I know a couple people that are going to have a Field day with that.

Good to know non the less.

What a fucking asshole!! I wanna kick his stupid little face in. See if HE likes it.

The poor Owl. And they are such beautiful birds...

Edit: I know Anon likes to have nice field days with assholes who abuse animals like this one. If only....

The media here in Edmonton is having a field day with this, but I have mixed views regarding this incident.

Firstly, he's being an ass and could have handled it much better. The first thing he should have done when he saw those vultures from CTV was stop, tell them that there would be a media event/press conference in half an hour and that he had no comment until then. Hopefully the media would have stopped following him then but even if they didn't there would be no story for them to run.

Secondly, the media people were being pushy assholes who should have just understood that he wasn't going to comment and should have just waited for the press conference for a comment.

Either way, it's stupid that this is becoming 'big news'.

>> ^NetRunner:
The left needs to start getting angry, and demanding that their voices get heard.


This sums things up the way I look at it. Conservatives have been having a field day lately with the left getting buried under the steamroller that is Fox News. The problem is, there is nothing stopping the left from doing the same in return but the result is always a "meh"

These are the people who will be first to not bother voting come November because they think that its a waste of time doing so. I still think its more important to just vote rather than sit there and 6 months later complain about (elected candidate) because you did not do anything about it!

Democrats/liberals are being (relatively) far too polite lately, and really need to fight back if they want to stop Repbulicans/conservatives from stomping all over them.

Hello motherfucking Streisand effect!

What a complete asshole, grats on doing more to harm your own brand Mr Buckyballs CEO than anything a competitor could have done. I don't know where Zen Balls is incorporated but if it's in a state with strong anti-SLAPP laws like California, any such lawsuit would be an easy dismissal. What exactly would be the grounds for such a lawsuit? That you're a whiny little bitch who can't stand competition? Yeah, that will go over well.

It's amazing that anyone still thinks that sending bogus legal threats is a good idea. A savvy opponent can and will turn it right around to bite you in the ass, as was just clearly demonstrated. No matter what the outcome of any legal action, you most certainly just lost in the court of public opinion.

Techdirt is going to have a field day with this one.

Oh Equality - how selectively you are invoked.

I work in an office with 1 dude and a bunch of girls. Almost all of them are single, and they go on and on and on about guys and how hot they are and how they are assholes and how this one guy, was like, oh my god, SOOO cute, and all that bullshit.

So I said to my buddy "Hey what'd you think about that fantastic pair of tits we saw outside?"

GASP! Angry looks! Girls looking at each other shaking their heads. One girl even said "That's Sexual Harassment". I said "I'm not talking about your tits, so whats the problem?" "Well I'm not comfortable with that kind of language" "Well, frankly, I'm not comfortable with you facebook-stalking some guy you met last night, talking about how he has a 6 pack" "Well, that's none of your business" "No, it isn't...and that fantastic rack we saw outside is none of yours"

I think she missed the point. Occasionally they still talk as if we don't exist, and whenever they do I make sure to say something to rile them up. I hope they report me to our supervisors. I would have a field day taking them apart.

Whenever a major economic conference takes place (G8, G20, whatever) it always seems that civil liberties go right out the damn door, regardless of what nation is hosting the conference. It's a field day for the cops. And how much gets done about the police abuses after the fact?

@peggedbea


No in-fact I am in favor of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993

It is my understanding that Federal Law protects Parental Leave.

Perhaps you did not read my whole comment, only part of it?

"Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too."

I only have objection to the Jungle Gyms, only because I fucking hated those things in school! I perferred the jump ropes, hockey, and field days.

This story, and the responses of the internet community (including those above and in other posts on this) is a doctoral thesis waiting to happen. Psychologists would have a field day.

"Emotional response based on imperfect information and dependent upon lived experiences: an internet case study"

or

"How to leap to conclusions and berate others who disagree"

There is one thing that he didn't account for.

Chaos and causation, things that work symbiotically.

Anonymous would have a field day with these wankers.

honestly, thanks for the grain of salt

it really just looks like a couple of nervy nitwits' "theories" ... with a cultured british accent thrown over that and stock video taken out of context and rather coincidentally rearranged

shouldn't be too hard for me to provide another "grain" for all of us to consider rubbing together with the former...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History_of_the_name

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2108588&postcount=9

there you go...

something else just occurred to me from the video's mention of the "military-industrial complex" -- this being that we often don't consider much of the context of that particularly insightful eisenhower speech:

here's a gem that just precedes the now-iconic reference...

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

now *that's* thought-provoking =)

expounding on that in a much-later newspaper editorial is ike's close friend and former naval aide to the president:

"The science community is paralyzed by a phony, egotistical self-
guilt, and the technophobes in academia have had a field day for a
generation, teaching our young people to scorn the sciences and feel
guilty for being Americans. Aided by a couple of administration in
which "social engineering" was more fashionable than science, techno-
logical leadership is passing from the United States to nations who
have struck a more rational balance."

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n09.htm

heh heh, i think something really "got his goat"

anyway, i've always felt that the surest way of losing an argument is to overstate it... i guess i feel that that's exactly what the first video does

here's what we can take from it, at least overwhelmingly so (in the court of public opinion)

- america's "reaction" to the attacks of september 11th made al-qaeda both a household name *and* target #1 of the us government (durr)

- this most likely helped consolidate bin laden's organization, and surely polarized islamic radicalism ever further, thus increasing al-qaeda's magenetism to ends both in funding and recruiting

- prolonged military action in the "war on terror" is CONTINUING to make our "military-industrial complex" lots of money (do you really think that strong ties between "death merchantry" and government didn't exist before 2001... or even long before ike's speech??)

- america's (and the world's) "military-industrial complex" will continue to thrive until (ha) there is peace... and then probably a bit longer

- the "war on terror" probably won't end even if we get every member of al-qaeda into the same denny's restaurant and then nuke it (in a similar fashion as to arresting al capone not ending the fbi's war on organized crime)

- this will continue to make both you and me sad, and the "desth merchants" happy

...

but maybe, just maybe, we should take note of what ike first said we *should* be... STRONG ... and *then* consider our thinking on maintaining the BALANCE he warned us all should be sought in his now-pop-culture reference

Title should read French Game Shows: Better than anything!

Freud would have a field day.

>> ^qruel:
while I dislike Sarah P. immensely, I think these journalists came off as a little too giddy (for my taste) in voicing their opinions (and facts). I think people unsure about Sarah P would find their demeanor belittling or offense and thus turning them off from the actual message that Sarah is a douche of epic proportions. Better to sell it as calm, cool, reserved and matter of factly.


This video is a live definition of the phrase "having a field day".

Colbert/Daily Show going to have a field day ...

I don't agree with those 'lies, terrible' tags. The lady is in constant scrutiny, much more so than Obama because of personality and public image. I think she did get a bit emotional from all that criticism and sheer weight of the situation. Would it kill you to give her a break and actually believe that it was real?

Besides, I did not see a single drop of tear from that woman's ice cold eyes, Just a little choked up. And yet again media over reacts and has a field day over this, because why? What's the reason?? Constant scrutiny man, constant scrutiny.

And let's just say if it really was acting? (which I don't believe, just exaggerated) Even better. She's a ruthless girl playing the dirty politics, still hanging in there, still trying to win this thing. Just because you don't like the candidate's image, you fail to see their quality as a great president. Ruthlessness, cunning, patience, and sheer tenacity to stick to it even when things get really bad. A fighter dang nammit, a fighter!

I mean, yea sure you don't like Hillary's image, but what does that have to do with running a country? People voted for George Bush because he was a more likable and 'down to earth' candidate than Al Gore. They also voted for Jimmy Carter because he was a 'good person'. Ever read about Jimmy Carter? Huh? Did ya?

Let's say you voted for Al Gore. I bet it wasn't because you were swooned over by his dynamic personality, but because of his experience in Clinton administration and his professionalism. George Bush was the opposite, and people voted for him instead because they 'liked' him better. What a great president he came out to be. And yet personalities still has a strong influence in this matter in this election.

And yet, we have yet another similar scenario. Hillary wielded a heavy hand during Clinton Administration as well and doesn't have a favorable personality just like Al Gore. And again, less experienced candidates like Obama are in larger favor because people just 'like' him better. The hell is that all about?

Hillary's been facing criticism and negative public popularity her entire campaign and yet she's still here, still trying to make it. So despite whatever your beliefs are and why you support other candidates, consider these qualities as well.

What a shallow country we live in, especially youngins. People under the mental age of 30 shouldn't be allowed to vote (aka 70% of the nation).