Your video, "I wanted donuts"., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks! I discovered Donut Media a few weeks ago and I have been hooked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMP3yi_uXTs&list=PLFl907chpCa6jrRxyMZOnIrC7UE5e1FI3 is my favorite show, but there are also many other themes.

Just park a car with laxative laden donuts in a NO PARKING zone near the police station. It's all about the bait.

Resource management within the police department shows a priority is locking up as many people as possible.

It's like leaving donuts everywhere to justify the expense of hiring an exterminator cause you got ants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYtaWJ6OHr4

Good news, but dollars to donuts he'll promptly get a job with a neighboring police force. His union will do all it can to see he has no trouble -- time they were outlawed.

1-3-5-7
Jelly donuts taste like heaven.
2-4-6-8
Put a dozen on my plate.

I've recently started playing Dirt Rally, which I suck at. Even with the slides and donuts he probably beats my best time to the top.

Nah, man someone just gave her some baklava - she'll be back in 5 minutes, just make sure you have some sushi or vegan donuts in hand!

I'll suck your dick for a cup of coffee, yea.
I'll suck your dick for a cup of coffee.
I'll suck your dick for a cup of coffee, yea.
I don't even want any creamer..
I think I'll take it black.

I'll suck your dick for a Voodoo Donut, yea.
I'll suck your dick for a Voodoo Donut.
I'll suck your dick for a Voodoo Donut, yea.
I don't even want any sprinkles...
It's just icing in my mouth.

I'll suck your dick for a plate of sushi, yea. x3.
I don't even cares if it smells like fish,
I'll suck your dick!

She's a 19 yr old homeless (has a temporary roof over her head) woman living in Portland.

After the video went viral yesterday she did a Reddit AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6w2772/my_video_ill_suck_your_dk_for_a_cup_of_coffee/?st=j6tytr7o&sh=5b8648ad

Her music on soundcloud https://soundcloud.com/myka-rasmussen

@ChaosEngine

i am trying to unpack your comment.

so you AGREE that attacking people you disagree with ideologically is wrong,but only if they are not self-identified nazis?

because 90 years ago these guys kinda cornered the market in nazism? and well..we don't wanna see a repeat of THAT now do we? so let's punch them in the face....

and that somehow punching them in the face will somehow magically halt any further encroachment of those dirty nazis!!!!

because it was so effective in the 1930's?

ok..how about this...

how about we daydream about cockpunching these knuckleheads,because it brings a smile to our faces but NOT actually punch them?

instead...we allow these cunts..who came to this gig LOOKING for a fight..to bluster and foam at the mouth.to spew their vile and vulgar message of racism dressed up as nationalistic pride,so EVERYONE can see.

and i bet you dollars to donuts one of them knuckledragging retards,who came all gussied up for a rumble...is gonna make a mistake...that inbreeder is gonna just HAVE to use his home made mace,or his shiny new gopher poker on someone...

probably one of dem darn "libtards".

and in this age of cell phone vigilantism,this is gonna get caught on video,posted to youtube and KABOOM!

white nationalist racist nazi party is forced back underground.

because you CANNOT fight fascism with a different flavor of fascism.

fascism is fascism yo,just because one flavor may taste better to your buds don't change that very simple truth.

the problem in this setting is you have TWO groups who are addicted to identity politics,and BOTH are convinced of their own righteousness,and BOTH groups suffer from a horrid case of groupthink.

and this ideological stand has them both certain of their righteousness,and this gives them a moral certitude that violence is an acceptable answer.

because they are the righteous.

sound familiar?

you mentioned 100 years ago,
i will match your 100 years and counter with the previous 5,000.

ideology homie..
the cancer of the deluded.
just ask any fundamentalist christian,or muslim,or jew.....

they will be perfectly happy to tell you how RIGHT they are,and how WRONG you are.

and this shit?
^ this psycho shit?
this is just a puss pocket,erupting from the internal corruption feeding on my countries soul.

economic collapse ain't gonna bring my country down.
nope..
it is gonna be the polarized politics that finally takes this country out.

i hate this..i seriously hate this...

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

It still is, and always will be, nowhere near clear who was the "lesser evil". The one thing I held to was that Trump was so incompetent that he really couldn't do a tremendous amount of damage in the long run. And he's certainly stirring up a huge resistance to everything he's tried. Admittedly, I didn't expect him to move so fast on so many fronts, but it's still not clear how much of his impact will remain in 5-6 years.

Clinton, on the other hand, would have faced resistance primarily from the GOP. And when it came dollars to donuts, money is what both she and the GOP worship...they could have passed a lot of legislation behind the public scenes. And very little of that legislation would have benefited anyone outside the 1%.

I'll stand by my refusal to vote for a corporate candidate.

Maybe the rest of you were unaware of the facts of this case until you watched some video but I researched this story in the 90's so this video by Adam didn't tell me anything new and Adasm didn't ruin anything for me. I simply disagree with the emotional bias people seem to bring to the case. In my opinion there is one issue. Was McDonald's negligent in serving coffee at 180F. The answer regardless of botched testimony is no. The proof is in the fact that virtually all major vendors of coffee from Starbucks to Dunkin Donuts serve their coffee at that temperature to this day. The difference now is that they are more careful about warnings and labels to let their customers know that, you know, their coffee is hot.

They could have made a case that the cup was too fragile but that wasn't the problem. The woman even made a point of saying that she opened the cup away from herself to avoid spilling but spilled it anyways which to me indicates that she was aware of the risk.

Were the woman's injuries horrible. Yes. Was McDonald's response and testimony incredibly douchy? Yes. Does that in and of itself make them liable. No

And @enoch thanks for the link to the video I watched 3 years ago. You'll notice I didn't upvote that one either. You could have linked me to the documentary "Hot Coffee" that I watched 5 years ago. Here's a new one for you but maybe you've seen it.
*related http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-About-the-Infamous-McDonalds-Hot-Coffee-Incident

Also, I may not be as much of a bleeding heart as you but no, not a sociopath.

Emergency? Was the donut shop throwing out the day olds and she had to beat the rats to the dumpster?
It sounds like she cut him off to chase him down so she could demonstrate her insanity for the camera because he only did what she paid for.
It sucks for the garbage company, because she's probably not insured and can't afford to pay for the damage she caused.
I'm guessing they'll be ending her garbage pickup after this.