@Asmo

On your comment:

The CIA's role in the 1953 Iran ouster is generally exaggerated. Several things - (1) by 1953, the Islamic clergy supported Mossadeq's ouster, something they have been suppressing ever since in inflating their anti-US stance (2) by the time of his ouster he also lacked the support of either his parliament or the people, (3) prior to it that year, he deposed his disapproving parliament with a clearly fraudulent 99% of the vote in a national referendum, (4) strictly speaking Iran was still a monarchy and the shah deposed his PM legally under the constitution, something that Mossadeq refused to abide by.

Did the UK put economic pressure on Iran when it threatened to nationalize its oil and usurp its remnants of imperialism? Sure. Did the UK then convince Eisenhower to mount a political and propaganda campaign against Mossadeq? Sure. Was that instrumental in fomenting a popular uprising of the parliament, the clergy and large portions of the 20m general population against him? Probably not.

Also I listened to it. Really, it's a meandering, probably scripted (the parts where he feigns surprise at the questioning is particularly humorous) that tries to generalize US actions, some of which were obviously harmful and support his argument. Putting Stalin in a positive light relative to the willingness of the US to use the bomb is, amusing? I'm not sure what to call it.

That the US needs a common threat to unite against holds some grains of truth in the present day but is really part of a wider narrative by Putin to construct the US as imperalist and domineering when by all accounts since the end of the Cold War, excluding GWB's term, it has been pulling back. It hardly needed to invent Iran's covert nuclear ambitions in the early 2000s, NK's saber rattling or China's stakes on the South China Sea islands.

Modern US foreign policy largely relies on reciprocation. The US provides a military alliance and counterweight to China's military for small SE Asian nations at a hefty cost to itself, and presumably gets various trade concession and voting support in various international agencies. The key word being reciprocation, something that Russia could learn a fair bit from in its own foreign policy.

Fuck that for a lark...

I've done some really fucking stupid shit in search of thrills, but I would be dead in the first 27 seconds... Multiple times...

Did someone purposefully line the sides of the trail with pointy tree stumps just for shits and giggles?? What's next, punji stakes, claymores and head hunting orcs?!?!?

You know that the tobacco industry isn't regulated either, right? The FDA has been wanting to for decades, but there's way too much money at stake for politicians to let that happen.

Shoes are not used in poker, only blackjack. Obviously, there are hundreds of variations of poker, and one could pretty much make one up on the fly, so I'm sure it has happened, but in general, poker is always played with one, untampered, fresh deck of cards. I believe for high-stake games like this, they probably unwrap a new deck before each game. This is likely a production error, somehow 2 queens have snuck in in the factory somehow. Seeing as they were literally together in the deck, they probably were stuck and had not been shuffled apart yet.

Your video, Two identical cards show up in high stakes poker game, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'll just say I must expect if you're so certain, you must put your money where your mouth is, and are looking seriously into buying as much beach front property in Vanuatu as possible. Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right? I have put my money where my mouth is, I have solar, I grow (most of) my own food, and I'm building a water catchment system.
Pay attention to what the scientists say, yes...but don't put too much stake in any single statement by any single group. Take the science as a whole, discard the crazed outliers, then examine and compare the remainder. After doing that, I always find that things are getting worse faster than nearly any study suggested it would, certainly more than the public 'consensus', in numerous ways that often re-enforce each other, and in ways that often were hidden under older study methods (such as the Greenland ice sheet, which is not only moving far faster than expected, but is also losing density much faster than expected, meaning older methods of measuring glaciers by size no longer apply...or the heating of the ocean where so much heat was 'hidden' in deep water, not found until recently so claimed to not exist, or the theory that certain diatoms might do better in acidic CO2 saturated water, but they found that that was wrong because in reality low light due to turbidity more than erased any positive effect.)

Today, one can find a 'study' to show anything one wishes, complete with scientists, data, conclusions, and affluent backers. The study you quote actually claimed that there will not be a loss of ice cover in Greenland and/or Antarctica, contrary to current conditions where there already IS loss of ice cover and it's accelerating exponentially. If you wish to believe that simply slowing the rate at which we increase the amount of CO2 we create by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous) I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida. The same goes for if you believe China and India are going to DECREASE their emissions. To date, they have done nothing but ignore their own additions to climate change as far as their energy production is concerned, they have not put extra money into 'clean' energy, but instead consistently go for the cheap, but dirty methods. There's no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 years as they ramp up their energy use to first world levels, that goes double if people are convinced (as you seem to be) that there's really no big problem with the climate, nothing to worry about, and any small inconvenience will be solved by technology and intelligent governments doing the right thing, even though it's the more expensive thing that they normally avoid like the plague. Unfortunately, history does not show that this is how people or governments operate.

Unfortunately, the law kind of errs on the side of caution for cops and everyone else when a gun is involved (Except the poor, the law never sides with them.) A gun immediately raises the stakes, period. The courts have unanimously ruled that they are to be taken differently. For example, you can shoot someone in the back if they don't drop the gun. Sounds harsh, but lets be real, they can turn in 2 second and shot. They can shoot others etc. This situation in the video is arguably different. Obviously the cops had a hard-on for making themselves look good. They deserve a trial that bankrupts them. But, as the law applies to everyone, they really can't be found guilty. George Zimmerman was found innocent and dumb motherfuckers on the Sift were amazed...but I told them the law was on his side from the start and they ridiculed me. Jokes on them--it was...and sadly it is on these cops' sides here...

Three things I have to say, @bobknight33:
1. You're complaining about christianity being attacked. Ok, fine, I'll tell you something: I am tired of your religious beliefs invading my life like an middle eastern dictator a small, oily country. Oh, I have it good, I'm a straight, white middle-european man, I'm fine so far. Others are not. They're tired as well.
I can go on a meth-bender, marry one of the Kardashians in Vegas and annul the whole affair in less than a week. If I win the lottery, I can post on Craigslist and get myself a nice gold-digging whore who'll sign a certificate that makes us husband and wife if I'm willing to trade lackluster blowjobs for money. Best part, it ain 't prostitution if you're married, legally worldwide. Heck, I can even become an abusive piece of shit as long as I can beat her well enough so she won't complain to others.
Because marriage is sanctimonious.
If I was gay and would like to marry the guy of my dreams that I've been with for 20 years, that isn't possible. Because the book doesn't approve.
If my sister got raped, you people would force her to birth the child of her rapist. Her concerns don't matter, life is a holy gift from god. Care to explain to me the position of the catholic church (you know, those christians that make up the majority of christianity) on slavery during centuries slavery? How holy was life in all those european colonies back in the day with all these missionaries teaching the good book? What exactly was their statement as an organisation when millions or people were murdered during the third Reich?
All that silence but when it comes to abortion, you people show up with guns and show the value of this great gift by murdering doctors. Fuck my sisters concerns, right? It just rape, walk it off.
I'm well of, I could join the club as a full member anytime. As long as I'm not calling the cops on the pedophile priests and the self-loathing faggots can stand on their pulpits and tell little children they're broken. I could be among you.
But I have a conscience. I can't buy all that talk about love and forgiveness and ignore all that hatred and cruelty that is in the very basis of your beliefs, that wretched, old bible of yours.
I have to look that man in the mirror in the eyes.
The only way you can impose all that crap on me anymore if through the government. I believe your faith has as much place in there than Tom Cruise's. None.
The Prodigy said it best and I think the people who lived at the time the bible was written would agree: Invaders must die.
Your religion invades my rights as a human being.

2. Did he rise?
Nope, little, brown Jewish got killed. End of facts, begin of story. I don't trust the testimony of men (and I said this before) who consider a walkman witchcraft. People at that time could be convinced that they farted because they swallowed an angry spirit that wants to escape.
You book did a terrible job of explaining how the world came to be (we're golems that had so much incest that they inbred mankind), makes up the worst disastermovies (everything turns to Waterworld but we have a boat with a pair of every animal in existence [imagine all those different kinds of ants alone] and then incest till population is back up) and turns mushroomtrips/mental illness in supposedly accurate future predictions (you know it's the end of the world because none of the riders is called "Incest").
The only reason people buy into the mythology and the extended universe (where's that bible chapter about Satan ruling the Sarlac Pit and Santa being canon again? ) is because for centuries children were taught it at a young age. And then you told them not to question it as heretics get the stake. Ashes yes but not the quick Buffy way.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Jesus fellow and I'm willing to believe his basic message but let's be honest. If J.K. Rowling was born 2000 years earlier, we'd pray to Harry Potter and wear lightning shaped jewelery around our neck. You guys got big because the Roman empire made you relevant. That's it.

3. What's up with '53'? Is that the christian answer to '42'?

He probably would have had a stern word with you about all the assumptions you're making too.

You've said the guy was unarmed as if it was an established fact when he was shot when it wasn't. You have said he was non-violent but his movement and demeanour certainly weren't submissive, and one really has to wonder what he was planning to do when he got close enough to the officer, kiss him?

My position in all this is that as a Brit I think it's madness that police have to go around with guns all the time. This simply couldn't happen in the UK so as far as I'm concerned it's a fully avoidable situation, just put all the fucking guns down.

However, it's really not that easy. Guns are everywhere in America so the police have to act accordingly. It's really easy with hindsight to say all the things you're saying but in the heat of the moment that cop has to assume the guy is armed and dangerous. That's the effect of having guns everywhere.

They're on the edge of a highway at night, the guy is lit with flashing lights and car headlights going past. This makes seeing bulges or anything like that that might indicate a weapon very difficult and yet you think the officer should have been able to tell this and be happy to risk his life on it? Bullshit.

People are suggesting that under the same circumstances it's a simple job to aim for an extremity and it's a guaranteed hit. Really? It's that easy? So easy you'd stake your life on it?

The guy committed suicide by cop. Plain and simple. He wasn't a compliant victim, he was a threat to the officer. His shuffling was strange and that in isolation isn't threatening, but shuffling closer and closer to an armed officer is a different story.

Maybe the cop should have pulled a tazer first? That wouldn't help much if the guy came out of the car with a gun. Or would it? I don't know. If a tazer would have worked in that situation please put me right, I'm no expert. To me it seems if a guy comes out of the car with a gun and points it at the officer then a gun would be more use in defence than a tazer. Same with pepper spray.

So maybe the officer should put the gun away as soon as he's established that the guy isn't armed? That's fine, I'm all in agreement there. But nowhere in the video is he able to establish that as fact. So if he started with a gun he sure as hell should still have it drawn all the way through this video.

I'm really fucking glad I don't have to deal with anything like this in the UK. It's shit that this happens. But given the prevalence of guns in the US I can't see any way this could have gone differently without risking the situation becoming like the videos reiwan posted.

OK, I see your point there. That kind of goes to my 'why are they both on the traffic side' though...although I grant he didn't really have much opportunity to move it to the side of the road. I would have retreated (edit: either on foot or in the car) when the guy got past his own trunk, but that's just me, and I'm obviously abnormal.

As to 'what happens next'...I want to say 'backup arrives', but I do see that he can't assume they will, maybe staking his life on that.
So, somewhat less outraged, but still quite disappointed that other methods were, at best, afterthoughts.

Making life and death decisions alone in the dark on the side of the road is hard. MmmmmK? And this is all Monday morning quarterbacking too with 20/20 hindsight. I do see that, lest you think otherwise.

Breaking News: Cop does NOT shoot suspect.

While I think its a good thing that he didnt shoot, I'd go even further and complain that he did DRAW a gun. That might have been warranted in this situation, but it seems to be standard practice to draw the gun (accompanied by loud, aggressive shouting) as soon as possible. It seems to me that this tactic is inherently unhelpful on several levels, firstly it makes it much easier to end the situation by trigger-pulling, secondly, but perhaps more importantly, it heightens the tensions and the stakes. Someone who has a gun drawn on them will intutively react with a form of panic. This combination is a recipe for a lethal ending.

Naturally, I understand the fact that the police has a dangerous job, and sometimes the threat of lethal force is warranted, but the bar should be high. Very, very high.

I don't have any personal stakes in anything on videosift.

I'm just wonder what makes you think the way you do.

I've provided ample evidence.

You refuse to acknowledge it because your mind is set in stone.

Watch that CGP Grey video about mind viruses.

Or research the study that shows even tho during Obama's tenure, millions of jobs have been created..

People who dislike or disagree with Obama - even when shown the proof of job creation - refuse to acknowledge the millions of new positions that have re-open or been created. i.e. lantern, bobknight

You're bias.

Your mind is made up.

You think that I'm wrong.

No matter how much evidence I plop in front of you.

It's okay. You're only human.

Night. Argue with you later!

You seem to have a high personal stake in getting someone who doesn't think at all about Sarkeesian to think about her in a bad light. Why is that, I wonder, and do you realize that bad publicity is better than none (for the publicized)?

WIIITCH!
burn him at the stake!

Oh, them? They retired and got a nice cottage in the woods They still have gorgeous wolves that protect them and they just LIVE off the land, you know.

Certainly no one gets DECAPITATED... Or... DECAPITATED WITH THEIR CHILDHOOD PET'S HEAD STAKED ONTO THEIR LIFELESS CORPSE.

Just happy in the woods. Singing songs from the Disney movie Frozen. Authors with "R.R." getting double penetrated in the middle of their name like happy places and happy things. Happy trails. That's how they roll, those double dicked R.R.s.