cool video, though the lady seems to have no idea what the term "useful information" would mean. Like the fact that there are two people which doesn't get said till the very end and perhaps, their height, clothes beyond the white shirt, etc. Stressful situation but basic stuff. All's well that ends well though. Wonder if she got her other stolen stuff back now that they caught these guys?

Okay, how about the fact that they tried to assault him? That makes them bitches. >> ^Fletch:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
While "bitch" is merely an adjective applied to someone, it is most typicall applied to females. Were it a guy doing the same thing, he'd be a dick. Calling someone a bitch is NO WHERE CLOSE to hatred of women.>> ^Fletch:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.
Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

Sorry, but the masculine form of "bitch" is not "dick". That's like saying the caucasion form of "nigger" is "whitey". It shows a complete lack of understanding of what the word means to (many, most) women. if that's even possible. If you could come up with a single word that translates "worthless pussy with legs" with an extremely contemptible tone, it could be "bitch". It's less than a dog. It's a baby mama who you wish would just shut the fuck up, get her funbags in the kitchen, and make you some goddamned pancakes. That's my take on it anyway. It doesn't matter what you think it means. It doesn't matter how you intend it. The kiddies nowadays may throw it around like you throw around the f-word (and connotations thereof) in your video titles, but, age-wise, you are no kiddie and should know better. It speaks volumes you are even defending it and the ignorant bitch who started this thread.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

While "bitch" is merely an adjective applied to someone, it is most typicall applied to females. Were it a guy doing the same thing, he'd be a dick. Calling someone a bitch is NO WHERE CLOSE to hatred of women.>> ^Fletch:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.
Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

Sorry, but the masculine form of "bitch" is not "dick". That's like saying the caucasion form of "nigger" is "whitey". It shows a complete lack of understanding of what the word means to (many, most) women. if that's even possible. If you could come up with a single word that translates "worthless pussy with legs" with an extremely contemptible tone, it could be "bitch". It's less than a dog. It's a baby mama who you wish would just shut the fuck up, get her funbags in the kitchen, and make you some goddamned pancakes. That's my take on it anyway. It doesn't matter what you think it means. It doesn't matter how you intend it. The kiddies nowadays may throw it around like you throw around the f-word (and connotations thereof) in your video titles, but, age-wise, you are no kiddie and should know better. It speaks volumes you are even defending it and the ignorant bitch who started this thread.

While "bitch" is merely an adjective applied to someone, it is most typicall applied to females. Were it a guy doing the same thing, he'd be a dick. Calling someone a bitch is NO WHERE CLOSE to hatred of women.>> ^Fletch:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.
Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.

Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

WHINING LIKE A CHILD IS NOT HELPFUL IN AN ASSAULT.

That dumb old lady didn't do a goddamn thing but be dumb.

@petpeeved

"Thursday the argument began between employee 31-year old Rayon McIntosh and two friends" [as per Bareboards info]

If you're friends with someone, I think you would probably know if they were a felon or not. Unless they just became friends 5 minutes before the attack.

Second of all, STFU you Politically Correct Lovey Dovey overly sensitive child.

Calling some dumb bitch a dumb bitch is appropriate if he or she is a dumb bitch.

Slapping someone makes you a Bitch[or Jerk or Douche]. Starting a fight with a MURDERER makes you Dumb. Hence DUMB BITCHES.

On top of that, much worse shit happens to millions of people all over world on a daily basis.
And much braver people do much more to help in those situations than just stand and shout.

That old lady is NOT a Hero. You have to be heroic for that.
So clearly you're being just as hyperbolic to counter what you see a "people being mean".

When in reality, Me and Darkhand and Budzos are being practical.

HE KILLED A MOTHERFUCKER.

You don't fuck with a felon and if you gonna make a difference you have to ACT.

Not just use rhetoric in an attempt to persuade an ENRAGED MURDERER that his murderous intent is misguided. Again, you have to be HEROIC to be a Hero.

Stop talking like the world is made of rainbows and gumdrops dude.

This shit wasn't that bad in the scheme of things.
Plus those dumbass ladies should have known better.

End of Story.

>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.


I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.

Serious *eia moment there.

This will not end well.

@quantumushroom the response you'd get from modern Keynesians like Krugman is that the New Deal wasn't a big enough fiscal stimulus to fully end the depression and bring the country back to full employment, but it did help.

Look at unemployment during the Great Depression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif

It rose starting in 1929, and kept going up while Herbert Hoover implemented tight monetary policy, fiscal austerity, and refused to interfere with the banking sector out of concern for creating moral hazard. The peak closely coincides with FDR's New Deal taking effect. After that, it fell fairly rapidly. As spending grew, GDP went up, and unemployment went down. The reversal happened in 1937 when they decided that the depression must be over, and switched to trying to reduce deficits, and tighten monetary policy again (to return to the gold standard). The economy crashed in response. So they resumed it, and the economy started getting better again.

What happened at the end? Well, the giant fiscal stimulus (and not incidentally, the near total socialization of the American economy), known as World War II, which brought us back up to full employment again.

Those data points all support, not discount, Keynes's General Theory.

Haven't these people seen Dirty Dancing? Back alley abortions never end well. You don't just kill the baby, you kill your ability to dance.

>> ^swedishfriend:
statistics, physical reality: no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails. No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian. If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop. At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop. It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.

You have a very strange sense of logic. Let's look at the facts:

1) The man immediately got out of his car, confronted the cop and then put his hand into his pocket.
2) The man was wearing a baggy sweatshirt and baggy pants, both of which could easily conceal a weapon.
3) The man completely ignored the cop's orders.
4) While ignoring said orders, the man actually approached the cop.

Given these facts, it's very clear that the man was neither calm nor rational. Do you really believe that the cop should have ignored these facts and thought "Well, statistics show that there's only a 20% chance that this guy is going to attack me so I guess I should holster my weapon and relax"? And even if the cop did indeed do that, how do you think the man would have responded to being told that he was pulled over for a crooked license plate? Given his already belligerent behavior, do you think he would have just said "Oh, okay" and suddenly become compliant? I doubt that very much. In all likelihood, he would have only become more hostile and the situation would have been escalated.

Cops can never assume that a suspect is harmless, especially when that suspect is acting aggressive and confrontational. You can cite all the statistics you want but common sense will always prevail. Like it or not, the police hold a position of authority over you. They have the right to shoot or taser you should you present yourself as a threat. As such, you need to think logically. Don't want to get tasered or arrested? Don't present yourself as a threat. It's that simple. Almost every one of these videos is the same. Someone acts confrontational, ignores police orders and/or resists arrest, then they suffer the consequences. If you believe you have the right to ignore the police and do whatever you want, by all means, go ahead. Just don't be surprised when you get tasered or shot. It's like acting outraged after walking onto the freeway and getting run over. Common sense, please.

>> ^swedishfriend:

statistics, physical reality:
no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails.
No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian.
If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop.
At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop.
It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.


And what percentage of those civilians who die are killed in valid self defense? 90%?