>> ^Fletch:

He went with the odds. Lost. Not a dumb move, necessarily. Just unlucky. Still got $200 bucks out of it, which is more than all the other non-winners got.


Well, given that the two cars are worth around 50k each, and only 100 tickets were given out in total, the expected value was at least a grand. So yeah, not the best decision on his part

He went with the odds. Lost. Not a dumb move, necessarily. Just unlucky. Still got $200 bucks out of it, which is more than all the other non-winners got.

Apparently the guy tried to lean on the pool stick, but it broke, sending his head into the pool table. Seems he got extremely unlucky and his temple actually hit the side of the table, instantly knocking him out.

seems unlucky, so unlucky he was almost squish by two cars ?.?

guys you just dont understand how it works ,

some times you have bad days sometimes good ,

he was just unlucky if you dont belive in ghosts and spirits your all fools.

>> ^Payback:
BOINK


Unlucky :<
*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Base-Jumping-Switzerland

Wow, look at all the votes on this one, looks like I am just on an unlucky streak - Awe-well, Congrats!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Not really my usual MO either, but I thought: the world could use some more misogyny!

In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
Ya, go for it, I had no luck with votes (after24hrs) on it and it wasn't my style of post so I moved on. Maybe you can do better! Good Luck!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I think this was hilarious.. In fact, I think I'm gonna try to get it sifted.

edit: There we go http://www.videosift.com/video/Sluts-spilled-neighborhood-stink-of-perfume-and-tequila

In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
*discard

>> ^Croccydile:
I think this sequence is one of the quickest happy to sad transitions ever... hell barely 10 minutes into the movie you feel pretty bummed after this.

I knew it was coming. As soon as they started the sequence, I thought, "Aw, hell naw. She's not in any of the previews. She's no character - she's an emotional sledgehammer."
And I still got a little misty-eyed. Bastards. Played us like a damn fiddle. (Then we see what's in the Adventure book for a second kick in the junk.)

Also, the only good 3D movie made so far to me. None of that deliberate "HEY! Lets point something at the camera!" crap you see in every other 3D film lately. (If you were unlucky enough to see say, Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D like I was, you know what I'm talking about)

Have you seen Coraline? I thought the 3D there was subtle, yet effective.

I think this sequence is one of the quickest happy to sad transitions ever... hell barely 10 minutes into the movie you feel pretty bummed after this.

Also, the only good 3D movie made so far to me. None of that deliberate "HEY! Lets point something at the camera!" crap you see in every other 3D film lately. (If you were unlucky enough to see say, Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D like I was, you know what I'm talking about)

How unlucky. Destroy a Veyron and get it caught on film. Ouch.

First of all, being "good" has nothing to do with religion. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism explains being good, and why atheists don't all go around killing and raping.

Religion has an organized system with which it attempts to train and instruct people in how to 'be good'. Atheism does not. Is religion perfect at it? Of course not. But having a group that teaches a moral system is more likely to result in a moral people. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism without an underlying moral system to support it is rhetorical.

Second, if our problems were being solved by compassionate people at an individual level, we wouldn't have problems big enough to be addressed by collective (government) action.

This is an 'either or' point of view I reject. Using your logic, is it not equally fair to say that "If the problems were being solved by putting them in the hands of government, the USSR wouldn't have had problems that needed addressing?" Clearly the problems are NOT 'solvable' under ANY system. Therefore your statement is a logical fallacy. We do not need government programs merely because private ones have difficulties.

People place these responsibilities in the hands of PRIVATE CHARITY because most feel completely unable to help individually, so we choose to give a portion of our income so that we may, as a group, fund PRIVATE CHARITIES that have a chance of helping. And if they are flawed, then it is our responsibility to try to fix them.

See whut I did ther?

I would love for you to define "personal freedom".

Sure - the ability to think and act as I wish. That includes all levels of the human condition including social, personal, intellectual, emotional, physical, and FINANCIAL freedom.

Like the struggle now for health care, which is overwhelmingly supported by the majority.

That 'overwhelming support of the majority' explains why 52% oppose it I guess...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

So let me summarize, the conservatives who are "rugged individualists" say if you are unlucky and $#it happens to you, well then you are ****ed.

And you say my perspective is warped. Such didism as you spew here is the epitome of warped, even brainwashed, perspective. Conservatism says "If you can take care of yourself - you should." People who can afford insurance (even if it isn't 'convenient') should pay their way. Conservatives are more than willing to volunteer time, money, and help to those who need it - but that aid is not in the form of an involuntary, confiscatory tax going to a wasteful government program. It is in the form of personal, individual, freely-given time, talent, and resources.

Whereas the liberals say that any one of us at any time could face difficulties, so we should collectively try to support those that are worst off.

That isn't a liberal approach. That's a CONSERVATIVE approach. Your problem is that the FORM of your 'collective support' is politically liberal - I.E. an involuntary, forcible tax going to an iefficient, ineffective program. And you don't see how wrong that is. 'Collective aid' does not have to be 'forced taxes' or 'government programs'.

Now it may be the case that every program we try to implement is a "spectacular failure", but at least we are trying.

Private, volunteer efforts are also 'just trying' - and they don't strip away your freedoms.

In conclusion, if you feel that PRIVATE programs are not working, then you should be working to fix them or supporting people with plans on how to fix them, rather than simply giving up and trying to remove them.

C whut I did ther again?

Killing a program like social security may save you ten bucks a month, but it wouldn't help anybody.

It would save me over $100 a month. That is $1,200 a year I could be investing in my own retirement plan. Then when I retired I could be a multi-millionaire and wouldn't need Social Security. Now imagine millions of retired people who DON'T NEED SOCIAL SECURITY because they are all multi-millionaires. These people would have money for thier own medical care, to purchase goods & services, travel, or whatever else they want. They could also contribute to charity, and help out the needy because they were in a position to lend a helping hand instead of need government subsistence checks just to pay for utilities. I'd call that helping EVERYBODY. Would there be a few hard luck cases? Sure. Again - they could be helped without the spectacular failure that is the Social Security program.

Wow, you have a very warped mind.

First of all, being "good" has nothing to do with religion. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism explains being good, and why atheists don't all go around killing and raping. Religion wraps around that fundamental human instinct and falsely claims ownership of it.

Second, if our problems were being solved by compassionate people at an individual level, we wouldn't have problems big enough to be addressed by collective (government) action. People place these responsibilities in the hands of government because most feel completely unable to help individually, so we choose to give a portion of our income so that we may, as a group, fund programs that have a chance of helping. And if they are flawed, then it is our responsibility to try to fix them.

I would love for you to define "personal freedom". I define it as being able to do what I want when I want. I accept limitations that prevent me from adversely affecting others, because I don't want them adversely affecting me. I suspect you define personal freedom as "keeping my income", which is a valid desire, but selfish and in my opinion shortsighted.

As a society, we have decided we want support when we are layed off, education for all children independent of ability to pay, support when we are old and our savings run out, police, fire fighters, etc. If at any point the majority of us decide we don't want these anymore, or that the systems are broken and need to be redesigned, that should happen. Like the struggle now for health care, which is overwhelmingly supported by the majority. Only the massive funding of corporations prevents it from being a smooth implementation.

So let me summarize, the conservatives who are "rugged individualists" say if you are unlucky and shit happens to you, well then you are fucked.

Whereas the liberals say that any one of us at any time could face difficulties, so we should collectively try to support those that are worst off.

Now it may be the case that every program we try to implement is a "spectacular failure", but at least we are trying. That's what I consider compassion. And I consider it a "personal freedom" that I don't have to fight tooth and nail to stay in a sucky job because I'm afraid of starving. I would also consider it a personal freedom if one day I might get sick and simply get treatment instead of dying or going bankrupt.

In conclusion, if you feel that government support programs are not working, then you should be working to fix them or supporting people with plans on how to fix them, rather than simply giving up and trying to remove them. Killing a program like social security may save you ten bucks a month, but it wouldn't help anybody. And if you then wanted to support a local program that made sure senior citizens didn't starve to death, you'd have to pay a lot more than ten bucks a month because there would be a lot of people who wouldn't help. Probably your "rugged individualists" who want to keep their paychecks.

One of my friend's fathers once chased a census worker down the road while brandishing a katana. Not a lie. The father WAS insane, but yeah, still! It happens, I suppose? Maybe Census workers are the expendable unlucky henchmen of the US government?

"The marijuana growers, who often booby-trap their pot fields with trip wires, present a danger to the public and destroy forest preserve land"

I wouldn't want to be the unlucky guy who finds that trip wire.

>> ^notarobot:
Unlucky Fried Kittens was one of my favorite restaurants before I stopped eating at places that made me throw up.


bwahaha UFK