Because of people like this, hikers (of all skill levels) drawn to a dangerous area by a romanticized story, the bus has been removed to stop people from trying to reach it and needing rescue or recovery.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53106441

I don't know a single person that believes in the romanticism of "cowboys and indians".

Are you Egyptian? cause.. you're definitely in denial..

This behavior isn't the norm?
Then why does it take place literally everyday?

Like you and every other police sympathizer likes to point out..

"The incidents that make the news are just a small fraction of what ACTUALLY takes place!"

Precisely.

So considering there are multiple instances of police brutality 24/7/365..

..think about all the police violence that WE NEVER SEE.

Then think about all the "less severe" police misconduct: unlawful stops, unlawful seizure, evidence tempering, falsifying reports, etc.

Even if excessive force & brutality is just a fraction of the pie.. the entire pie is still corrupt.

How do we know this?
Because whistle-blowers are always stigmatized, demoted or fired..

While murders routinely get off with little or no punishment.

Clearly, the romanticized ideal of police "protecting & serving" is a fairytale.
And those idealist police officers are the true minority.

"Police Brutality isn't the norm! America is a post-racial society!"

Psh, gimme a break.

First guns replaced with walkie talkies in E.T., and now this romanticized retelling of Jaws, it's disgusting.
I must admit the shark's motions really get to me in the first 20 seconds. But in the last 2 minutes I bet it's thinking "please, just let me die in peace".

For those like me that wondered, "so how does it end", some follow-up but no real conclusion in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlav-qXdNyU

I think I can explain the democrat hate: pure romanticism

Lincoln was a Republican, arguably our best president in history. I think people still try to attach to that and ignore the fact that the parties basically flipped because of the Southern Strategy after the Civil Rights Act. That and Republicans weren't always hijacked by the crazies. I think too many people don't want to admit their party has changed. It's also indoctrination. I've met plenty of people that agree with me point by point, yet they still manage to do these crazy mental gymnastics to rationalize to themselves that they HAVE to vote Republican. It's how they were brought up. Hell it almost happened to me, as a kid, long before I had any political identity. I always assumed I was Republican simply because I believed what everyone told me "Republicans are good with money, Democrats waste it" It wasn't until much later that I realized how untrue that was. Hell, even my first presidential vote in 2000, I listened too much to a Republican friend of mine ( one of the people I mentioned before that agreed with me on most everything, but still voted Republican) and because of his influence, I did vote for Bush in 2000 (so so sorry...not that it mattered in my red non-swing state)

One of my best friends is like this. he doesn't vote purely along party lines, and we agree on most political points, yet he still identifies as a Republican when in my opinion, he's an Independent like me. I think it's mainly because he was brought up by a military family and he was brought up to believe that the dems were the devil...despite how much he tends to agree with them.

its totally dysfunctional.

Its also part of the human condition IMO. There is a human need to have an enemy. Back in WWII we were pretty much united because we had to defeat the Axis. In the Cold War we were mostly united because we had to defeat the Russkies. America kinda stands alone now. No other military on earth can really challenge us. Sure the Taliban and ISIS are a source of terrorism, but they're still not a real threat, they could never invade or occupy us.

So there just aren't any real big threats out there...and when that happens...that's when infighting begins. People need an enemy, and when you can't find one without, you find one within.

Congratulations sir, you did it! You beat your opponent with wit and logic instead of accusing them of being a troll, then running away. I wait in breathless (sorry, had to) anticipation for another enlightening conversation the next time you romanticize smoking.

We never lived in a good world. I hate how people romanticize the past.

None of the things in that list are even the slightest bit unrelated, and I think that you would be hard-pressed to give an actual, rational reason for claiming that they are.

No, what's happening here is that I jokingly said I find a band you apparently happen to like to be offensively homogenous, and you took real offense to it.

Now, look - if I had been fifteen years old, I might have liked Mumford & Sons. After all, I was completely into the craze at that point, reading Walden, listening almost exclusively to bands who took their names from animals and collectively dressed like day labourers from the early 1900s, but... then it got old, and it got old fast. Why? Because they never created anything knew. It was always accoustic, it always had the exact same sound and feel, and it could almost always be split into one of two categories - maudlin lovesongs (as in, "here I sit brokenhearted") or bright-eyed nature-romanticism (as in, "let's go into the forest and pick wild flowers and be happy FOREVER").

And now, Mumford & Sons are simply carrying on that trend. It's not a new trend by any means, and it's certainly not going to end with our current generation of band wagoneers.

And as it happens, I dislike it quite a bit.

And you're just going to have to deal with that.

"To the farmer in all of us" how hokey does that sound? I don't know, maybe because I grew up on a ranch that I don't get this whole romanticized image that farmers are some how more hardworking than other people who work in labor sectors.

don't put words in my mouth. I never said that there is no point in being able to defend oneself. The strawman argument is that the goal is to take all weapons away. no rational person is making that argument.

the reality is that guns are romanticized in America. The reality is that this clouds our judgement.

your second statement is also putting words in my mouth. I never said the CCW went in with "blazing" guns. They were lucky that's all.They were lucky they were there, they were lucky the shooter ran, they were lucky the shooter's gun jammed. They were lucky the shooter didn't have another gun. These things are not hard to grasp.

Can a CCW make a difference...of course it *CAN* It doesn't mean you rely on it. It doesn't mean you shove more guns into peoples hands and just hope it all works out for the best.

the article could be biased/slanted whatever but it has plenty of grains of truth. The odds are in your favor if you run. The odds are in your favor if you hide. It takes a hell of a lot of persistent training to obtain that muscle memory. It takes training to fight the natural urge to freeze up or to panic.

Is it an obtainable goal? sure! What people are actually advocating is that there be increased requirements for someone to obtain and keep a weapon. Thus reducing the odds that some deranged individual is going to get one.

There is no magic way of stopping this stuff from ever happening, but the reality is that if you can reduce the number of guns in circulation, you reduce the odds of someone getting a gun and doing something harmful with it. If you increase the requirements of what it takes to obtain and keep a gain, you reduce the amount of untrained wannabe gunslingers out there and increase the odds that if someone does have a gun, they are trained to use it wisely.

Bottom line is that you have a right to bear arms, but with that right comes a responsibility. I hear a lot of people talking about rights, but precious few talking about responsibility. You might want to think about that.

>> ^spoco2:

One minute in and I'm with P1ggy... Wow, LOL's shared to fulfill a missing part of your soul?
Fucking hell.
I'll never share the world view of people like this. Always looking for the negative in everything.
YES there are negatives to EVERYTHING
But you know what? There's also fucking awesome things in everything too.
Does he realize how many people use Facebook to organize real world events and meeting with REAL people to interact in a REAL sense?

Does he not get the irony of starting the video with promotion for his websites?
Does he talk with that depressing monotone all the time?
I'm all for interaction with real people, but I'm not for looking on the world through shit coloured glasses.


here here!

i think the OP must have a HATEON for hand written letters too then... or wait, maybe he romanticizes them

i only FB people I know in real life
FB is used almost like a bulletin board system, to organize events, keep in touch with people when I'd otherwise get absolutely no contact with them due to time constraints

and what about all the people i've met abroad, who i've formed friendships with that I would have little to no contact with without online social media

what about all the activism/political information i'd probably either not receive or at best receive in a non-timely fashion if not for social media (arab spring anyone?)

what about being able to see pictures or videos of relatives too sick, too old, or too newborn to travel conventionally... let alone being able to communicate with them

the OP falls into the cliche "everything was better the way it was as opposed to how it is or will potentially be"... shit colored sunglasses indeed

stop using it if you dont approve of the changes to your lifestyle social media makes
but it is IRONIC you are using social media to spread your message don't you think? wouldn't it be truer to your message to do door to door/face to face meet and greets?

and every opinion expressed in this video is hardly... HARDLY universal
let alone original

Think about the stuff George Carlin used to bring up in his acts that were always funny....but could often leave you thinking about how utterly stupid the whole situation is once you thought about it.

Think about how traumatic rape has to be for someone, and then think about all the people who have fetishes built around it. It's a situation where if you can't laugh about how twisted people are when it comes to something like that....you're never going to really know someone (or yourself) because of that duality people have in regards to a whole lot of subjects.

IE The black and white idea of people being gay or straight, instead of being somewhere on the scale in grey territory and being miserable trying to conform to one side or the other.

Morality, honesty, faithfulness, etc. A different definition for each person that changes under different circumstances...like when dealing with their parents, their children, their friends, strangers, etc.

So, rape is bad, but a whole lot of people spend time romanticizing it...that in and of itself is a joke.

Very funny stuff. It is poking fun at the popular fantasy literature and media in china that romanticizes china's ancient past. A lot of people are really into that and like to have time travel or alternate reality fantasies. Living in China sucks balls sometimes so they need an escape.

So media today isn't as high quality as it once was? Look, people still go to the movies, so it's no surprise that there are still high quality movies being made. But music? Recorded music simply isn't profitable. The only way some professional musicians make any money at all is off live performances *somtimes*, or focusing on things that aren't directly writing music, such as self-publishing/producing, etc. Less time is spent on actually writing music as a consequence.

Despite all the technology we have to help find and distribute music, it is harder today to find what I consider quality music compared to 20 years ago. I don't think it's because I'm an old foggy who romanticizes what music was when I was a teenager. But it's hard to argue that the Justin Beibers of the world are the only ones making money these days for the most part, and bands the bands that are truly innovating nobody's heard of.

It's a real problem.

Why aren't people buying what's for sale? It's pretty unrealistic to believe a major culprit is not the notion of why buy what you can get for free. Console video game sales are still doing very well, and the only reason that makes any sense is it's a hell of a lot harder to pirate video games than music for numerous reasons, such as the sheer amount of data that comprises a video game vs music, etc.

I know that piracy isn't the only reason the music or entertainment industries have struggled in the last decade. The music industry has made more than their fair share of blunders. But piracy is a significant problem, Maher is absolutely right about that. But again, SOPA is not the answer, and I don't pretend I'm smart enough to know what is a solution.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.
If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.
The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.
Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

Yes, I created an account just to post that but I don't see how that makes what Paul said any less hazardous. I'm very fed up with people romanticizing and elevating Ron Paul to a hero status. Some of his approaches are refreshing, I totally agree, but I think a lot of people get swept up in the hype and ignore the fact that a lot of his key stances are elitist. If you look at his approaches to welfare and class distinctions, it's very quite sickening. His basic position is that people should be happy with their lots in life. On the one hand this means not meddling in others affairs (yay, no foreign wars) but on the other it means not helping out people who need social support. I'm not a U.S. citizen and don't work for Gingrich, if that's what you're wondering.


>> ^visionep:

Really? creating an account and posting your first message to post junk like this? Take a look at the bottom of that article to see how people react to poorly composed, slanted articles like that.

I looked for links to this article on Google and it looks like it is referenced in a ton of comments about how Newt is fighting back against negative ads. I wonder if these posts are related to his campaign.
yopyopyop, are you paid to post?
>> ^yopyopyop:
To everyone who believes that Ron Paul is worthy of supporting for the presidency, please read this article:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendia
ry-newsletters-exclusive