Gary Breecher, better know as The War Nerd, "Saddam Died Beautiful: A Special Eulogy":

"Blaming Saddam for being what he was is like blaming a rattlesnake for killing. That's how it lives, and it's what that Crocodile Hunter guy would've called "a bee-YOO-tiful ambush predator." Saddam was right for Iraq the way a Sidewinder is right for the Mojave. The NeoCons scared us by shaking his fangs in our faces, as if Saddam planned to bite every single commuter in LA, when all he wanted to do was stay alive and in power -- because those were the same thing for him -- in the Iraqi desert, where everything stings, sticks or bites. We may as well have gone on a crusade to wipe out all the snakes and spiders in the desert for being what they are. Only difference is, we wouldn't have lost 3000 soldiers that way."

---

Saddam was a rat-fuck bastard of the lowest order, but the world ISN'T a better place now that he's gone. In fact, for the amount of chaos his removal has sown, he might as well have been named Franz Ferdinand

Just for fun, I stabilized the video. I think that this may have canceled out the "extra" shaking from the camera mount.

EDIT: Just noticed in the original, someone is filming a TV.

https://youtu.be/1RQS7zgaeds

I can see this one from both sides. The potential for litigation -- which could be truly catastrophic for a school / business / private person / whatever -- is real. It's fucking retarded, but it is a real danger.

In the early 2000's, I was living in a trailer park with a buddy while we were going to college. We lived right next to a movie theater that had a nice, huge, paved asphalt parking lot in the back. We used to take roller blades, sticks, and a PVC hockey goal into that lot and play roller hockey after closing time -- like 2AM or so. Nobody there, no parked cars, no property around to damage with errant shots or whatever.

One night we went a bit earlier than usual, and the manager had happened to stay late to close. He saw us as he was driving out and started driving towards us. I figured "well, there goes this spot". He asked us what were were doing, we explained. He asked us if we had asked anybody for permission, and we admitted we hadn't. He asked if we knew that companies sometimes got sued by people who wiped out and broke a leg or whatever, and we said yes.

And then he surprised me. He said "OK, consider this me, the manager, giving you permission to keep on playing here, on these conditions:

1) Never play there if there are parked cars in that part of the lot behind the theater.
2) Come in and ask for permission again if we want to play with more people, or if any other conditions change.
3) Look me in the eye and give me your word as a man that you wouldn't sue me for being an idiot and falling down and breaking your arm or whatever, and shake my hand to seal the bargain."

Awesome theater manager. Not sure if things have gotten enough worse in litigation-crazy USA that he'd be willing to make that same bargain again. But that wouldn't be his fault, it would be an outcome of our crazy legal system.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pound, hand shake' to 'pound, handshake' - edited by Grimm

this is exactly way i think it's important to separate "islam" from "muslims" and why i think the critique of the ideology needs to give its followers the opportunity to adapt. islam may be rigid, have its problems, and may even be "incompatible with civilization" (a sentiment i don't necessarily share) but there is nothing like opportunity, upward mobility, and freedom of expression to shake the foundations of rigid religious ideology and bring people, whatever their belief, into the fold of cultural, civil, and intellectual advancement.

I think somehow the lil guy gets hurt or something and goes in to some sort of stunned shock. He looks like he's shaking after he stops responding.

Would have been nice to see the dog react if they guy pulled a knife as he was shaking hands. Smart pooch though.

Do rival taggers come by and beat you up for defacing their art?

Do you have to run from angry homeowners?

Do the cops shake you down because they see all the paint on your hands?

Not much of a simulation.

Not really an attack, more like a shake-down scam.

I dunno... as much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly, that showed a pretty encouraging amount of self-awareness and savvy comprehension of some of the root issues that are tearing the Republican party apart.

And the Democrat party establishment better be taking notes, because plenty of their base are upset about the same sorts of problems with the system. Next time, the "nightmare candidate" that the status-quo-loving party elites just can't shake off might be on the Democrat side...

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.

region blocked /shakes fist
Attenborough too

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Beetlejuice-Shake-Shake-Shake-Senora