>> ^handmethekeysyou:

Asking "what did I do?" is not "begging for it."
I understand why the cop got upset immediately. Guy got out of his car and started walking toward the officer with a hand in his pocket. Totally reasonable to react strongly to that. But by the 50th time when the cop told him to turn around and the guy was just asking what it was about, you'd think the cop would realize the guy isn't a threat.
Just answer the question, "what's this about?" And if you're not going to answer the question, say, "we'll discuss that in a minute, but for now just turn around and put your hands on your head." I'd say, "I pulled you over because of your license plate, but you started out acting like a threat. If you turn around and put your hands on your head, I assure you we'll walk away from this without a ticket or a problem." If the cop can't be expected to be the voice of reason, he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.
This was literally (rewatch it, precisely) three minutes of the cop saying "turn around and put your hands on your head" with smatterings of "do it now" and nothing else. That's not communication. That's ordering and tasering when your orders are not met. That's not law enforcement.>> ^smooman:
tasered 6 times for having a crooked license? thats not a misleading title at all!
what i saw was a dude get tasered 6 times for being a jackass
excuse me if i cant sympathize with a man who is practically begging for it



asking, no, demanding "what did i do?" is most assuredly "begging for it" given it's context.

You certainly have a strange reasoning in assuming a man who is utterly uncooperative, suspicious, erratic, and at times irate, is somehow not a perceivable threat.

"just answer the question"? jesus titty fucking christ do some people just have an abject lack of respect for judicial process? i'll let you be the one to leap out of your car on your next traffic stop and act surprised at the rate of escalation. Ya, the "voice of reason" certainly was working with the offender wasnt it? Guy gets pulled over, guy immediately gets out of car and approaches officer, guy is sternly and directly instructed to back the fuck up and at gunpoint even, guy refuses......ya thats a reasonable man right there

the only reason it was three minutes of "turn around and put your hands on your head" is because for three fucking minutes that asshat was overtly defiant and wholly uncooperative.

you know i hated authority too....then i graduated fucking high school

What a lame fucker. He's like The Irate Gamer of stand-up comedians!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

Boy are they ever struggling for things to get irate about.

Illogical and prejudiced, yes. And also arbitrary and rather dumb in how you desperately try to rationalize your discrimination.

You imply that gay people have the right to marry since they can still marry a person of the opposite sex. But having the right to marry means exactly having the right to marry who you want. This is where you should have used your brain, applied your reasoning to other situations, and pondered if it actually made sense. For example, suppose black people were not allowed to marry each other, and the powers that be tried to pull the same trick you just pulled by saying black people can still marry any morbidly obese white person they want. Would black people have the right to marry? Absolutely not. Suppose a government claims its people have freedom of speech since it does not preempt any attempts at speaking; instead it just goes around, after the fact, and punishes anybody who said something it dislikes. Do the people have freedom of speech? No.

The issue of definition is a non-issue. Any language that has a population of native speakers is undergoing constant evolution. You must be religious, since you think words are sacred, and apparently magical. (They must be magical, if words defined in one age have the ability to correctly dictate morality into the unknown future.) Again, we can imagine this applied to race, i.e. marriage defined to be between "a white man and a white woman".

You seem to imply you'd be okay with it if there was a different word and corresponding laws. I doubt that, it sounds like a grasp for a rationalization. But lets suppose that actually happened. The end result would be exactly the same. The vast majority of the population would continue to use the word "marriage" when talking about same sex unions. The people against gay marriage would be the most likely to use the word "marriage" because their real concern is the act, not the word; the issue of sacred word definition was only ever an excuse, one which they would not want to give up. They would claim that legalizing gay marriage under the phrase "civil unions" was merely a bureaucratic trick, and rightfully so since the body laws concerning straight marriage and gay civil unions would be identical except for the phrase used to name the act. And after a few decades, the dictionary publishers would update their definitions to match the language people actually use: mar riage (mar-ij) n. the state in which two people are formally united for the purpose of living together(often in order to raise children) and with certain legal rights and obligations toward each other. (straight forward adaptation from the Oxford American Dictionary)

And finally, whether it is a choice or not has absolutely no bearing on the morality of it. All that matters, in general, is whether an act causes harm to non-consenting parties. Gay marriage does not. That means, as far as morality is concerned, being gay or straight is merely an issue of aesthetics. Therefore, you getting irked over gay marriage is quite similar to a teenage girl, who upon seeing another teen girl whose shirt and pants do not match, becomes irate that another person would dare wear something that she personally dislikes. Please grow the fuck up.



>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Aniatario:
"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"
^Right..

Who's stopping gays from getting married?
Truth is, nobody is stopping them from getting married. There is no test or query when getting married. Nowhere in Canada or the US are you asked if you are gay or not when getting married.
Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?
Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.
If the problem is wanting similar legal privileges for a union between two men or two women as there exists for marriages, then pursue changes to the law, not the definition.
I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.

>> ^Trancecoach:

I don't think the actor in the image (Ving Rhames) is the voice on the audio.


PFFFFT "Ving"!!! You're making that up.

@NetRunner

I guess the point I was trying to make was that I have personally seen the system fail in the last 6 months. My brother was a fucked up mess mentally, and to this day is still irrational to the point that it's like trying to talk to a wall on many topics......especially topics that landed him in the court system. He's not quite as irate as he was, since he got the shit kicked out of him so bad in prison holding (contempt of court charge and was held until his trial could be completed and him sentenced, got probation). He was beaten by 5-8 guys, which they've only charged 2.....broke his shoulder bad enough that they thought he'd need surgery to repair it for the first couple days after it happened. He now has a virtually unusable arm, he can't lift it even as high as his should and there for awhile he couldn't grip anything or raise it beyond his waist. He was also knocked unconcious and had his head split open. And the kicker here was that prior to this they kept him in solitary due to his outbursts related to his mental condition. Within 24 hours of being put into the public areas of the prison, this happened to him. And they didn't press charges until he brought it up with his probation officer and they had no record of it when he mentioned it. They also withheld pain medications....and have now refused to pay medical expenses for what happened in jail...they've even billed him for the trip to and from the hospital for treatment.

Now....this incident could have been prevented a minimum of 3 months ago when they sent him to a mental facility in another city ...for evaluation. They told my parents he was going to be evaluated for a mental disorder (because this happened in the past and even though he went to months of treatment they never corrected it, just covered it). It turned out, the only thing he was being evaluated for was mental competency....does he know right from wrong. That's it. They didn't confirm if he was bipolar like previous diagnosed, or borderline personality disorder like previous diagnosed....or schizophrenic like they thought he was before bipolar was the diagnosis. So they took someone who had previously been diagnosed with a mental disorder, tested him for competency, held him in jail and on house arrest due to the mental disorder, and put then him on trial untreated for his mental disorder. He was put back into jail when he failed to take medications while on house arrest. What sane, rational thinking person would refuse to take a pill a day so he could stay in a house where he can eat regular food, sleep in a bed, take showers regularly..etc? And for that matter, what sane rational thinking person would chew out a judge and then refuse to take a piss test and land himself in jail in the first place when they were going to let him go bail free?

There was ONE, just ONE sheriff in the whole court building that took it upon himself seeing that my brother was not thinking properly...to try to get him in and out of the building without arresting him. All of the others wanted to take him down as soon as he left the court room...he told them no and that he would take responsibility for it. And from there on, everything else was an utter failure. The court system that could force treatment on him to get him back to normal didn't do it, and they are the only ones who can unless you get power of attorney over someone through a lengthy 6+ month process that costs a nice chunk of change.

There's just a near complete lack of division for criminals aside from the worst crimes such as rape, child crimes, and murder...after that..everyone is a criminal whether they truly understand their guilt or not or whether they can be "cured" or not. Personally after seeing what my brother has had happen to him, I think I'd rather be dead than go to prison on any charge......they don't foster anything but breakdown physical, mental, or emotional in those places.

This guy talks like such a dipshit , I have found that it takes a clever person to talk about complex things and make them seem simple , however a moron can make something simplistic seem complex.

thunderfoot seems to have this artificial pseudo intellectual way of speaking that's just plain iratating this is father demonstrated when you whatch him interview people like dawkins.

I wouldnt have a problem with him if he just talked in a down to earth way and presented the facts , I think you can put thunder foot , pat condel , and keth oberman ( dont know his name) in the same group of people that are technically right most the time . genraly have interesting things to say and I can agree with most of what they say and communicate but there method of presentation is so forced and contrived it stops me at least from wanting to listen to what they have to say. (and unfortunatly for them they dont have the excuse of mental retardation )

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I hear you Westy, but for me it has nothing to do with the effort that's put into it (although anyone who at least has control over one muscle in their body can make this music). It has everything to do with the fact that I've heard this same exact song a thousand times before.
Of course it's all a matter of opinion. Maybe to you all rap and guitar music sounds the same. Well to me... all: nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-ts

s-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-

tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-nnn-tss-all sounds the same.


Your clearly listning to the wrong aspect of this typ of music , I didnt say that i thought other ganras sounded the same , i was pionting out that in reality they are all simply collectoins of sound waves that are aranged in some cultraly arbatrerry manor that aplies to all music.

the reasoins why people may like some music over others is that there brains interprit the sounds differently and people will ignore certain aspects of a song but for others those aspects will drive them mental. RNB for example often has a cymbel placed in it that to me stands out like a sore thumb and iratates me howver i can aprecait for people that enjoy that music they probably dont particualy notice it and can injoy the other aspects of the music more.

people that injoy progressive or minimal trance ,I would think are not paying specifc atentoin to the specific consturctoin sounds they are simply enjoying the overall aspect and flow of the music , Ie the musical flavor that accours after you have put in all the ingredeants , what is hapaning with you is that for this specifc cake of music you are very sencative to the salt and that is blocking you from enjoying the overall cake.

another example would be when you watch a good actoin sceen in a film if its all composed well you dont notice the specifc sounds , objects items you just enjoy the overall exsperance and have a emotive response to the overall thing.

Lol I think my irational discust would win in this instant I have been cultraly brainwashed.

kind of want to try it out of cureosity but the idea is realy repulsive to me. strangly this is more repulsive than eating human flesh, i duno maby if it was a partners brest milk but evan then i dont think i would be able to do it lol.

The boxer who took the dive was found unfit to fight in Sydney by the New South Wales Combat Sports Authority.

On 21 July 2010 Briggs returned to the ring in Perth to take on Danny Green for the IBO cruiserweight title. Before the bout Green labelled Briggs "unprofessional" after the latter weighed in nearly 4kgs over the agreed-upon weight. The ensuing fight was seen as a "farce",[4] with Briggs collapsing after 29 seconds following an innocuous left jab by Green, his first in the fight, which appears to have at most brushed the top of Briggs' head. Briggs was subsequently booed out of the stadium by irate fans, and had to be protected by management from projected missiles being thrown at him. In a post-bout interview Green labelled Briggs a "less than canine" and claimed he would not be getting paid for the fight, while also apologising to fans who had paid to attend.[4] Speculation has arisen as to whether Briggs threw the fight, as online bookmaker Centrebet labelled the bout "highly, highly dubious" following a massive betting plunge shortly before the fight.[5] The fight had been due to be held in Sydney but was moved at the last minute after the New South Wales Combat Sports Authority refused to commission the bout claiming Briggs was "unfit" to fight.[6]

Boxing is known to cause damage to the sense of balance. I thought it was the left jab to the body, a late pain in the lower stomach that caused him to give up. He could have gotten up. This statement is in hopes that he was physically unfit for fighting.

According to the Article that @kymbos posted, he was knocked out while sparring two weeks prior to the fight. Who the hell get's knocked out whilst sparring. Unless they do some different sparring down under.

Paul Briggs came out looking good, but I think he was just spent mentally. His trainers should have never let him fight.

Edit: This fight looks like shit.

oh common he is just angry.

I bet loads of spoilt rich people have tirades like this on the phone to people .


dose seem to have issues with strange things , I mean the real problem hear is not the swearing or the saying black people will rape her.

its the fact that he is a grown man and instead of resolving whatever is going on in a logical and resnable way he is shouting irational abuse.

I can understand sum one shouting face to face if they spontaneously got pissed off , but I never understood sum-one taking the time to phone sum one and then going mental over the phone its really weird behaviour.

you would hope people would have the intellectual capacity to think "humm whats the most positive way this can be resolved that's most beneficial for me" because ultimately just shooting at sumoen to make yourself "feel" good will achieve a far worse outcome than going over things even if you hate them and they really pissed you off , even if you wanted to some how get back and damage them there are far better ways than just shouting at them.

LOL what an irational fucking moron.

granted maggots might not be that nice , but juses Christ people have issues.

manny cultuers eat maggots , and maggots are grate for clearing deep cuts and infections so to see them as descusting or to get in a panic over them is a bit short sighted.

He seemed to lose interest a bit right there at the end... he was supposed to be sounding all irate but sounded, well... half asleep