Fuck pitbulls, and FUCK YOU pitbull owners. Go pursue an inane cause that doesn't require everyone around you to accept the premise that "don't worry, this bomb I bring everywhere won't go off while your kids are around. I'm a responsible bomb owner. Just don't make any sudden movements or anything that could potentially be taken as a threat, around my totally harmless bomb, or otherwise it might harmlessly rip your fucking face off."

The first time I let my dog within biting distance of a friend's Pit, she got bitten really hard, even though the owners were my friends, the dog knew me, and everyone was gathered around urging the Pit to be calm as we introduced the dogs. No warning, their Pit just clamped on the fucking neck of my black lab. If not for an instantaneous and well-placed kick in the side of the face from the Pit's owner, my dog's jugular probably would have been ripped in two. I imagined how I would feel if it had been my niece or nephews, and came to this conclusion: FUCK PITBULLS.... just because they're licking your face one moment doesn't mean they're not going to eat it off you the first fuckign excuse you give them.

The other weak-ass part of Pit owners' argument is this: When a black lab or even a german shephard decides to bite a person, a second person of reasonable strength can rescue that first person from the dog (if the first person can't rescue themselves). This is not really the case with Pits, unless the third person is willing to put themselves at risk (by trying to "wheelbarrow" the Pit for instance), or become seriously violent and murderous in attacking the dog (by picking up a brick and bludgeoning it in the fucking skull).

I guess that guy never saw the movie KIDS. You never mess with skateboarders. They all carry bludgeoning weapons and they travel in packs.

Glad the guy got a good group ass kicking though. He definitely had it coming. Anyone know if there were any arrests or anything regarding this video?

Your video, Mantis Shrimp bludgeons crab apart, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^Maze:
I was expecting some awesome killer strike footage or somethin'. What a tease.

Here you go: Mantis Shrimp bludgeons crab apart


Woo! Cheers.

>> ^Maze:
I was expecting some awesome killer strike footage or somethin'. What a tease.

Here you go: Mantis Shrimp bludgeons crab apart

i tried to sift this myself a while back and it got no love so i bludgeoned it to death. let's push it.

*promote

Examples, please, of theoretical gay marriage legislation that could be used to 'bludgeon' people in some unconstitutional way.

Bear in mind, these are people that have been bludgeoned for centuries the old-fashioned way by 'people who do not agree with the gay lifestyle.'

M'eh - another moron liar politician making up bull-crap stories to sell his point of view. Nothing to see here. The defense of traditional marriage has very little to do with cabals of old conservative guys who are homophobes. That is a strawman that pro-gay advocates set up every time they try to push thier agenda.

Defense of traditional marriage is more about making sure laws do not infringe on the rights and standards of people who are not gay. The problem with the gay community is in thier zeal and fervor to get what they want they always far over-reach the boundry of fairness with their proposals. Defenders of traditional marriage try to change the vague, hazy language of proposed laws into something concrete. They do this for the purpose of making sure the laws cannot be used as bludgeons on people who do not agree with the gay lifestyle. But the militant gay advocates refuse to make the changes.

End result - because the gay community is not willing to compromise the laws they propose always go down in flames. And they always will until they learn to compromise and allow defenders of traditional marriage the right to morally object to thier lifestyle.

"... fresh pictures suggested he had removed his shoulder number and covered his face with a balaclava before hitting Ian Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him to the ground last week."
(The Guardian)

Getting hit by a drunk driver in a crosswalk is wrong place, wrong time.

Getting struck by lightening is wrong place, wrong time.

Getting crushed by an I-beam that broke free from a crane is wrong place, wrong time.

Getting bludgeoned on the back of the head by a cop who purposefully hid his identity is not wrong place, wrong time.

I apologize. I was being defensive.

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
I don't care about most of that at all. I was just telling you I liked your writing. That's all.

I discovered that after I voted yes on the siftquisition. All I had to see was publicly viewable "conduct unbecoming" and I was in favor of a temp ban. Others weren't. If anyone asked me, I would vote the same way for BT.

I have nothing against you. I have no personal feelings about anyone here: I apply very clear standards about publicly viewable stuff that you are correct I wouldn't have cared about at all if BT hadn't shoved it in my face, but having it placed there, and seeing it was public, that's the way I will always vote. I'm one voice, and that's one incident. I have no problem seeing that my opinion of what's right is not what happens.

I"m not trying to rag on you at all. You did something--easily understandable or not--doesn't matter to me. I don't judge. I have no preconceptions about you or what you do in the future. I hope to see more of you, that's all. I was moved to tell you, not because I seek to bludgeon you into any behavior, but because I feel like telling people when their words charm me. It doesn't happen that often.

It was a small thing.

I don't care about most of that at all. I was just telling you I liked your writing. That's all.

I discovered that after I voted yes on the siftquisition. All I had to see was publicly viewable "conduct unbecoming" and I was in favor of a temp ban. Others weren't. If anyone asked me, I would vote the same way for BT.

I have nothing against you. I have no personal feelings about anyone here: I apply very clear standards about publicly viewable stuff that you are correct I wouldn't have cared about at all if BT hadn't shoved it in my face, but having it placed there, and seeing it was public, that's the way I will always vote. I'm one voice, and that's one incident. I have no problem seeing that my opinion of what's right is not what happens.

I"m not trying to rag on you at all. You did something--easily understandable or not--doesn't matter to me. I don't judge. I have no preconceptions about you or what you do in the future. I hope to see more of you, that's all. I was moved to tell you, not because I seek to bludgeon you into any behavior, but because I feel like telling people when their words charm me. It doesn't happen that often.

It was a small thing.

>> ^MINK:
has this election damaged the reputation of "Rovian" tactics more than anything else? i fucking hope so. just look at the difference in Condi and McCain when the pressure is off. It's exactly like fresh air.


thats what I was getting at as well, the Republicans just totally missed the boat with what the majority of the electorate would respond to. Divide and rule was effective when you could bludgeon the electorate into submission with "Support us or the terrorists win" type bullshit. But now that people have realised that there are more important problems out there, that no longer works. Thank the gods.

The trick is you have to earn exactly $200,000.00. You can't be over by even 1/10th of a cent. And if you are over by only a few cents Shulman gets to bludgeon you to death with a sack of rolled quarters and then sell your organs on the black market. An ingenious plan really.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Enter Single, 0 dependents and Income at $200,000. Wow, I want to be single with no children and making upwards of $200,000 in Obama's America!

^ Good point DFT!, I always thought that macs were better suited as blunt objects for bludgeoning rather than their intended purpose.

Right.

My point is that many of the "atheist" beliefs of today, especially "Religion shouldn't be a reason to kill someone" and "Religion should not be a way to guide government policy", which are ideas that people like Sam Harris use as a bludgeon against Christians, were themselves the results of Christians looking at how the world was going, applying Christian principles to them, and making changes for the better.

It's annoying to see people like Sam Harris not only set themselves up as opposing "Christians" on points like this, but also portraying Christians as parochial retards while still claiming he can act like a perfectly good Christian without believing in God (but what's the point in acting like a Christian if you don't believe in God?).

It's a hideously stupid and self-contradictory stance to take.