Although this trailer breaks new ground in the "unbelievably shitty and disappointing" department, I'm still going to watch this movie.

I personally don't follow the love for this guy.

He's fucking over a lot of people over what's really a very minor infraction that doesn't really affect anyone very negatively.

Pedestrians just have to shift their walking path over a few feet. The car isn't parked in the crosswalk, just stopped for the duration of the signal.

It's not really revenge for a guy to completely block a lane full of vehicles who've done no wrong when everyone in the crosswalk was still able to walk around the stopped vehicle.

It would have been a much better for him to stand partially in the way of the offending vehicle so that it could still go, but had to drive around him first. Still wouldn't be something I'd applaud, but it'd be more apt and would make him less of a dickhead to everyone trying to proceed with their life.

That's especially true for the second car which was only into the crosswalk very minimally. That's where the vigilante really proves he's just looking to stir up some shit, not really in the name of charity and good will shepherding the weak through the valley of darkness. (Redacted per @newtboy's comment below.)

sanctuary-frozen-80's metal band still going strong has been added as a related post - related requested by enoch on that post.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Brian-Wilson-God-Only-Knows

I may not always love you
But long as there are stars above you
You never need to doubt it
I'll make you so sure about it

God only knows what I'd be without you
If you should ever leave me
Though life would still go on believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me

God only knows what I'd be without you
(God only knows what I'd be without you)
If you should ever leave me well life would still go on believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me

God only knows what I'd be without you
(God only knows what I'd be without you)

God only knows
God only knows what I'd be without you
God only knows what I'd be without you

God only knows
God only knows what I'd be without you
God only knows what I'd be without you

God only knows
God only knows what I'd be without you

WHAT?!?
So, we can't beat them fighting in the middle east, but we should still go to war there to keep them from 'coming here'...exactly how does that work? By fighting an unwinnable 'war' and causing FAR more collateral damage than those we are attacking have we CREATE ISIS and it's cohorts, and give them a REASON to come to our shores. The 'came here' BECAUSE we invaded them and continue to occupy more and more and exert more and more outside control over them, not the other way around, buddy.
But don't get me wrong, now that we've created and armed them, we have a responsibility to 'deal' with them. I only wish we dealt with them by supporting the locals so much that they would rather support the US over others, rather than by bombing all of them and wondering why the survivors don't love us. That CAN'T stop terrorism, because it IS terrorism.
yeah, not too worried that ISIS might build a nuke any time soon, Iran hasn't.
When you shoot Dillinger in the head while he's handcuffed, and his dog, and burn his home with his family inside, and his neighbors homes, you will automatically create at least one Dillinger Jr., if not many. It's this dehumanizing, 'our fear outweighs your life' methodology that has created the problem where a large portion of the world hates us enough to be willing to die just to hurt or scare us, and I wish we would re-think it rather than keep doubling down and hoping for different results. It's doing the same for police lately.

I stand corrected.
I do recall reading that he did say, at one point, that aside from 'putting God above all else', the golden rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) is the most important thing to learn from religion...this seems to be at odds with supporting the bigotry and hatred of the 'law' (of god), although as I read it (what little I've read of it) the bible should be for telling the reader how they should act, not how they should force everyone else to act. I guess I ignored those parts that said you have to stone the infidels and such. :-)

There are three parts to the Old Testament law, civil, ceremonial and moral. The civil and ceremonial laws were given to nation of Israel only, not to Christians. The ordinances God gave to Israel regarding civil judgments, food and drink and the like are not applicable to Christians.

EDIT: And what happened to 'he died to absolve us of our sins'? If that's supposed to work, then there's no sin after the crucifixion, no? Is that something else I'm mistaken about, or was it a one time absolution only for those present at that time, with everyone else still hosed? If sin is gone, why care if your son is 'doing it' wrong, he'll still go to heaven, right?

Jesus provided what is called the "substitutionary atonement". Meaning, that Jesus took your place (and mine) on the cross and received the punishment for sin that we both deserve. He took the entirety of the punishment on Himself and through His sacrifice we can receive forgiveness for sins. He suffered and died vicariously for us, and through faith in Him we receive a blank slate and attain a perfect standing before God. His righteousness is credited to our account as if it were our own, though there is nothing we could do to earn it; It is only received through faith.

Jesus provided the atonement for all sin, but it isn't universally applied; It must be received by faith. When you stand before God and account for your life, you will be judged for your sins in one of two ways; either by your righteousness or Christs.

I stand corrected.
I do recall reading that he did say, at one point, that aside from 'putting God above all else', the golden rule (treat others as you would have them treat you) is the most important thing to learn from religion...this seems to be at odds with supporting the bigotry and hatred of the 'law' (of god), although as I read it (what little I've read of it) the bible should be for telling the reader how they should act, not how they should force everyone else to act. I guess I ignored those parts that said you have to stone the infidels and such. :-)

EDIT: And what happened to 'he died to absolve us of our sins'? If that's supposed to work, then there's no sin after the crucifixion, no? Is that something else I'm mistaken about, or was it a one time absolution only for those present at that time, with everyone else still hosed? If sin is gone, why care if your son is 'doing it' wrong, he'll still go to heaven, right?

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.

Sorry, you're right. Your one anecdote outweighs the thousands of man hours of research put into this. Tell me, does this restaurant not use soy sauce?

Yes, MSG is harmful to a small number of people ... if taken in large doses on an empty stomach, i.e. like pretty much every foodstuff out there.

And I don't know where you got the idea that the video claims that "deluded MSG haters need to be set straight". It simply states that the prevailing myth about MSG has no basis in fact, much like the other current fad, the gluten free diet

*related=http://videosift.com/video/You-Probably-Dont-Need-to-Be-on-that-Gluten-free-Diet

And meh, you got a headache... so what? People actually die from peanut and shellfish allergies, but most people still eat them. I'm not really sure what your point is, other than to raise a meaningless anecdote about a restaurant that gives you headaches, but for some reason you still go back to.

I'd love a car that could self drive, then you could sleep on your way to anywhere.

And if they can fit it with a decent traffic accident/traffic problem system and let people bypass then we wouldn't be sitting around doing anything in traffic as often.

There's still going to be shit falling into roadways, animals running out, car tires exploding, etc....but just taking the general stupidity and assholery off the road would be a nice change of pace.

@harlequinn, you do realise that NZ actually has quite sensible gun laws? You can own semi-auto rifles and so on but to do so you need a firearms licence. This includes not only a police check, but the cops will actually come to your house and check that you have adequate storage provisions for your guns. On top of that

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

- a history of violence
- repeated involvement with drugs
- been irresponsible with alcohol
- a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
- indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

To me those are perfectly reasonable and sensible restrictions.

@scheherazade, ah yes, the libertarian argument. I want a gun and fuck everyone else.

Kids getting shot at school? Fuck 'em, not my problem.
Random nutjob mows down a bunch of people in California? Fuck 'em, not my problem.

The fact is that guns do cause harm. The "people kill people" argument is beyond infantile. Of course, people kill people.... with a gun. It's a lot harder to go on a mass killing spree armed with a stick.

Here are the indisputable facts:
- There are some sick people out there. Some are just fucked up, some are in need of help.
- Sometimes these people snap.
- Sometimes when they do, they get a gun and kill a bunch of other people.
- If they didn't have a gun, the harm would be less.
I'm assuming no-one disputes those facts.

Now there are two solutions to this:
- Pro-gun advocates take the position that citizens need guns to defend themselves from this kind of situation. They often argue that instead of taking guns away from everyone, we should focus on either helping the mentally unbalanced or stopping them by shooting them.
- Gun control advocates take the position that if the shooter didn't have access to a gun in the first place, then maybe the whole mess would be avoided or at the very least minimised.

To me, it's a simple matter of practicalities. Option 1 is simply not working. We're decades (possibly centuries) away from completely understanding mental illness, that's if we achieve that at all. Meanwhile, crazy/insane/evil people are still going on shooting rampages.
And stopping them after the fact? That's pretty cold comfort to the people that have already been killed.

I am genuinely perplexed as to how people don't understand this.
Gun control works. In every other developed country in the world, there are reasonable and sensible laws restricting firearm ownership, and there is nothing like the kind of insane shootings we see on a regular basis in the US.

No-one is arguing that all guns should be taken away. No-one is saying you can't hunt or target shoot or even defend your home if necessary (although again, in the civilised world, most of us have no need for that).

But jesus, maybe you don't need an AR-15 with a massive clip. And is it that unreasonable to check to see if someone is mental or criminal before selling them a gun?

Apparently, in the US, it is.

Well, I do.

Yes, he's a con artist and a fucking idiot, but let's get some perspective here. He tried to scam an insurance company, he didn't assault or rape someone. He deserves jail time, not to be run over.

He's still a human being and he's still going to be incredibly seriously injured.

pfft, the rich have welfare, they just call it tax breaks, and they have the lobbyists to keep them.

No one wants those on foodstamps to use them for alcohol and other frivolous items. name me one non-foodstamp-using person who does? It's a strawman that the right obsessively cling to.

As with so many things, it's not about laws or bureaucracy, it's about enforcement. laws mean nothing without enforcement. I'm getting sick of seeing more and more panhandlers downtown where I live and I completely agree that handouts are not an efficient solution.

but you know what isn't a good solution either? negative reinforcement. We've been living under the conservative idea that if we just keep punishing the poor and making their lives more miserable, then obviously that will be motivation to not be poor.

IT DOESN'T WORK. maybe it works for a small percentage of people, but those people aren't poor then. so you have a group of people that are continually being punished and devalued for no good fucking reason because if they aren't motivated to not be poor under these kinds of conditions, then they never will be.

so again, we have this situation where there are two solutions that aren't really effective, but one is slightly less bad than the other. sure some people may use their foodstamps for alcohol and other shit...but many people do actually use their foodstamps for...food. shock.

Even if you had a much more equal distribution of wealth, we're still going to have poor people and people in poverty.

I think the issue is largely mired in health, physical and mental. Even with all our technology...mental health is still unreliable and some people are so physically impaired that they can't work or work well.

Despite largely claiming to be pro-life, the right would either secretly want them to die alone in an alley or make them indentured servants to some corporation if they aren't already. That, I submit, is no life, at least not a good and healthy one.

I don't have the answer, all we can really do is point out that many of the things we've tried aren't working and will never work, and even if there are some successes, it's still largely inefficient, but what's the alternative? if you are "pro-life" then an inefficient solution is still preferable to a solution that simply doesn't work. So I call bullshit on people who like to claim they have the solution. If someone out there has the solution, they certainly haven't demonstrated it yet.

That being said, I'm still going to try this, but I'll follow along on mute.

Ok, I will grant your point about ignorance vs malice, and certainly for uneducated people in decades past it's understandable that they just went along with it because they didn't have access to the information.

But it's 2014 and it's still going on, and the US of all places. It's not like the information is hard to come by.

Call me crazy, but maybe when someone suggests cutting pieces off your child, you should take a few minutes to research it?

As I said before, what mentally competent adults do to their own bodies is their own business. The only reference I could find to the alligator people is 1950s horror movie, but I have no problem with it as you describe it.

Regarding the "hardcore nipple chafing" (and this conversation is REALLY starting to get weird now ), if there was a real, practical reason, then that certainly mitigates it, but then the analogy is kinda muddled, because there is no real practical reason for circumcision. It's purely a cultural/idealogical practice. Again, I don't have a problem with that in adults (you're not hurting anyone but yourselves), but it strikes me as a particularly messed up thing to do to defenceless infants.