#1, seriously?

Then I guess I'm going against the grain when I say that was one of the least funny things I've ever watched.

Not all bears are the same.

Preferably it's best to not interact with a black bear that's minding it's business so that dog is a little shit for running toward it and I can feel the frustration of it's owner. However if the black bear approaches you with agressive behavior, you actually want to make loud noises and look big. If they do attack (which is rare), fight back with everything you have. You do not play dead.

Grizzlies are a different story. You don't want to get loud and act bigger like you would with a black bear or mountain lion. I've been that close to a young griz when hiking with my grandfather but we just slowly backed up and went the opposite direction. The bear just kept on his path forward. Same thing happened many years before with my aunt and him only they encountered a mother with cubs. They did the same thing and nothing happened. Funny thing was it was in the same location.

The funny thing is that fascists actually DID win World War II. We just didn't know at the time...

Agent Coulson earned his place with the simple line. "I will taze you and watch super nanny while you drool in to the carpet." He was a background character, but he was also the one that made everything work. If fury need something done. He sent Coulson. He was Fury's right hand man. He was surrounded by all of these bad-asses and he was not impressed by them. Ok, a little with Capt. A but that was a nerd thing. Find the 2 shorts vids. One is called. "A funny thing happened on the way to Thor's hammer" I can't remember the other.
He had some of the best lines.

"Agent Phil Coulson: You're at 114 Solenski Plaza, 3rd floor. We have an F-22 exactly 8 miles out. Put the woman on the phone or I will blow up the block before you can make the lobby."

I'm glad I asked, since @zor's argument wasn't what I expected It actually has a certain logic to it, if you look at it from the right angle... it just presupposes that the American public are ruled by fear and laziness and won't investigate the claims too closely.

The funny thing is that it was a conservative government that introduced the bill here... but since what we are talking about is uniform national firearms control, having a single city enact controls is meaningless: In fact parts of Australia had controls similar to the final legislation already, but if you can just go for a drive and avoid the controls, then they are (as people keep pointing out) not terribly effective. Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with their follow-up argument that it also means they can never be effective.

Yeah, from the title I thought it was a "real"* commercial. Call me stupid or whatever, but in any case thanks to @NaMeCaF for cluing me and anyone else as dim as me in.

*depending on how you define "real commercial". After/while watching I jumped to the conclusion that it wasn't a TV spot (time too long for one thing), and probably wasn't authorized/developed by the top Toyota brass. In my defense, I've seen plenty of viral 'commercials' (clip is in both those channels by the way) that are "real" in that they are officially or at least semi-officially created by the company that makes the product/service they are selling/showing, AND that are over the top/out there/"offensive" in the same sort of way this clip is.

Funny thing is, if the title or description was upfront about it being from a sketch comedy show as NaMeCaF revealed (instead of calling it a commercial in the tags, channels, and title), I would have appreciated the humor and upvoted it on my first viewing. As it is, I think I'll upvote his comments that clued me in instead.

@renatojj may i ask a question?
why is it every time someone disagrees with your position or offers a counter-proposal you take it personally?

re-read many of the posts here concerning your comment.
they are actually agreeing with you in many ways but they diverge when it comes to how they may go about rectifying the situation.

this is basic "politics 101".all politics is..to break it down to its most base definition is "what should we do".
thats all...thats it.

your solution is to limit government and ( i assume) give more powers back on a state and local level.
others have proposed a different approach.
i say let it all build to a head and implode under its own hubris while i sit on my lawn chair and watch it all burn.

who is right?
which is the best path that will benefit all?
well of course you think you are right,otherwise you would not think and perceive things the way you do.

but you appear to be allergic to any contrary ideologies to your ways of perceiving and that my friend is absolutist thinking and it is dangerous.

@aaronfr pointed out (quite correctly) your basic misunderstanding of socialism and i would add that you are using the title of "libertarian" in the bastardized and twisted media-induced definition that has propagated like a disease in america.

i tell people i am a conservative libertarian socialist just to watch their heads explode,and the funny thing is....you most certainly CAN be a conservative-libertarian-socialist.
but if you are weaned on american corporate opnion/commentray news that terminology would make absolutely no sense.which @cosmovitelli alluded to.

you can have a socialist democracy.
you can even have a communist democracy.
because one is a system of government and the other is financial.
here in america we have been bludgeoned into believing that capitalism and democracy go together like peas and carrots.

marx is a GREAT read,as is adam smith,and BOTH have been bastardized here in america because BOTH warned of the perils of communism and capitalism.

here in america we have a supposedly laissez faire approach but in reality america is a corporate socialist state.
where corporations take the risk to gain huuuuuge profits and dump the loss on the general public.
and that my friend is basic socialism.
to big to fail and too big to jail.

and here we come to my main point:
i dont think anyone here is disagreeing with you.
it appears they all see the broken system which favors the wealthy and powerful and are angered that money=free speech.
they just have a different approach on how to fix it,this does not make them stupid nor naive,just different.

i actually agree with you that trying to fix the broken system by using the very system that is broken seems counter-intuitive.
you suggest limiting government.
i suggest letting it burn.
others suggest enforcing the rule of law.
while others may deem it fit to vote a whole new legislature into office.

all different approaches to the same problem.

engage with those that disagree with you because it forces you to re-evaluate and defend your position often and sometimes you may find while in those discussions a new piece of information,a new way of looking at a problem that exposes the weakness in your argument.
the intelligent person will immediately dump the former to adhere to the newer and more succinct paradigm.
the fundamentalist will not and will continue to bang the gong for a defunct ideology.

so dont take it personally when someone disagrees with you.
nobody is here to dehumanize you nor dismiss you.
they may make assumptions based on your commentary but you can clear that up quite easily.

on a side note :@dag is one of the smartest and open minded people i know from the internet.dont judge him too quickly.

To be clear, in the original video the cop's lines from: "Pardon me" up to "sign here" are fabricated. Replacing the original soundtrack and dialogue of the lady relaying her address to the cop as he copies it down and spins the clipboard around for her to sign.

I'm an experienced sound editor. If there's one thing I understand in this world, it's audio and how to hide an edit. At its core this video fails to do that on several levels and all I hope to accomplish here is to educate people who want to learn how to spot a fake in the future.

I am 100% certain this is a fake, rendering it zero true value to the sift.

Don't you find it at all suspicious that in the original video the lady is audible whenever she speaks except for when she supposedly asks the cop the implied question? Why wouldn't she be heard then? It's because when he asks for her present address (actual dialogue) her actual dialogue (stating her address while he writes it down) is removed and the cop's zinger is shoe-horned in.

Notice the awkwardness in the jump in time between the the end of the zinger "sign here" and "This is not an admission of guilt"(actual dialogue). The difference in the fidelity of the audio (the fake dub vs the actual dialogue) is apparent. Besides that, it's just an unnatural rhythm of speaking forgetting that the dubbed voice is way off in terms of a match for the cop when listened to back to back at such a close proximity. The dubbers didn't have a large window of time to work within giving the dialogue a rushed quality which helps to expose it as a fake.

Also note the cop's body language while he is speaking to her throughout the original video. He frequently looks at her making eye contact when addressing her. During the false exchange his body language in no way reflects the bewilderment that is expressed when he repeats her assumed hushed dialogue.

On top of all that the dubbers failed to add foley of the sound of him handling his clipboard, a sound close enough to the cop to be picked up or cause interference with the cop's mic. There is just silence instead since they removed all sound during the exchange added a background ambiance loop (plenty of b-roll to draw from) and then dubbed in the lines which has fooled 110 (as of this post) into voting it into the #1 spot.

These are the exact kinds of tricks that are used in "reality" tv to take raw footage of people and construct characters in post utilizing the most sensational dialogue available and place a musical backing track to let you know how you are supposed to be feeling about a certain person or situation.

TL:DR See funny thing, upvote and move on.

I was 'victim' to road rage in my early 20's. Me and a bunch of my mates passed a truck on this road pretty much in the middle of nowhere, when we came to a light the truck rammed us, pushing us nearly into another car that was out late. The next few minutes were spent at high speed as he attempted to push us off the road, ram into us and it ended with our driver driving at high speeds in reverse with this huge truck barreling towards us. Driver was good, quickly turned into a wide driveway. The truck driver likely would have hopped out to continue the violence if six of us didn't jump out of the car, ready to beat the shit out of the guy. He sped away, we went to the cops, my buddies car was near totaled. They never did catch the guy.

Friend of mine since then keeps an unloaded handgun on him (Legally) just in case. He's had to flash it a few times to crazy drivers or punks out looking for a fight.

Funny thing is, I live in the country. But it still happens surprisingly often to people.

Hah, I never noticed it before but Bob really is an autistic person. It is like giving a backwater hillbilly an apple tablet and a roaming internet stick and giving free reign to express the hillbilly thought process. Funny thing, it seems though that the hillbilly can spell.

Ok, I'll bite. I have no issue with the chimpanzees. They are just doing what they do. In the wild they hunt, and they will in captivity given the chance. They also struggle for stimulation in captivity hence the relish with which they approach this situation. It's a game to them, they know no better.

What really irks me about this video is the braying spectators. They way they find it funny that the raccoon is being treated this way. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK to take pleasure in the suffering of another animal. They are laughing at an animal being hurt.

The chimps don't understand the situation, but the laughing idiots should. There are funny things in nature and there are horrific things in nature. The chimps are blameless, but that doesn't stop what they're doing from being horrific.

That's what my issue with this video is. By upvoting a video here people are saying 'yes, I enjoyed watching that'. I can't imagine who would enjoy watching this demonstration of the awfulness of people.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Can we all just agree that @quantumushroom is a terrible person?


Meh, he's not really a terrible person. I mean, he's either a troll or an idiot, but it's not like he's a rapist or a murderer.

And he still says the occasional funny thing.

It is the same one. Funny thing, siftbot wouldn't let me fix it--because it's a dupe! Hahaha.
http://videosift.com/video/Funny-cats-in-water-compilation
In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
dead :

Might this be the same?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctJJrBw7e-c&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Examples?>> ^My_design:

You know the funny thing is that many of the same things being said above can also be said of the Democratic party.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's a difference between being partisan (Maddow definitely is) and being a racist, homophobic conspiracy theorist. (current GOP base)>> ^My_design:

You know the funny thing is that many of the same things being said above can also be said of the Democratic party.