>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Looks like ballston metro station....


Question mark

Jigga, calm down please. I never called you a troll and in fact find, besides your angry outbursts, you are rational. I disagree with you on numerous points--not that your views have less merit than mine or more.

If you wanted an intersting title, you should have been prepared for some question marks about the slick practice of headling catching...

Second, I am actually with you on one thing Jigga--I think money should never come before public safety in Law Enforcement. And that means I never contradicted myself. If people are willing to pay, then yes, waiting would have been vastly the better option. You seem to think I hold the opposite view... On a side note, we agree even further. The war on drugs is not a good thing...

And lastly, a hockey team does not play in a line, one behind the other. The comparision is not worthy of you. Single file means the first person is by himself for as long as he acts solo... And in a time counted in gunshots, that is less than seconds.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
First of all, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since February 16th, 2006" href="http://dag.videosift.com"><STRONG style="COLOR: #008800">dag quotefail right above me again^ Neglect..NEGLECT!! (jk)
Second, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw did I say it was a comedy? I said I, personally speaking, use humor to deal with things I find repulsive. Maybe the title isn't as serious as it should be as is, but my intent was never to have anyone rolling in the isles. I wanted something catchy so people might actually watch it before absent-mindedly dismissing it without a second glance. As I said in the previous post, I feel like there is plenty of warning before ANY footage is even shown, the word "murder" is in the tags, I said in the description "be warned, this video is very graphic," and it's labeled NSFW. Anyone who says they "accidentally" watched this is fucking lying.
You say "Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor?"
>>>>>In short, if it means not needlessly killing someone because no one is in any immediate danger, yes. And I think people who value tax dollars over human life have morals that are askew.
But, then you go on to admit that "they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option."
And you have the balls to tell me that I'm contradicting myself? Do me a favor the next time you want to know what I think, just ask me since (and you can ask anyone in the "just sayin" conversation cringe ) I'm clearly a troll with assloads to say. That way you might get a slightly closer to the mark than you would inventing some hearsay nonsense.
Lastly, you mention the numerals involved. I don't agree that just because one cop pulled the trigger it was one cop vs one guy. The officers, even if they were ill coordinated, acted as a unit. I titled this without wanting to watch it again so I estimated the number of police. A re-watching had me count 7 cops walking through the door, 1 holding a camera, and 1 taking pictures with a flash in the background. By my count that's 9 officers ( acting in concert ) in total.
You wouldn't say that about a hockey goalie whose teammates were in the penalty box. The entire other hockey team would have one objective, to put the puck in the goal. Even if one person scored in some crazy twist of fate where all of the opposing team's hockey sticks didn't slap the puck in simultaneously, the announcer would probably say "________ team scored!!!" regardless of the fact that one person probably shot the goal.

Yeah.

My big question marks were --

I wonder about cause and effect -- just because something happened after something else happened, doesn't mean it caused it.

I wonder about diminishing returns. Yes, the economy was stimulated by the wholesale creation of a middle class, but surely that benefit must diminish as the middle class is created. It is like the Republican theory of raising more revenue by lowering tax rates. It works at first, then it doesn't.

I am a big fan of Mark Twain. In one of his books, he had this funny comment to make about extrapolation. Paraphrased --

Mississippi River gets shorter every year, because some of the twists and turns disappear as the river breaks through to cut off loops.

Extrapolating, if we go forward in time, in a million years ago the Mississippi will be one mile long. Going backward, the great river must stick out into the Gulf Mexico like a fishing pole.

I had that feeling while listening to this talk. Things are more complex than he is presenting.

By the way, I generally enjoy your comments on the sift.


Your comment (I cut off some of the programming, so the box has disappeared:
Ya, I thought the same thing as well. What he didn't talk about was what the taxation was in respect to total GDP. If he did, he would of had to admit the fact that taxes were lower as a fraction of total spending. That compared to today, taxes were "lower" for most every american, like 99% of them or whatever his statistic is. So even though you had very high marginal taxes, it didn't extract nearly as much revenue from the total economic system.

In his head he probably thought it would be a good way to reduce the number of question marks over his sexuality, but the rest of us know that he must have spent a lot of time practising and refining that technique not on his many sexual conquests, but more likely a mannequin in his mums basement. He's probably the kind of person who studies religiously for the possibility of intimacy in the same sort of way you might prepare yourself for nuclear war or the zombie apocalypse.

On the flipside, maybe I wouldn't be so lonely if my one true love hadn't ditched me because I failed to under those fucking hooks that one time. Goddamn, it like they were padlocked. WHAT WOULD THOMAS VOGEL DO?

Uuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

That was fantastic! I lost it when it was reading out "question mark exclamation point question mark exclamation point question mark exclamation point" and the next queued comment was "damn you to hell", and was cracking up for basically there on through.

Let me see... am I really asking...

Yes. I think the question mark makes it pretty clear that I was asking.

[redacted]

video - a lot of question marks to the comments as quality is really poor
audio - I do understand Polish and Russian, unfortunately above translation when someone says "don't kill me" is correct, and laughing people in the place of accident...

I don't believe it was an accident, but I believe we will probably never know what really happened. People who were in the plane were supporting 'Prawica' party and consequently they were not the best friend of 'Lewica' party (Mr Tusk)who supports Russia (Mr Putin).

All suspicious...

Yeah, you see that question mark at the end of the title? That makes it a question. I'm sure Steve has a long winded 'observation' about sentences that end with question marks.

>> ^handmethekeysyou:
I bet this comment would have at least 5 more upvotes if you had ended it with a question mark. I don't know why, just a feeling.

Yeah, yeah. I see it.

I bet this comment would have at least 5 more upvotes if you had ended it with a question mark. I don't know why, just a feeling.>> ^blankfist:
His finishing move was anal rape.

I'm talking to the chick in the video. Un-clench your duck-butt!!

Edit: and your headline says "UFO?Missile?Rocket?" ... You can just stop typing after "UFO" you don't even need the question mark.

Wow Enoch. Surly much?

- I never asserted anything about your beliefs hence the question mark after the last sentence.
I'll be sure to be more particular about my sentence structure and voice this time tho.

It's cool that you can see where i'm coming from on the second point. I'll expound on 1. and 3..

1. The intent would be to make a compelling/convincing point. Tho that doesn't mean it's compelling to everyone.

The batter victim argument appeals to my sense of logic..
It does seem abusive to tell someone they were born a fuck up, must jump thru contradictory hoops, and love some abstract thought deeply or truly enough. Otherwise, they'll suffer eternally.


3. I don't think atheism has some exalted status that makes you immune to all theist rebuttals.

I think you're construing belief or non-belief as definite absolute black or white.
It seems more accurate to imagine belief as a continuum.
These ads are pecking at those in the middle that could fall one way or the other.


- So if you're in the middle but logic is your bag. The abusive god premise might appeal to you and pull you into a more certain absolute atheism.

If you're in the middle and feelings are your thing. The pitiless indifference argument might sway you back into the church or personal spirituality.


- I only started a discussion with you because you seemed to be sorta naysaying the video without much justification other than " well that's dumb and would never work. And the people that made are dumb to think they're making a point"

All the comments above were just my two (maybe more) cents.

Jews kill Christian children and drink their blood?


See, the question mark makes it all ok!

Yet another example of stating an opinion by placing a question mark on the end. Is this guy an idiot?