>> ^shuac:

Well, that's no way to get ahead in life.


For the executioner it is.

Well, that's no way to get ahead in life.

Also, it's important to check out the Youtube comments and the video uploader's description. If you did that, you'd know his non-dying performances outweigh his dying performances. Someone did all that work and now you don't need to: http://www.compleatseanbean.com/deathbycow.html

HE DIES IN:
Airborne - bye bye Toombs
Caravaggio - Rannuccio gets his throat slashed
Clarissa - Lovelace is skewered by Sean Pertwee
Don't Say a Word - Patrick Koster is buried alive
Equilibrium - Death by Poetry - Partridge is blasted away by Christian Bale while reading Yeats
Essex Boys - Jason Locke meets a nasty end in a Range Rover
Far North - Loki is frozen. Naked. In the snow. A chilling end if there ever was one.
The Field - the infamous Death by Cow - Tadgh falls over a cliff, pursued by a herd of stampeding cows
GoldenEye - Alec Trevelyan falls a long way down and is crushed by a satellite dish thing
Henry VIII - Robert Aske meets a gruesome end
The Island - Death by Clone. Merrick is shot in the throat by a nasty grabber thingy with a sharp
hook and a cable that gets wrapped around his neck, and while he's struggling with Lincoln
Six-Echo, the catwalk they're on collapses, and Merrick ends up dangling by the neck. Currently
the most creative dispatch of Sean's career. Definitely well hung.
The Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King) - Death
by Orc. Boromir. Arrows. Need I say more?
Lorna Doone - Carver Doone drowns
Outlaw - Dead Dead Dead. Was there ever any question? Dead.
Patriot Games - Sean Miller is beaten up, boathooked and finally blown up by Harrison Ford
Scarlett - Lord Fenton is dispatched
Tell Me That You Love Me - Gabriel Lewis is stabbed by Laura. Or he stabs himself. We're not
quite sure about this one, actually.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Death by summoning a god's avatar. Martin Septim (the son of the Emperor, aka The Lost Heir) meets his X-Box end when he attempts to save the world.
The Hitcher - Surely you jest. You need to ask? (There were two different versions filmed. He dies
in both of them.)
War Requiem - The German Soldier dies, but returns in the afterlife


HE LIVES IN:
(Leo Tolstoy's) Anna Karenina
A Woman's Guide to Adultery
The Big Empty
The Bill
Black Beauty
Bravo Two Zero
Exploits at West Poley
Extremely Dangerous
Faceless
The Fifteen Streets
Flightplan
Fool's Gold
How to Get Ahead in Advertising
In the Border Country
Inspector Morse: Absolute Conviction
Jacob
Lady Chatterley
The Loser
My Kingdom for a Horse
National Treasure (But only because of a rewrite. In an early version
of the the script Ian Howe got eaten by alligators in the subways of
New York. Really. Honest. I wouldn't lie to you. I wouldn't.)
North Country
Percy Jackson (Zeus is more or less an immortal so death seems a bit
redundant, really...)
The Practice
Pride
Prince
Punters
Ronin
Samson & Delilah
Sharpe (14 films)
Sharpe's Challenge
Shopping
Silent Hill
Small Zones
Stormy Monday
Tom & Thomas
Troubles
The Canterbury Tales - The Nun's Priest's Tale
The Dark
The True Bride
The Vicar of Dibley
Troy
Wedded
When Saturday Comes
Windprints
Winter Flight

Major Theatrical Performances:
Macbeth ... Yes. He dies. And gets his head impaled on a spike.
Romeo & Juliet... What do you think?
Fair Maid of the West ... Spencer doesn't die!

[redacted]

@Mcboinkens:

There is a very important fact underlying this entire argument about Venus that you seem to be missing. Mentioning a bright point of light in a Bible verse is not the same thing as mentioning a planet in a Bible verse.

I acknowledged that I misunderstood your original point here and here so I don't know why you are restating it as if it's something new. I made a mistake; let's move on.

The Peter verse is not mentioning anything other than a bright source rising in your heart. Not at all a reference to even anything astronomical, so that's not worth mentioning anymore. The Isaiah passage could be referring to anything in the sky, or even anything at all quite frankly. It could be talking about the moon, or the sun, or any other star, or planet they thought was a star.

Why would they say "lucifer" then? It sounds like you think it was a generic term for any bright object and I have not seen evidence supporting that. If there is some, show me.

Furthermore, that metaphor is complete trash, because if it was referring to Venus, it would be completely wrong, as Venus travels across the entire sky, just like any other planet. There are nights where Venus is very high into the sky, so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Generally Venus is only visible near the horizon as it gets washed out by the sun. The allegory of the King is that he tried to position himself above God and failed. During Venus's Morning Star phase, it rises ahead of the sun only to vanish in the daylight. It could also be that, as an inferior planet, Venus appears to get ahead of and then fall behind the other stars. Neither is a bad metaphor for what happened to the King, though I like the former explanation better than the latter.

There is no use arguing about it though, the Bible is written and won't change.

Of course it will. It has changed dozens of times. With each new edition it is "translated" to more closely represent the story the translators wish it was. That's how "Lucifer" became an alias for Satan in the first place. Will it ever tell us things we don't already know? Of course not.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.

I want to think you aren't a dick, but to do so we need to get real here for a minute. Are you including the FICA tax in your numbers? Do you agree with the social security raiders? Is the real problem where the actual thresholds are? Because if your problem is with raising taxes on people in the 90k area, I'm on board with you. The question becomes, why is there no support to raise taxes on people that earn over a million a year? Why is there no support to raise estate taxes? Indeed, how does taking away the basic human right to organize and negotiate even have anything to do with a budget crisis, particularly when that group is already prepared to make the necessary fiscal concessions?

I'm currently being paid about 10% of what I could be making. I'm working in the basic science of retinal function on work that could lead to all sorts of advances that benefit you, or your children, or for that matter humanity in general. I could be making ten times as much as a machine vision expert building predator drones to kill people whom most often I have no beef with. That's what you get with your "only spend it on 'defense', and let me keep the rest" attitude about taxation. FWIW, that's where I'm coming from, and that's why it pisses me off when millionaires don't want to give up an extra Ferrari in order to better educate the (by no fault of their own) underprivileged youth. Then out of the other side of their mouth they won't shave the $78 billion from the defense budget the DoD doesn't even want.

Nobody is trying to legislate morality here. You can write off the money you already give back for a reason. We just need to pay for all the infrastructure your business needed to succeed somehow. You're paying less in taxes than at almost any time since WWII. Cut us a little slack. We're barely making ends meet.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success?

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success? Government programs that take from the rich and give to the poor disenfranchise people to try to succeed, as they'll be punished for it, while they reward people for doing nothing. And, somehow, it's a big puzzle why the income gap in America is growing? What's the incentive to bridge the gap?
If I can sit on my ass all day and make the same post-tax income as working 50 hours a week, why would I get a job? If I get sick, I just call an ambulance instead of a taxi - Medicare will pay for it after all. I get hungry - food stamps. If I need some extra cash, I sell my food stamps and buy beer. Beats working for a living.
If you want to combat earning discrepancies, provide incentive for people to get off their ass and make a decent living. And you don't do that by "dis-empowering" the rich.

>> ^Truckchase:
If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

Man I've got to be more careful; that's quite a cherry-pick quote. Looks nice without the context.


Your statement assumes anyone is in a position to be successful, and that is exactly what is currently under attack. If that were the case I'd agree with you. My concern doesn't surround the 90th percentile as you've quoted, but rather the 99th percentile. This is the segment that makes enough money to undermine our democracy and needs to be brought under control. This segment is moving to lower working wages across all employment spectrum but their own, and in a position to reap the rewards. We've been slowly and steadily moving towards a system with a much larger income gap, and it's been accelerated over the last few years with both the Republicans and Dems being eager to please the people who get them elected. (old data here)

We want to work for small business owners to be successful. SBOs are the engines of a working economy. Tax rates for the upper 99th percentile have little to do with small business success, and I think the argument against is generally one of principal and not of actual impact. There's a whole other issue here, and that's the impact on small businesses due to a vanishing middle class. The business opportunities afforded to an entrepreneur are much more likely to be upward servicing (corporations) as opposed to downward, (individuals) which has all sorts of easy to outline effects on the already tilted power structure that don't really need spelling out.

Bottom line is this: We're quickly becoming a society divided, a two-tier system. Your assertions are true in the optimal version of the society that we claim to live in, but it's been co-opted to the point where hard work, a great idea, and timing = success increasingly less often.

So, let me change the quote but ask the same question: If anyone has any ideas on practical, tangible steps to take today to resurrect the "American Dream" I'm all ears. I can assure you that the end of collective bargaining is a step in the wrong direction.

Good conversation; I gotta get back to work.

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?

In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.

So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success? Government programs that take from the rich and give to the poor disenfranchise people to try to succeed, as they'll be punished for it, while they reward people for doing nothing. And, somehow, it's a big puzzle why the income gap in America is growing? What's the incentive to bridge the gap?

If I can sit on my ass all day and make the same post-tax income as working 50 hours a week, why would I get a job? If I get sick, I just call an ambulance instead of a taxi - Medicare will pay for it after all. I get hungry - food stamps. If I need some extra cash, I sell my food stamps and buy beer. Beats working for a living.

If you want to combat earning discrepancies, provide incentive for people to get off their ass and make a decent living. And you don't do that by "dis-empowering" the rich.


>> ^Truckchase:

If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

When I do that, I like to flip off all the idiots waiting. That helps.>> ^nanrod:

Right on! There is no such thing as late merging. There is only correct merging which takes place at the merge point and early merging which is started by some morons who think if they merge early they will get ahead faster and other sheeple who follow suit, causing the merge point to slowly move backwards. Its always been my experience that when I get to a point where cars are merging early if I scoot on down that half mile of empty lane to the actual merge point then everybody behind me follows suit and the whole process starts over again.>> ^eric3579:
What's up with the picture? Is anyone really merging?
I'm not merging late! It is you who are merging to damn early!

Right on! There is no such thing as late merging. There is only correct merging which takes place at the merge point and early merging which is started by some morons who think if they merge early they will get ahead faster and other sheeple who follow suit, causing the merge point to slowly move backwards. Its always been my experience that when I get to a point where cars are merging early if I scoot on down that half mile of empty lane to the actual merge point then everybody behind me follows suit and the whole process starts over again.>> ^eric3579:

What's up with the picture? Is anyone really merging?
I'm not merging late! It is you who are merging to damn early!

>> ^srd:

While I appreciate the lecturers disappointment, I do believe he needs to get out more. In my professional experience the business types are all about cheating, cutting corners and taking shortcuts if such an opportunity is offered to them. And if you're teaching future business/managerial types, this kind of behaviour is only to be expected.
What I don't get is what a four hour ethics course is supposed to do. If you're inclined to cheat by laziness, lack of character or wrong upbringing, a few hours of stern talking to by someone who the culprits don't give a rats anus about isn't going to change much, other than waste everyones time. If someone is prone to cheating, the only way to stop them is to keep a close eye on them. Or a real long term effort to readjust their moral compass. Something that isn't easy at that age anymore though.


Especially since what our society teaches us is to screw others and cheat to get ahead. Because it doesn't matter how you get there...it's just that you get there.

come on, like she wouldn't get ahead in the world with boobs like that, just climb up the ladder with all fours hon.

This lady knows a thing or two about getting ahead in life.

Lol, there is plenty of proof that Mohammed existed! Ask that from the countries he invaded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^theali:
Mmmm, good point, I should paraphrase, he was the only one that proactively shed blood to spread his religion
>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^theali:
The video is about 70% facts and 30% propaganda. If they would have stock with only the facts, it would have been a stronger message.
Mohammad is the only mainstream "prophet" who has shed blood, by his own hands, in the name of his own religion. This single fact alone, tell us everything, we need to know.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Moses dropped some water on some bitches.


Ummm... I have no problem believing Mohammad killed people with his own hands...

Moses... not so much.

If you're going to believe the "historical" bullshit that one religion claims. Why can't you believe the historical bullshit another claims?
To me theres no proof Mohammed or Moses even existed, so everyone should just shut up.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^theali:
Mmmm, good point, I should paraphrase, he was the only one that proactively shed blood to spread his religion
>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^theali:
The video is about 70% facts and 30% propaganda. If they would have stock with only the facts, it would have been a stronger message.
Mohammad is the only mainstream "prophet" who has shed blood, by his own hands, in the name of his own religion. This single fact alone, tell us everything, we need to know.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Moses dropped some water on some bitches.


Ummm... I have no problem believing Mohammad killed people with his own hands...

Moses... not so much.


If you're going to believe the "historical" bullshit that one religion claims. Why can't you believe the historical bullshit another claims?

To me theres no proof Mohammed or Moses even existed, so everyone should just shut up.