hazardous waste.
+Shahriar Syed Far from the same amount as all these wind power plants combined that are being built in non-environmetally friendly factories and shipped across country in non-environmentally friendly trucks that run on diesel. At least nuclear plants only have to be built once every 40 years and can sustain an electricity demand 1000 greater than wind power.The capactity of today's rockets (between 2,4 to 7,3 tons) would also mean the average country would only have to send up one rocket every 2 years. Plus, the environmental problems if one of them explodes and crashes would be close to zero since spent nuclear fuel has very little radiation.
+Fond3ll - Bitpop Music! And we all know that sending rocket after rocket into space wouldn't release harmful greenhouse gases at all.Note the sarcasm.
+Shahriar Syed Yes, let's ignore the waste because it'll be gone within a decade anyway. NASA is currently working with multiple priavtely owned space companies to develop a cheap and efficient system for dumping nuclear waste into space.
The only by-product of a nuclear power plant is steam?? Lets just ignore radioactive waste. And how do you propose radioactive waste will soon be history? Its always a bi-product from any nuclear reaction.
+Karozans When it comes to the ratio between energy spent and energy produced there's nothing that even comes close to nuclear power in the world. The only bi-product of a nuclear power plant is steam. The spent radioactive waste will soon be history as well.And yes, your nephew being an electrician gives him all the merit he needs to claim that coal power is the newest, most environmentally friendly power there is. Forgive me if I don't take his word for it.
+Fond3ll - Bitpop Music! Actually, nuclear power is not very cheap either. There may be some hope with the newer 5th generation nuclear plants, but nuclear power cannot survive without massive government subsidies.The cheapest and cleanest energy production comes from the newest generation of coal power plants.My nephew is an electrician and is currently building one of the newer coal power plants. Basically they put the coal in a tube and smash it with millions of pounds of pressure. This forces all sorts of chemicals out of the coal and generates massive amounts of heat. The chemicals is bread and butter of the power plant. Those chemicals are sold for industrial use. The massive amounts of heat that are generated from the process is sucked off and turned into electricity. The electricity is just a byproduct that is sold very cheap.The generation of the electricity that comes from the power plant has virtually zero emissions because the emissions are the things that are desirable and captured to be sold.
+Mraccstudio You're terribly misinformed. Solar power is not cheap and wind power is even worse.When you compare the amount of subsidies the go to coal, oil, natural gas, solar and wind, solar power gets 10 times more subsidies per watt generated than coal, oil, and natural gas combined. Wind generators get 100 time more subsidies than coal, oil, and natural gas combined.If the government wasn't hiding the cost of solar and wind power with subsidies you'd shit your pants when you saw your electric bill.
+Mraccstudio It's too inefficient and it's expensive because it's inefficient. If my country replaced all other power sources with solar power, about 30% of the landmass would be covered in solar panels. Only 15-20% of the solar power can be turned into electric power. That's why we need more research to make them more effective. Untl then it's nuclear power that's the least expensive and the most environmentally friendly.+Shahriar Syed Pouring all that water back into an ocean that covers about 70% of the planet's suface would be like pouring a teaspoon of table salt into an olympic size swimmingpool of salt water. It would make no difference.Add to that, if you keep all the salt water in pools and let it all evaporate, you've not only let pure water into the eco system, all you're left with is pure salt which is a huge commercial food poduct that can actually help the economy of California.
+Shahriar Syed except for the fact that there is this thing called the water cycle? All water circulates back into the ocean eventually..Not to mention that instead of puting the super salty water back into the ocean we can keep it and harvest the salt from it..
There are a lot of bad environmental impacts of doing that. The biggest being that you basically take salty water... take almost all of the clean water out... and then put the super salty water back in the ocean. This makes the oceans saltier and this kills most aquatic plant life which then impacts the rest of the ecosystem.
Yeah no shit! Utah is also having a problem with water, but you know what would help? Not having grass lawns in the middle of the damn desert. Americans are just so stupid sometimes.
It's sad that no one seemed to notice and/or get the joke when Andy was
bound by paper chains, took out a pair of scissors... And cut out a paper
saw to cut through them.