-The lesson: Life is good and this beat-down is 'proof that a life worth living draws blood!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Transporter 2, fire hose beat-down. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

God, morons like these need to cop a beat down. The cops are just trying to do their job and seem pretty reasonable. Simply asking your name is no reason to act like a complete and utter wanker towards them.

>> ^Barbar:

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.
Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.
What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.




I pretty much agree with Barbar.

And, criticizing Santorum doesn't mean I can't criticize Obama. His appeal to religion is nowhere near the same level as Santorum's, but I don't like either tactic. I think it's more in line with how things are "supposed" to run to leave religion out of the entire process, no matter who is running.

I use more than two brain cells when I think, and when I do, I infer that the right usually have specific social policies in the crosshairs when they try to get us revved up by using religion. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. These are all specific issues that are directly impacted by the Right's appeal to Christian voters. They aren't shy about name calling (neither is Winstonfield_Pennypacker it seems). They tend to forget, if they were to be elected, they would have to represent all Americans, not just Christians.

And so, while I'm not a fan of Obama's appeal to churches or religion, it's different from the way Republican candidates, namely Santorum, invoke religion to get a vote. If you look at my previous posts, I make a pretty clear distinction between an individual stating his believe and a government official letting his personal religion guide policy. The thinking seems to be: Since most of us are Christians let's use religion to our political advantage.

So, when religion becomes a justification of the decisions our government makes, we need to call them out.

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.

Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.

What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".

Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

I've always thought this is how the Antichrist would show up, if he existed. Beating down all the pussies with his fists, and no one can stop him. No blades, no lightning bolts. Just badass viking everyone like a boss.

Uh - no offense - but Frank Luntz is about as 'insider' as you can get. He is not a conservative. He is a GOP wonk. Putting it simply - he's one of those RINOs that real conservatives can't stand and who sells true conservatism down the river every chance he gets.

The GOP insiders want Romney. They want Romney because he is the person they have polled as being the most 'normal'. Above all else, the GOP insiders want someone bland, flavorless, and easy to swallow. They don't want the Sarah Palins, or the Herman Cains, or Ron Paul, or anyone else. They want vanilla, plain-jane, smart sounding, pretty for the camera, non-controversial candidates.

Romney would probably lose to Obama though. So why does the GOP want him? Quite simply, the GOP (as a political party) wants to keep the House, and win the Senate. And they think that Romney is the guy that would give them the best chance to do that. He is so inoffensive, that he would not really 'damage' the critical House/Senate races they want to win in 2012. And if the GOP keeps the House and wins the Senate then the GOP gets to head up all those committee chairmanships, get charge of all the appropriations, and basically run the show. They wouldn't care whether Obama was still President as long as they got to run the town. That is the perspective that Luntz is coming from. Any candidate that risks the GOP 'master plan' is seen as someone to beat down and toss off the overpass rolled up in a flaming carpet.

The normal voters don't give a flying handshake about OWS. OWS is a bunch of freaks, losers, and radicals who will have absolutely no impact on the presidential election whatsoever. But they have a remote chance of messing up a few House & Senate races... That's the only thing our dear Frank cares about.

This is the first video I've seen where a demonstrator deserved their beat down.

He was confrontational and threatening to the police, I'm quite surprised the vocal officer gave him the option to back off and not get beat/arrested. I can't feel sorry for this idiot.

protesters should move on from practicing their 1st amendment right to practicing their 2nd amendment right and execute these treasonous bastards and hang the politicians and fat cat bankers from the street lights.

just as leading up to 1776 started off with peaceful protests and gatherings and nothing ever changed and were beat down or jailed for speaking out, until protesters back then had had enough and took up arms to force change and to take our country by force.

the same needs to happen now.

Benjamin Franklin said it himself a country needs a revolution every 200 years to avoid a tyrannical government from taking hold.

If it could be proven, as in the thug admitted that the only reason he attacked is because the other kid seemed gay? Other crimes aside, if you punish the thug for that, then please openly abandon freedom of speech and thought in the name of safety and protecting feelings, because you can't have it both ways.

Apparently Asian kids are targeted for bullying more often than gays, but Asians have never been in vogue with the left. Maybe next year!




>> ^Kofi:

What if it can be proven?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Orwellian "hate crimes" are total bullsh1te. Does it matter why some thug attacks an innocent? Maybe he hated the logo on the victim's jacket. Maybe earlier he saw the victim had a large amount of cash and attacked him to steal it under the guise of bullying. Not only are hate crimes unconstitutional, as critics point out, they make crimes harder to prosecute.
Punish the crime, not what is the assumed motive.


Oh critics say something...well they must be right...make crimes harder to prosecute...yeah must be true. Please present some evidence for your claims.

Also I disagree it's Orwellian unless it's the powerful subjugating the weak with thought crimes. When it's a law for protecting the weak and minorities, I don't agree. Just doesn't make sense unless the scales are balanced.

>> ^conan:

besides the homophobic backgroud: what happened in schools that suddenly beatings are so brutal? there has always been fighting in schools and there always will be i suppose but back in my days it was just a simple hit and not even to the face or anything. a simple bruise at most. but nowadays? kids act like loonatics, going full assault on each other. beatings to the head, kicking, continuing even if their victim lies on the ground... i just can't get my head around it how violent youth has become.


Super violent outbursts are exceptional. Remember these kids are pounced on for showing any masculinity at all in school - sometimes they snap but usually not. Schools are run by soccer moms now and they're trying to androgynize all the boys completely. I was shocked to hear from my nephews than in their school the girls get in more fights than the boys. Most the boys I see now are 'edgy' Bieber haircut guitar playing moody half women.

A tad oversimplified imo. Here in Switzerland we gobble just as much Hollywood as Americans do, but when stuff like that happens in school a) the teachers are on the kids back in a matter of seconds b) the kid goes to court (if found guilty: criminal record and fines to pay, not jail time).

I think the first part of your response is closer to the point: it's a culture of tolerating homophobia (and other forms of hate/violence towards the Other) as "freedom of speech/religion". At least that's how it seems seen from this side of the pond.

>> ^rougy:

It's our culture. It's Hollywood. A peaceful rectification doesn't sell tickets.