HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

That cracked me UP something awful. LMFAHS



Reminds me of an episode of I Love Lucy where Lucy and her girlfriends were trying to play an upbeat song but it instead sounded like a funeral dirge.

But this is better because it's non-fiction.

*promote

Hardly fake, methinks. Just a real nut job, so to speak.

I was less thinking of his ballbag and more of his thighs potentially landing square on top of the vertical bars and skewering his upper-legs something awful.

Continued here: A known hateful, alt-right, racist demagogue said something awful about women and we are reeling from the surprise!!!

Remember kids, if you had the skill and determination to be born in America then you have earned the right for a job!

ps. fuck those entitled welfare leeches taking all our work!

It's certainly a complex economic issue that I won't pretend to have any deep understanding of, I just think the jingoism stinks something awful.

The worst offense I see with CG (aside from just poor implementation) is directors who don't keep in mind that their CG shots should still seem as though they were filmed by an actual camera like the rest of the film is. It's like since they suddenly don't have to worry about all the practicalities of actually filming something, they go overboard with the virtual camera flying around everywhere in all sorts of improbable ways. The disjoint tends to stand out something awful.

I've never heard of this, but it sounds an awful lot like stinky tofu, which made me dry heave, and I have a pretty solid iron stomach when it comes to external forces (smells, sights, ideas).

I'd like to see them give the kids durian because it stinks something awful, but doesn't taste like it smells.

Their reactions don't seem especially stupid. It's about what you'd expect. They are just regular people witnessing something awful.

well, that's just human, ain't it? to stand around when shit goes down and watch with anticipation of something awful to happen, preferably to some idiot you don't care about

The slabs are bouncing like Styrofoam-crete composites.
Something awfully cute about a Russian girl giggle, eh??..especially at dancing slabs!

Love the absurdity and surprise.

(Not a fan of the title, though. Almost didn't watch because it seemed like something awful was going to happen.)

Pretty tame stuff.

I remember when Something Awful used to do it's 'weekend web' articles trawling the stupidest web forums. They then turned the best ones into animations, which are watch-able on YouTube.

http://videosift.com/video/Demand-A-Plan-to-End-Gun-Violence

The list of who downvoted the vid is missing. Is that on purpose?

And this isn't a bug.... except to bug you.... there is something missing from Sift5 that us obsessed Sifters used all the time -- in the last version, if you put your cursor over your own name, a drop down menu would pop, showing you the details of your unsifted vids and your most recent published vids.

I miss it something awful. I know @eric3579 does, too.

Any chance it will come back, when there is time to "fix" it?

I'd appreciate knowing if it is NEVER coming back, so I can start my mourning process and can stop looking for it.

>> ^PlayhousePals:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^PlayhousePals:
You might not get injured, but there's no guarantee you won't step in some deep dookie from time to time =o)

Pretty much. I've been into "barefoot" running for awhile now. In that I've bought Vibram Five Fingers and other minimalist shoes. I don't actually run barefoot though. Just like every craze you get idiots that come with it and spout bullshit like this all day. This is my experience with minimalist running.
I used to have shin splints constantly, I don't anymore. I used to have knee problems and swelling, I don't anymore. I run much further than I used to, and I have less and less problems with minimalist shoes. Even wearing a pair of Nikes for a day makes my knee feel sore easily. So that's why I use them...if they work they work, no need for all this preachy bullshit.

I ran sprints years ago ... long before this form came to light. I imagine it would have taken me awhile to get past the creepy feeling of having my toes individually encased [shiver]. I'm intrigued by the concept though. It's good to read that it is working out well for you.


That's the thing...you don't have to wear those silly looking foot shoes. I do but that's cause I'm a dork. I also wear New Balance Zeros, which look like regular shoes but have a zero drop. There's also Merrells barefoot line which I like as well.

I ref soccer to make money, some games I end up running up to 5 miles. That's not a lot for the time I'm out there, but it's back and forth across a hard turf field. For a long time it would hurt my knees something awful, then my shins got into it and I could barely run. Started using zero drop shoes with a barefoot ride and ALL of my problems went away. My knees feel great now.

You don't have to look silly, this may not even work for you. It worked for me because I learned first how to run lightly, than got the shoes to help me remember to run lightly.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world..
Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault...
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well.

Exactly. Without war America goes back to the 30's - California's border closed, 400,000,000 acres of farmland turned to dust by greed and lack of regulation, stillbirths due to malnutrition, bank of America paying people (WHITE People!) 5c a day for picking lettuce and beating them in some cases to DEATH for demanding a liveable wage (it was 25c before the excess labour turned up from the dust bowl).
Then corresponding communist organisation by the workers, FBI involvent in repression via total constitutional breaches, etc etc.
Without WW2 it looked like civil war - or reduction to a slave force for big east coast finance. Then the massive battle fleet parked off the coast of Japan mysteriously provoked an attack - and whammo - a job for everyone, a new massive industry (still what America spends half of all it's money on to this day), and a border extended effectively all the way around the globe, allowing the cycle to start again except on a much bigger stage.
What happens now when the organisms reach the edge of the petri dish? Well, better stick some of that annual $1 trillion into FTL research cos we're going to need a new planet.
The choice - face up to it, or shout boo at anyone who tries to tell you the truth.


Welcome to the world of bullshit for people who only speak and know bullshit -- that's everyone, FYI. And it's going to be that way for all of time, whether it's at the workplace of 2012, politics in 3012, or Sunday school at the Grand Cabal's Science Center for Observable Theological Theory in the year 100,012. I already have FTL drives and I keep em powered up wherever I go.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.
This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.
I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.


Wow Yogi, we agree on something .

I think your view is pretty much bang on. The only difference between Dem. and Rep. presidents is the reasons they give for acting purely in their own self interests(which very often coincides with making decisions that are in America's self interests).

Where I disagree with Ron Paul's conclusion is about what the answer to all this should be. I don't for a second believe Ron Paul would be any different than all those before him. Instead of selfish wars he'd maybe follow the course of selfish isolationism. Take the recent example in Libya. America had two selfish options, go in or don't. Not going in would mean keeping the President's hands clean and money in America's pocket, and Ron Paul insists that what he'd have done. It also would have meant leaving thousands of Libyan civilians to Gaddafi's death squads. It would mean a Libya still ruled today by Gaddafi, with a newly subdued and less numerous population.

I don't see a clearly white/black obvious ethical choice in most geopolitical decisions, it's always messy. The Iraqi's that hate America the most(the Sadrists) don't hate them for all the things that America did to them, but for America's failures to act. The hate America for it's failure to push into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In lieu of that they want revenge on the Sunnis. They want to commit their own eviction of all Sunni's from Iraq, or in it's stead to kill them for what Saddam had done with their aid. Was America wrong to stick around in Iraq after evicting Saddam and trying to stand in the middle, stopping a civil war driven by revenge against the Sunnis?

Ron Paul and Chomsky are generally agreed on minding our own business is the only ethical choice. It's hard to make that argument for Libya. It's impossible to make that argument for Rwanda. There are situations in our world were the ethical choice IS to go to war and stop something even more evil than war inherently is. What Ron Paul and Chomsky understand though is that no matter how grave the evil you oppose, your actions will create people who hate you for interfering. War makes it inevitable that your own forces will commit crimes against innocents, and their families will hate you. Ron and Chomsky conclude that means never get involved, I call that cowardice and insist there are situations that demand paying that price and coming to the aid of our fellow man when faced with terrible evils like genocide. In theory, every signatory nation to the convention on genocide agrees with me on this point too.