>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Just open the register and put your hands up. The money's insured, and doesn't belong to you anyway - it's your employer's and so isn't worth dying for. The line between "brave" and "stupid" is very blurry, and the line between "coward/living" and "brave/stupid/dead" is very easily crossed.

This guy did it for himself. He's fucking awesome and this will get him laid for years to come. I quote: "He made him clean up his own blood while he was waiting for police and paramedics."

If that was why he did it, then that's a pretty selfish reason to risk your life. Think of your friends and family - why would you put them through all the grief and stress of having to deal with that, just for the sake of your employer's money, which is insured anyway?
Of course, I don't think that's why he did it, anyway. People don't think like that in a crisis - but discretion is the better part of valour. I'd rather be a living chicken than a dead duck, so I'd let the guy take the money.


I didn't say it was justified. Just that regardless of his indiscretion he came out better for it and will likely benefit over the long term. Unless hubris strikes and he dies doing something even dumber. Seriously. Become a soldier, get a medal, bang chicks. Or become a solider, die, your family gets a medal to remember your heroic efforts. Idealism versus the true nature of reality. Stop complaining. You're right, but it doesn't matter and people will behave however the fuck they want to.

LOL



Well played, sir, I tip my hat.>> ^bmacs27:

Except that the guy in the car probably works for the same "construction company."
>> ^Unsung_Hero:
>> ^mxxcon:
I get his construction company is pissed that he damaged that truck.

Probably more happy because they got free publicity of their drivers doing something heroic on the 6 o'clock news.

Except that the guy in the car probably works for the same "construction company."
>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^mxxcon:
I get his construction company is pissed that he damaged that truck.

Probably more happy because they got free publicity of their drivers doing something heroic on the 6 o'clock news.

>> ^mxxcon:

I get his construction company is pissed that he damaged that truck.


Probably more happy because they got free publicity of their drivers doing something heroic on the 6 o'clock news.

We're missing something here - a good Samaritan did something heroic. All jokes aside, this man is a hero to this young girl.

Well done Mr. Taxi Driver!

The demoralization is amazing if you study it. The fact that the 1960s is considered the "Time of Troubles" or that people believe you need specific Heroic people such as MLK Jr to fight your battles for you is an astounding victory for those in power.

This is why I support the Occupy Movement...because it didn't do much but it did show that people can get mad and are still mad and will exert pressure if they have to. That was definitely felt and carefully watched as you could tell by how it was treated in the media and by the more brainwashed of our society.

@aurens, One of the main techniques Ron Paul uses to manipulate people like you is by telling you that his definition of liberty is the ONLY definition, and that his interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation. By doing this, he leads you to believe that you are heroically fighting for liberty and the constitution, when in reality you are actually fighting for a very partisan and fringy set of far right political beliefs.

I find this fundamentally dishonest, whether you are aware you are doing it or not. I was mocking you, yes, but don't assume humor can't be 'part of the conversation' too.

Without using delusional 'constitution liberty, blah blah blah' type rhetoric, tell me why federal civil rights protections should be ended. Become part of the conversation.

Important point---> The constitution is like the Bible; people can use it to justify just about anything they want it to. This is fine, but when you use the circular reasoning that 'my candidate's subjective interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation of the constitution, therefore I am right and you are wrong by default', people like me might mockingly call you out on your self deception.

And, @artician, don't give me that condescending and assumptive 'you might learn something' bullshit. I've studied and discussed Ron Paul and libertarianism intensively over the last few years. The more I learn, the less I like it, which probably explains why Paul's support is wider than it is deep. I doubt you have anything more to teach be, as I seem to know more about the movement than you do, but if you have a new talking point, feel free to recite it for me. Ron Paul is a joke. If you are interested in learning about your candidate, here are some study materials: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/of1yc/why_ron_paul_is_possibly_the_worst_presidential/

As far as 'racism' goes, how many excuses are Ron Paul supporters going to come up with before they come to terms with the fact that this guy, if not racist himself, has certainly used racism for profit and political advancement?

The facts (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
-RP ran a number of racist newsletter for many years.
-RP changed his position on the letters from 'the quotes were taken out of context' to 'I didn't write them.
-Many members of his staff have attested that he signed off on these letters.
-He has been photographed with many white supremacists.
-He has received campaign contributions from big names in white supremacist circles, which he kept.
-He has appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows.
-He speaks for the John Birch society.
-He was against the civil rights act.
-Anonymous found heavy organizational ties between RP and white supremacists.
-He uses the same states rights rhetoric as white supremacists.

How much smoke do you need to inhale before you pull the fire alarm?

Enough hero worship already. Try Occam's Razor instead.

Upvote for heroic feats of drinking... =)

heroic awesomeness

>> ^bobknight33:

Agreed.
However how could any black person vote Democrat, the party that created the KKK to keep people from voting Republican? The Vast majority of Blacks were Republican all the wall up through Dr. Martin Luther King. Then things changed. Strange that the party of lynching became the party of entitlements which in-turned re-enslaved people. >> ^therealblankman:
All good points but I still can't believe Ron Paul, as smart as that man is, allowed that hateful racist shit to be published under his name.



Well, what happened was that the southern Democrats and "Dixiecrats" abandoned the party in droves thanks to the civil rights reforms started under JFK and consummated under Lyndon Johnson with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the later Voting Rights Act. Those same southern rednecks and racists found a warm reception in the Republican party and now form the base for that party and its radical wing, the "Tea Party". These same people are also behind the more recent gerrymandering in Texas and elsewhere, as well as the blatantly racist tactic of denying poor blacks and other minorities their franchise under the guise of "Voter Registration Reform".

Lyndon Johnson. Man, you've got to hand it to him. The man had them all fooled... they thought he was one of them, a "Good Old Boy", and would maintain the status quo of racism and segregation. He turned out to be the greatest Presidential advocate for civil rights since Lincoln. Call me a revisionist, but leaving Vietnam aside (which is impossible, I know) Johnson was truly heroic in forcing civil rights down their collective bigoted throats. A lot of heroes came out of that time, a lot of martyrs too- including Martin Luther King.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.
I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.
Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.
If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?


My problem is you still have the same frightened attitude as any of the other combatants on either side. The 'heroic' girl in this video is the same as well.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?

All of your pro-life arguments apply to the exact moment before the child leaves the womb. Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice.

The question of when life begins is paramount, and both sides are uncomfortable with it. You haven't shown my you are in any way unique, you've failed in both posts to even touch the notion of when a human life should be granted full rights. One might assume the being pro-life, you feel life begins at birth, but that of course introduces the ugliness mentioned above.

I retract one statement about physicians I work with "no medical decisions are based on anything other than what is in the best medical interest of the patient." Not true. The great majority of the time it's not too little care, but too much care. Judgment is lacking on when to withhold, or stop, heroic measures. It's often from pressure from family members, fear of lawsuits, or just guilt should they not to "everything possible." Just because you "can" doesn't mean you "should."

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:
@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.



well, one really lacking area is in somatic complaints, which make up, i believe, the close to the majority of complaints at hospitals. things like - bad back, bad shoulder...etc. these are all complaints that often have chronic structural issues, for which western medicine is ill-equipped to deal. they often just medicate those issues until they turn into procedural issues, which is often a very incomplete treatment.
instead structural issues are left to mostly the chiro's to muck about with, and while they get some of the theory right, their quick-fix practices are also often based on a profit motive, and rather incomplete.

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:

@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

WHINING LIKE A CHILD IS NOT HELPFUL IN AN ASSAULT.
That dumb old lady didn't do a goddamn thing but be dumb.
@petpeeved
"Thursday the argument began between employee 31-year old Rayon McIntosh and two friends" [as per Bareboards info]
If you're friends with someone, I think you would probably know if they were a felon or not. Unless they just became friends 5 minutes before the attack.
Second of all, STFU you Politically Correct Lovey Dovey overly sensitive child.
Calling some dumb bitch a dumb bitch is appropriate if he or she is a dumb bitch.
Slapping someone makes you a Bitch[or Jerk or Douche]. Starting a fight with a MURDERER makes you Dumb. Hence DUMB BITCHES.
On top of that, much worse shit happens to millions of people all over world on a daily basis.
And much braver people do much more to help in those situations than just stand and shout.
That old lady is NOT a Hero. You have to be heroic for that.
So clearly you're being just as hyperbolic to counter what you see a "people being mean".
When in reality, Me and Darkhand and Budzos are being practical.
HE KILLED A MOTHERFUCKER.
You don't fuck with a felon and if you gonna make a difference you have to ACT.
Not just use rhetoric in an attempt to persuade an ENRAGED MURDERER that his murderous intent is misguided. Again, you have to be HEROIC to be a Hero.
Stop talking like the world is made of rainbows and gumdrops dude.
This shit wasn't that bad in the scheme of things.
Plus those dumbass ladies should have known better.
End of Story.


I love these little teaching moments on the Sift. You aren't going to find this level of sharing on YouTube, my friends! So much strange lingo nowadays, it's hard to understand what the kids are conversing about sometimes! LOL! Am I right? You know I am! LOL!

Anyhoo... it makes me feel like I'm really part of a special community to see others sharing like this. So let me say thank YOU and share what I've learned.

- If you are going to assault someone, emoting in a child-like manner will not gain you any advantage. Very important! (it was CAPITALIZED)

Shoutouts to Petpeeved, yo... (Is that the correct lingo? Do I sound streety? LOL! I'm still learning!)

- If you wish to be friends with someone, remember... they could be a felon. ASK about their criminal background before it's too late. Ideally, within the first five minutes.

- If you act like a PC love-child, you may as well be trying to Save The Fucking Universe. So, so true. Word, Petpeeved.

- Dumb bitches are dumb bitches if they are indeed acting like dumb bitches. A "lightbulb" moment for me.

- Slapping someone ALSO makes you a "Bitch". I assume "Jerk" and "Douche" are synonyms (not clear though). And if you start a fight with a murderer, you are "dumb". But if start a fight with a MURDERER with a slap, you are a "dumb bitch". Golly, this is getting confusing. What if I want to start a fight, via slapping, with someone who just has a couple parking tickets?

You know what? This was already a lot to soak up and then you go and throw out "hyperbolic". Now, I'm gonna Google that later, but for now, imma jus' chil, yo, and chawn sum bogchi. Haha! Ok, bye for now! Try not to be such a dumb bitch, jerk, or douche, or you might get slapped! LOL! (Did I say that right?)