The end of this video reminded me of a baseball game I played when I was about 17. (Bear with me, there is a connection.)

Our league was broken down in your typical age fashion, and I think I was in the 16-20 bracket. I was on first base when the other teams batter walked to the plate. He was 20, and in the "I'm as old as you can get in this league, so I'm going to be an cocky twat" mindset.

I don't remember the exact count, but strike 3 was called on a ball that was low and on the outside corner of the plate.

He stood there for a solid 10 seconds just glaring at the ump until I finally said "That means you gotta walk."

He then turned and glared right at me and said "No, I got a strikeout."

I replied "That means you gotta walk.. Off the field." and pointed to his bench.

Much laughter ensued, and for the rest of the season that kid hated me. Worth it though.

Also, almost any thick substance like pancake or cake batter will do this (with electric beaters--@Asmo 's comment applies here too)). Just go make some!

Now, I must fulfill my quest of getting Coke™ to do this (with a lot of added material).

They did not "kick in Wright's door". Looks like they used a battering ram!

Handcuff comment is an interesting denial also. One or the other is lying.

>> ^Payback:

You know, I'd like to see a video where a horrifically violent perp gets a measured response from one or two of the OTHER millions of cops rather than the couple dozen -who are complete fucktards- that make their way on here.

ps. It's fairly obvious the guy who got beat down touched the cop while being fairly aggressive. Showing off for the chicks. Not a good idea. That actually IS battery on a police officer. You can get charged with assault on a police officer by bumping his squad car while he's trying to pull you over.

Guy had his hands in his pockets. As for other cops with measured response: There aren't enough of them to stop the crappy ones so I think your ratio is way off. Even though cops get away with murder and many other crimes they still have higher rates of criminal convictions than the general population. Honorable people would rather volounteer as a firefighter (more dangerous, better culture) than become a police officer. The whole police culture needs to change in order for the right people to even want to apply. As long as the people in charge punish cops who try to do the right thing and protect the fucktards who are there to get away with things and feel powerful how are things going to get better?

And people being dismissive of the problem doesn't help either.

>> ^joedirt:

Technically the guy did assault the cop. He hit him with his chest, so yeah he could have been charged. Now the cop totally over-reacted and the other cops seem to just be throwing punches.
They only dropped charges hoping the guy won't sue. (If they went in front of a judge and he saw that video the thrown out criminal charges, plus discovery would help his civil case, this way it will be very expensive to try and sue the cops)

How about filing charges against the cops. Assault and perjury should lock them up for a long time. A lawsuit won't punish the cops at all.

You know who thinks it's ok for state security operatives to batter defenceless kids who know if they try to defend themselves they'll be killed or tortured or put in a box for 5 years? Dictatorships. And stupid right wing assholes.>> ^EmptyFriend:

i guess it comes down to an old belief of mine: you know who didn't get kicked in the face? the kid NOT selling drugs to undercover cops.

I was just looking up some of those numbers, and that is about spot on, about 2.7% to abortions and
nearly all other services are just sexual system related...not that I ever supposed that they were a huge abortions machine. And while even if those numbers are 5 or so percent off, it doesn't really matter to the person who is apposed to abortions all together. It would be akin to a husband saying to his wife, of all the women I have met, I didn't cheat on you with 98% of them...it is that small percent that matters when morality is concerned. Certainly, though, as far as a health organisation goes, I have nothing against PP.

Personally, I think you should use the logic that war is murder, and you are against murder in an effort to diswage your congressman against acts of war. I would tend to agree with this position, most of the wars haven't really been fought to save ourselves from torment as of late, more like cause torment. It doesn't have to be "cover" if it is true. And this truth is completely subjective, hard to test the legitimacy of peoples claims beyond face value...it's all so damned tangled in personal backgrounds.

I think you are being rather disingenuous as the the totality of church go'ers on donations. While I know fire and brimstone churches exists, I have had the pleasure of not ever attending one, ever. I am no longer a Christian myself, but when I was, I gave out of the compassion that I knew it was going to be used for something good, instead of a cheeseburger for myself. That raised up in me a charitable heart in myself furthering my commitments to those in need. I was fortunate enough to be able to support the blood and fire food hand outs, the Sam's battered women shelter, and several others. Giving is a mindset more than a command. And in that, goodness is only going to success if we take an active role in it. A fraction of our taxes will never be enough. Giving has to be a lifestyle, it won't work otherwise.



>> ^peggedbea:

except that 97% of the services pp offers are not abortion services. the idea that pp is some massive abortion franchise is pure myth. its main function is to provide low cost birth control, breast exams, pap smears, std tests and education. i don't know the people who think those things are murder.
furthermore, i'm down right against war and an aggressive foreign policy and believe these things to be murder but no one is defunding any of that and using my moral outrage as cover.
also, churches use fear and religious devotion and obligatory methods to secure their funding. it's called tithing and it was ordered by god in the bible somewhere, you can't compare the funding of other organizations to churches. god didn't mandate you to give 10% of your income to fund various social causes, unfortunately.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
500 % of $2000 isn't much compared to the millions the government provides either.

Private donations account for 1/4 of operating revenue. Government spending is was/is 1/3ed. (all according to wiki). Which means that private donations accounted for 370% more than government spending would of accounted for, up from government spending 120% more than private donations prior. >> ^peggedbea:
do you think the surge has more to do with the highly publicized nature of the threat to defund them?
what do you think would happen to organizations that aren't in the news constantly?

Publicity and people who care account for the spending surge no doubt. I would imagine the total spending will drop to levels lower than they were previously in time. But I don't mind this so much, I am pro choice mind you, but to FORCE someone to pay for something they down right believe is murder is pretty outrageous. It will be up to those who truly believe in the cause to take up financial arms, as it should be. There are organisations that aren't publicized via media and do very well for themselves and sponcers...like every church in america.
This funding change also may force PP to be more dithered and less national, which might force it to be less monolithic and more regional in its ways and policies. This could bring both good and bad, only time will tell.

>> ^legacy0100:

Baaaaaad sound editing/engineering, but nevertheless I'm upvoting this because of her "beer battered tits" comment. Awesome.


Except she has no tits...

And she goes through the motion of saying, "I am not a racist," but then points out people who supposedly are... At least by her standards.

Baaaaaad sound editing/engineering, but nevertheless I'm upvoting this because of her "beer battered tits" comment. Awesome.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.


If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..
In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.
Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.
Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.
Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.
Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.
That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.


Indeed, that does just about sum it up.

Kceaton doesn't need to try to negate your Christian god's omniscience (assuming the proposition that he exists in the first place is true, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate). You did that just swimmingly all on your own, assuming again, that you're not a liar or playing Devil's Advocate and earnestly believe what you just typed.

Thanks for saving anyone with any inclination to refute your imaginary friend a whole lot of time by doing it for us. Also, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. I would say that you were a fantastic example of it in action but that means you would need to actually recognize (in some form) the incongruity of your own silly, self-contradictory beliefs and/or be bothered by it.

The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.



If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..

In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.

Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.

Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.

Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.

Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.

That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.

In HS, we used to cover the wiffle ball with duct tape. I always thought it gave it more weight and allowed more 'junk' pitches, but maybe I was wrong. It's pretty easy to throw junk with a wiffle ball though. It's VERY challenging for the batter.

To make it even greasier you can turn this sandwich into the "Angry Scotsman", all you need to do is batter it and deep fry it.

You're >> ^bla
nkfist:

"much more easily than say, getting rid of 100% of the bad cops without some kind of telepathic superpowers or magically preventing 100% of the crimes that lead to victims sueing the police"
Exactly my point about breaking a few eggs to make your big government omelet. Statists may dislike the atrocities of government, but they see it as a necessary casualty. Every day we see cops doing downright untoward and malicious things to people, even murdering them, yet the system keeps right on going. Never does a statist say, "Shit, maybe this whole police state thing isn't panning out as expected."
It's always, "there are some good cops out there too." It's senseless Stockholm Syndrome battered wife apologies.
I love Watchmen because of this very notion. Tangent alert. Nite Owl II is your typical effete modern liberal and a sensitive intellectual. He believes violence is necessary to correct the social injustices, but believe it should be just. That doesn't stop him from continuing to work with people like the Comedian and Rorschach who use violence with a great deal less restraint. In fact, he enjoys Rorschach as a partner and accepts his overzealous violence. He may not condone it himself, but he sees it as a necessary evil. Breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.


You're not even making sense. No one said it's OK to have a few bad cops. They should be fired wherever they're found. But you can't catch all of them. You can't get rid of 100% of the bad cops without getting rid of 100% of cops in general, and if you did, there'd be a hell of a lot more violence. If men were angels, there would be no need for government, but they aren't. Anarchy = prehistoric tribal warfare, mob justice, etc.

"much more easily than say, getting rid of 100% of the bad cops without some kind of telepathic superpowers or magically preventing 100% of the crimes that lead to victims sueing the police"

Exactly my point about breaking a few eggs to make your big government omelet. Statists may dislike the atrocities of government, but they see it as a necessary casualty. Every day we see cops doing downright untoward and malicious things to people, even murdering them, yet the system keeps right on going. Never does a statist say, "Shit, maybe this whole police state thing isn't panning out as expected."

It's always, "there are some good cops out there too." It's senseless Stockholm Syndrome battered wife apologies.

I love Watchmen because of this very notion. Tangent alert. Nite Owl II is your typical effete modern liberal and a sensitive intellectual. He believes violence is necessary to correct the social injustices, but believe it should be just. That doesn't stop him from continuing to work with people like the Comedian and Rorschach who use violence with a great deal less restraint. In fact, he enjoys Rorschach as a partner and accepts his overzealous violence. He may not condone it himself, but he sees it as a necessary evil. Breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.