Nobody got “smoked”, there were no injuries at all. Why the lie, @bobknight33? Why must you ALWAYS lie?

Curious why this 34 year old story is suddenly everywhere on right wing media and websites…and why they aren’t mentioning how it’s evolved over the years.
Is it an effort to poeticize a vigilante group as an example? They didn’t call police in the day long buildup to the shootout, nor immediately when it started, and they intentionally antagonized and threatened the neighbors they accused (without proof) of being gang members and shot up their house.

In 89 “lying in wait” was a death penalty offense in California…I guess not even a crime in Washington? They admitted they did exactly that.

Foulk said to 48 Hours in 1990 that he had told the Rangers to avoid hitting anyone and they followed instructions, not hitting anyone. In 2009, Foulk said to The News Tribune that one Ranger had in fact winged someone who charged the house. In 2022, he said to Fox 13 Seattle that the Rangers shot multiple people (no one ever went to any hospital with a gunshot). The story keeps growing every time he tells it.

Two men fitting descriptions given by the rangers were arrested on outstanding warrants and one later charged in connection to the shooting, and he received only one conviction, and only of second-degree assault. Neither lived across the street at the house the rangers shot to hell.
Many of the rangers lost their guns and Foulk says he was denied promotion as a result of the publicity caused by the shootout and that other Rangers were forbidden from visiting his home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Street_shootout

Downvoting this apparent attempt to glamorize what was a clear vigilante group that should have had much worse consequences than losing their guns and promotions.

I don't think many people still think of Hollywood as glamorous. The shine is off that penny.

Your video, David Attenborough meets a very glamorous hummingbird, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

They don't make the news, they just report it...


...in the sexiest, most glamorous way possible.

the displaying in this manner isn't shocking, and isn't the full picture... actual data analysis would require you to show of the losers each year, what the diversity looks like... to prove any bias you'd then have to go and show that a white person was picked over someone who CLEARLY should have won (thing about opinions is; everyone has one)...

THEN to take it a step further... you'd have to look at all the movies/actors/directors that weren't nominated... which suddenly increases involves even MORE opinion

THEN of the actually qualified movies/actors/directors you've had to compare the ratio of diversity between those and the level of diversity of movies/actors/directs that aren't qualified to be nominated

etc, etc, etc...

there's alot more to diversity in the oscars than just whom they pick in the end; its the projects/roles available, the movies that get greenlit and why, its the original source materials

but to say there should be more diverse winners is not really conclusively proven by who's won in the past...

i'm sure everyone would feel better about racism if next year everyone that won was of a minority... independant of whether or not they were the best in their category... but equality is about equality; not tilting the scales in the opposite direction

and it's easier to point the finger at the Oscars, because its public, its on the forefront, and there's money involved... whereas going after the more likely causes at the writing/production/casting level... is less glamorous and prone to actually involving some humanity

I'm sure you would find, on that personal level, prejudices involved... but in regards to finger pointing like this video... I'm sure alot of fingers would be pointed at instances that were completely innocent...

but that involves getting personal... and understanding people... and who wants to do that? when you can point to little balls forming an oscar and say "LOOK HOW FEW THERE ARE!"

Wait, you think that servicemen didn't have to face children in Iraq that fought for the insurgency, be it bomb-strapped or not? Because honey, that shit's above board. If on the other hand you are suggesting that this woman is somehow glamorizing war and dismissing the importance of Iraqi lives, that's another matter, but converting children to your cause is the oldest and easiest trick in the book. It happened in Vietnam, it happens every single day in your pick of war-torn African nations, and it sure as shit is happening as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan.

First of all, I'd like to point-out that once the lovely Ms. Spicer here took of that hideously frumpy dress, got rid of her patina of shellac and wet her hair, she suddenly became much comelier and glamorous and down-to-earth sexy for me personally, as I have ALWAYS gravitated towards women who shun make-up who looked like they just threw-on their favorite comfortable clothes, and could give a fuck about what anyone thinks about how they should look or act.

Any man who thinks otherwise is most-likely, a superficial and abusive fucking douchebag who will invariably seek-out the female form of douchbag, and have lots of power, money, and influence in either politics, banking, sales/insurance, or some other form of criminal activity which does nothing for the planet except create more douchebag children who will turn into bigger douchebag adults than their sheit-scumbag parents ever dreamed. This is a huge phenom in the current planetary paradigm and has been going-on for centuries to create the dysfunctional western civilization we enjoy today, cascading into insanity and oblivion, a world controlled by completely evil pieces of shit.

Here's the real-deal Trancecoach and it's in-line with Bill Burr's idea of an 'epidemic of gold-digging whores' routine so popular here among sift-voters, because it's all true. Assholes and douchebags wield enormous power and control over the rest of us honest and capable peeps on the planet because people in-general, don't know who they are or why they think and act the way they do, because as victims of abuse both physical and psychological, they give their own energy and power over to these cunts who are ass-raping the planet with their lies and egos, their narcissism and toxic personalities.

These hopelessly evil humans have been very successful in programming the herd-mokeys as well to aspire to become cunts, douchbags, and assholes just like themselves, as evidenced in the inordinate amount of these gullible mini-versions running loose on the globe and breeding like fruit flies.

This phenomenon is endemic in the west, the Middle East, China and South America, and it will get way worse before it gets any better.

People so emotionally attached to the regime (as @st0nedeye seems to be) are often either regime propagandists being handsomely compensated or serfs who feel so vulnerable and afraid (and maybe even inept themselves) that they can't think of how they would survive without the "rulers" to protect them. (Of course, the jokes on them since that protection, safety, and security, is mostly an illusion.)

If they are regime propagandists, then unless you pay them more to take on whatever views you want them to stick to in the hopes of cashing in on the cronyism.

If they are true believers or fanatics (due to fear, insecurity, envy, etc.), then they will try to tear up anyone who tries to give them information, even if that information will ultimately help them out, improve their lot (help, to be sure, that was not solicited by them, and they have a right not to be given).

These are the attitudes that made Edward Bernays and others rather loathe "the people," allowing them to rationalize the various forms of manipulation imposed in the 20th century. This propaganda was ostensibly for "the people's" "safety," but was more accurately for personal profit. It's a fate though that I can't totally disagree is not deserved.

Still, despite the crazy analysis, I commend @st0nedeye for bringing up the interesting topic of the situation in Europe after the "fall" of Rome (which happened gradually and parallels that of most empires, including this current one). It's worth considering that the collapse of the Soviet Union also, a collapse that even to this day many in Russia bemoan -- just like st0nedeye bemoans the collapse of Rome. Life under the Roman bureaucracy and plutocracy was not as glamorous as many people would have you believe (maybe if you were a one of the beneficiary plutocrats).

I believe there needs to be more docs like this. Even short cuts like the one we are seeing. The glamor the porn industry wants us to believe needs to be put in balance with the reality that can only be taught by these clips - and lots of them.

I know there may be fully responsible adults out there filming scenes in a safe manor, but for every one of those, there is another group abusing the participants that we never hear about.

And every part of her body has been modified, right down to the eyelids. That's why she threw the ball into the stands. LOOK AT MY BODY SWING AROUND MY ASS. Oh hehehe. *Glamorous eye wink*

Not that the aircraft body and platform aren't important (stealth)---but another quite valid way to think about modern weapon platforms is: it's about the arrow, not the archer---what weapons will the plane yield?
And another useful construct is: what are the not-so-glamorous, non-airshowy capabilities of the aircraft (signal processing, computers, linkage to a comprehensive air defense or air superiority complex)---
Still, neat video

Well I think it's great that NOW is able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose noncognitive or cognitive celebrities. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that, I believe that celebrities should be glamorous and noncognitive, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that they should be glamorous and noncognitive.

>> ^Trancecoach:

I for one think it's unforgivable.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Trancecoach:
it's highly unlikely that what was written down in front of her was any different than what was shown on the screen.>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Is it ironic that Ana reads the word "proactively" as the word "provocatively?"
she's so noncognitive.

Actually we don't know what was written down in front of her.


Unlikely or not, my point is that we don't know.
A mistake was made, but we have no evidence of who made it.

Do you also consider yourself glamorous?