Like how the cop says about how it will go in court implying that the police are believed to be telling the truth over the citizen..

Great job of not even trying to see it from the riders perspective as he was in an unmarked car.

The cop seems to be acting like someone caught red handed and embarrased about it.

>> ^Jinx:

So what he is saying is that he takes gun safety seriously but you know, play with guns enough and this happens? Ok. Good thing it wasn't life threatening and he had his parents on speed dial. Anyway, thanks for the cautionary tale Tex, I've taken it to heart and decided not to own a gun.


Soumds t'me like your decision was made before Tex's embarrasing demonstration viddy of how-NOT-to draw a pistol here swayed yer judgement regarding the stated dilemma... If safety be your primary concern, there's more than a century of data on the subject that pretty much proves that guns are safer than store-bought apple juice or alfalfa sprouts!! Factor in the latest technology behind the manufacturing and you may as well play naked football on the expressway at rush hour as walk yer doggy!

>> ^probie:

Funny how much he squirmed. As much shit as he's dished out over the years? Suck it up, Trey.


Yeah, because he didn't provide them with the tape or anything... And it wasn't pre-arranged... nooooo

You da man! Thanks brotha!
In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote

>> ^ChaosEngine:

My day job is programming, so you would imagine I'd spend a lot of time typing, but you'd be wrong. Because the editor understands the context of what I am writing, I rarely type more than a few letters before the editor suggests what I want. Obviously human languages are much more complex and ambiguous, but a best effort is certainly possible.


I know where you're coming from (developer myself) - but the ambiguity of natural language is exactly the problem. At least from my experience, the rate of errors in business mails nowadays from some clients would have been unacceptable just a few years ago. And frankly, it's embarrasing. But everyone seems ok with it: "Haha, stupid autocorrection! :-)" - it drives me nuts!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'thug, wushu, martial arts, fight, embarrasment, fight scene, asia, Donnie Yen' to 'wing chun, thug, wushu, martial arts, fight, embarrasment, fight scene, asia, Donnie Yen' - edited by xxovercastxx

I've known it was sort of the un-official national anthem for Australia since I was little (I was there when I was 9yrs old), so I guess I've always heard it in an Australian voice.
I also had a music box as a child that had Waltzing Matilda as it's song.

How well known it is to others, I don't know. I always seem to be the one that collects odd little facts.

Lol, nice accent, btw.

Cheerio!

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
(clears throat, puts on posh British accent) Oh, how embarrasing! I've been caught commiting an Australianism!

How well known is that ballad in your parts? I remember listening to it in primary school music class, many moons ago :, so it hadn't really crossed my mind that it might've had much exposure outside Australia... and yet here's an Irish cover and you seem more familiar with another version.
In reply to this comment by AdrianBlack:
I have always loved story songs/ballads. That was fun to hear in an Irish accent!

Thank you, btw! Tis what I do. *grins*

sunnies....cute.

(clears throat, puts on posh British accent) Oh, how embarrasing! I've been caught commiting an Australianism!

How well known is that ballad in your parts? I remember listening to it in primary school music class, many moons ago , so it hadn't really crossed my mind that it might've had much exposure outside Australia... and yet here's an Irish cover and you seem more familiar with another version.
In reply to this comment by AdrianBlack:
I have always loved story songs/ballads. That was fun to hear in an Irish accent!

Thank you, btw! Tis what I do. *grins*

sunnies....cute.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'thug, wushu, martial arts, fight, embarrasment, fight scene, asia' to 'thug, wushu, martial arts, fight, embarrasment, fight scene, asia, Donnie Yen' - edited by Sarzy

it sucks when people actually destroy your arguement with facts, documentation and links

and not just the info you present, i mean the way you actually present your arguement

gosh, i'd be embarrased to believe in creationism right now if this was the result of my presentation

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

LOL!
The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.
You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."
Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."
It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.


You call in to question my character by calling me 'fake' and wonder why I might take offence? I don't mind you critisising the points of my arguement, but don't try to suggest that I'm simply doing it to score points on here. I am not a troll and I am always genuine when stating my position. I will concede that I can't know for sure their exact orders and was wrong to claim otherwise, I based my statement on the evidence of recent US actions. I should have used the term "highly likely".

However! You don't get away that easily, please answer my question. Do you think it is okay for someone who has been accused of committing crime to face execution without trial? (Whether or not capturing Bin Laden was even possible in this case)

>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.


LOL!

The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.

You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."

Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."

It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.


Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.

Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?

Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

>> ^BoneyD:

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".


Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.


I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.


To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.

The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

>> ^BoneyD:

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".


You think a "trial" would be any better? Osama admits he's guilty, and he's proud of it. His death is inevitable, and at least this way we don't have to go through the whole dog and pony show and build him up as even more of a martyr. This is the perfect way to end this: if you fuck with us, you're going to die. There's no sanctimonious we're-morally-superior-than-the-world bullshit, just practical reality. If you believed for this long in America's moral infallibility, this will hardly change your opinion. And frankly, if not giving Osama a trial is the worst that the US ever does, I'd say that America's pretty fucking awesome.