What happened? Once the mules have you, it's supposed to be safe!

So we have two possible explanations:

1. A party girl who isn't shown to be particularly intelligent ends up OD'ing on the drugs she was forced to mule. She slips into an elaborate fantasy about having superpowers as a coping mechanism and makes up some bullshit "10% of your brain" as aher uneducated way of rationalising it

OR....

2. Meth gives you superpowers (kinda want that on a tshirt now )

And you think 2 is less ridiculous?!

I'm not really serious though. The "it was all a dream" thing was a hack cliche before most of us were 10, so yeah, it's a shitty cop out.

That said, I fully expect to enjoy this movie as a fun popcorn flick. The 5th element had a ridiculous premise too (an evil rock must be stopped by love!) but that still turned out awesome. I don't think this will be that good, but I'm willing to give it a chance.

I have fed several species of deer, meat, to their apparent relish. Cooked, Mostly in Texas.

Spaghetti meat sauce and chili was very popular with them too.

...fallow deer, axis deer, mule deer, and whitetail deer. No fangs though.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

not really, I don't like my meat processed and chemically treated. I hunt deer, squirrel, rabbit, I grow and hunt quail, ducks, geese, chickens, I also hunt alligator since it's open season year around here due to overpopulation.

I have a chest freezer in the utility room with Elk, Mule Deer, Venison, Lamb as I can. We save thousands of dollars a year on meat since I hunt and have taught my son and daughter to hunt. My daughter is 13 and has already killed her first deer last season. I've also taught them how to skin and clean from fish, fowl and large game, although they usually just watch and clean the buckets for the large game for now, they happily help me skin squirrels, rabbits, bullfrogs for frog legs, etc. It's just how we live and keep grocery prices really cheap, since I usually barter gator tail/venison at the farmers market for most fresh vegetables.

Weapons of choice, .308 / 30-30 / 12 gauge - my daughter and son primarily use 20 gauge as it has little to no kick and great spread for shooting fowl.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

Okay, this is cool. Very cool. But in terms of usefulness, it doesn't seem as good as an actual pack animal like a mule or a donkey.


Except you can kill an animal and there's no spare parts that'll fix it after that, you have to stop while it feeds for quite a while, it needs to rest, it can suddenly get afraid and run off on you, not follow an order because it doesn't feel like it, make sounds when not wanted...list goes on.

Okay, this is cool. Very cool. But in terms of usefulness, it doesn't seem as good as an actual pack animal like a mule or a donkey.

Man, that went directly to Facebook, where my science-y friends had it shared within 5 minutes.

I also sent it to my father. He grew up on a dirt farm in Oklahoma. They used mules to pull a wagon on the farm. From that to my dad seeing the surface of Mars as clearly as if he were there.

Thanks for sharing that link. Dang.

In reply to this comment by radx:
http://www.panoramas.dk/mars/greeley-haven.html

Marvel at the first HD panoramic picture taken on Mars.

Just a heads-up, but if you quote someone they get an email telling them what you wrote instantly. So if you go back and edit your comment (as you did in this case) I still get to read your original remarks. Something to consider before hitting the submit button next time, if you didn't realize that. I'll respond to your original post:

Yeah, you used your sad little line once already. I know you think it makes you sound smart, but it just makes you seem like a tool. Care to actually engage in a debate with facts and opinions?

Yes, I would very much like to engage in a debate with facts and...opinions (can you have a debate without opinions)?

Regardless, I would also like to engage in a debate where people avoid logical fallacies rather than zealously pursuing them (for instance, that pesky ad hominem that so many people on the Sift have a hard time avoiding). And unfortunately I've learned that kind of debate just doesn't happen here often enough, which is why (as I said in my original post) I've moved on to debating on other forums where people are more interested in reasonable discussion than comment upvotes or making themselves feel clever by insulting others.

By the way, just in case you still don't understand the point of my original post, I suggest you read my answer to hpqp in which I spell it out clearly.

Or you can keep insulting me and continue proving my point.

Also, since you asked so nicely, here are some facts for you:

-- Hitchens in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule" (Vanity Fair, March issue)
-- In the same article, he mentions that some people need alcohol to avoid self-destructing even more quickly... self-referential? Who knows.
-- According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans moderate drinking is defined as no more than two drinks a day. Yet according to his own auto-biography Hitchens was drinking far in excess of that, including half a bottle of red wine (no less) at lunch alone in addition to his other drinks throughout the day.
-- As per hpqp's quote, he knew it was bad for him but continued to drink anyways... right up until the cancer. In fact I could find no information stating that he has given up drinking despite the cancer.

Of course, Hitchens denies that he's an alcoholic... but so do most alcoholics so I don't give that much credence.

In the end, though, whether or not he is an alcoholic is actually a moot point. The excessive drinking (if you prefer that term) has contributed to his cancer and an early grave. Thus it strikes me (and Shinyblurry) as peculiar to honor him with a toast. You disagree and that is your right. But instead of stating your case, you (and to be fair, a lot of others) came out flaming those who disagreed with you. And that is how we ended up having this conversation.

(P.S. I am indeed a tool. But I am a tool who carefully considers what his opponents say and can argue his point without having to insult the opposing side.)

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
Wow, what an original and clever response.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Upvoted for both missing the point and proving it at the very same time.

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX, Hitchens was not an alcoholic. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks without being an alcoholic.

As for your response to @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://fletch.videosift.com" title="member since August 9th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#FF4500">Fletch, I fail to see how he either missed or proved your point. All I can see is that he refuted your bullshit with facts and logic. But I guess those aren't really popular with your ilk.

>> ^dag:

These guys are awesome. They did the mule right? I would think that the big problem with all of these robots is they need a butt load of power to operate all those servos.


They need to develop a system like the human body has that's the tendon. We charged the tendon up and release energy...that's one of the reasons we're soo good at running long distances at a good pace, better than animals. We have economy of movement on our side...so they gotta work on something like a tendon to propel it that won't take too much constant drain.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

These guys are awesome. They did the mule right? I would think that the big problem with all of these robots is they need a butt load of power to operate all those servos.

Yah, it was pretty awful tbh. I upvoted mostly cos I like seeing e-sports on the sift, but honestly there have been better games.

Particularly frustrating to watch since I play Zerg. I've got into similar situations against Terran and often it really feels impossible to win lategame against an entrenched Tanks, Vikings, Thors, Ghosts etc. Partly its an issue of Terran having such a more efficient army in terms of both mineral/gas and supply but mostly I think it comes down to mules. Terran had 45 SCVs in the later stages of that game compared to Zergs 50ish, and that was after a nuke wiped out some 20-25 supply worth of drones. The fact Mules are supply free and can supersaturate the last remaining mining bases gives Terran such an advantage later on. Nestea could have handled it better, saccing drones for Spines/Hatcheries so he could remacro faster after he lost his army, but still its a really tough situation to deal with as Zerg imo, particularly on that map where the map is so often split down the middle with relatively safe expansions for both players and pretty tight choke point (well, for lategame) in the middle. I always endeavour to end Terran before they can get a 4th on that map because if I don't I know I'll likely lose later.

To win as Zerg there you really need to get on their production buildings and then begin to eat away at their army as best you can. Its suicide to directly engage their army and I've never had much success going for their economy unless I can complete deny the last remaining base, but generally I think its best to really deny them anything to spend their minerals/gas on.

Its funny, because for so long I whined about Terrans and Protoss never playing a macro game, always doing 1 base cheese as I struggled to get to midgame...now I wish they'd stop playing for the long game and go back to their allins . Talk about being careful what you wish for.

(Oh, last thing, to be fair I think Nestea could have won that last battle had EMP not hit all his Infestors. A couple of Fungals on those ghosts and they would have been revealed and died quite quickly to the Broods. On top of everything else in this game I think perhaps that EMP was really the killing blow)

Two words: pack mule.

Dropping us at mancare seems more humane than chaining us to a lamp post.>> ^messenger:

What's the difference between this and the guy staying home and paying X-box and watching TV?

Its not a lack of police to fight drug cartels which is the cause of the violence. That analysis is hollow. You are leaving out the devastating consequences of NAFTA and imperialism on these countries.

Poverty and unemployment have only worsened as a result of subsidies going towards big agrobussiness instead of local farmers. This is what leads to crime. Its a reaction by the working class getting even more fucked. When you can't get any $ by growing corn and instead have the chance to make $ selling drugs, yeah, you do it.

It isn't a coincidence that the majority of immigrants come from countries that have had dictators and death squads with the support of the US. Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico. Destroyed economies create migrants which are CHEAP LABOR. Add to this the criminalization of immigrants with AZ's SB1070 and GA's copycat HB87. The AZ bill was pretty much written by Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison corporation which gets $200 per bed a night.

Its all part of the imperative of profit, the inherent violence of capitalism, duh
----
Additional reading:

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/10/28/prison-and-profits-the-politics-of-az%E2%80%99s-sb1070-bill-revealed/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/25/harvest_of_empire_new_book_exposes
"And then there's this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

"The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties."

The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America's adventures overseas - from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties....As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that 'ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists." ("CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders", Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

"ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe....""


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18877

I don't think I hardly ever used the parking brake, even with the manual transmission I had on a couple occasions. If you are on a flat surface why engage the e-brake unless you are in one of those odd areas that require it by law. I say hardly ever as on at least one car I knew the e-brake was useless as the cable was stretched and wouldn't engage so I must have tried it at least on that one on an occasion (perhaps parking on a hill with a manual transmission, though being in gear and wheels turned should be enough). Riding with other people I don't think I have ever seen them engage the e-brake either. A better question would be who doesn't put the car in park or in gear?
I agree though this isn't a tow truck pulling illegally parked cars, likely insurance writeoffs as Payback said, or test mule dumps as this is clearly a crane pulling cars that could easily be accessed by a regular tow truck. Of course even with those two situations, why use a crane on site and not a regular tow truck to take it to the yard unless you need to render undrivable onsite?

>> ^Kofi:

Who parks their car without the hand brake on?! No one, that's who. FAKE


Also have to say it:
The Claw chooses who will go and who will stay.