Anyone else notice the wrong guy puts on the hardhat? It fell off the one guy's head, and after they escape the other guy puts it on...

Construction site rules - no hardhat, no entry.

It appears that vest color determines whether a hardhat is required. Go Orange!

A slow-speaking old guy with a hardhat... It must be real.

That guy...hands in pocket, no hardhat, not watching the load. Walks, pretty much, right UNDER the fucking load. That guy sucks. He'd be fired in a second if he worked on a job-site here.>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^Enzoblue:
What makes this good is that they did everything right and it still went wrong. Shit happens.

Nope, he should have lowered the container immediatly after clearing the two towers, and before turning. There is no way that thing was made for driving or turning with the container that high. And that guy standing behind the lifter is driving me nuts, What the fuck was he doing there?, he provides a perfect distraction for the operator.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Zach was mining so much comedy gold in that studio he shoulda been wearing a hardhat with the light on it.
Yes, Bone, she wouldn't qualify as algae on a think tank, but those tanned thighs...


That is perfect, that made me laugh very hard. algae on a think tank HAH!.

Zach was mining so much comedy gold in that studio he shoulda been wearing a hardhat with the light on it.

Yes, Bone, she wouldn't qualify as algae on a think tank, but those tanned thighs...

few things come to mind:

a) hardhats are underrated in some countries.
b) from the wall splatters, that method is messy as hell
c) bupa needs a new getout clause for spine related claims
d) buckets ! - even slap together a wooden square bucket would be better.

Pretty sure religious people are just as welcome on the sift as anyone else.
But seeing as this is the Internet and not Sunday school, it's probably wise for them to put their hardhat on to protect their noggins against other people's skepticism and outright disbelief in the stuff that's passed on as undeniable facts in regards to a lot of religions.

>> ^Darkhand:
I just watched the CNN story on this. The guy (he works there, hence the hardhat) was directing the truck across the tracks. CNN reports neither of them knew the train was coming until it was too late.

I told ya'll that he was not standing in a safe position and he was not waiting for the train to pass. And part of the reason he didn't see the train was that it was going in reverse and thus was relatively silent.

Good thing he wore that construction hardhat.

About the Guy getting hit by the truck and train:

(I left this in the video comments but wanted to give it to you so you could change the description if you wanted"

I just watched the CNN story on this. The guy (he works there, hence the hardhat) was directing the truck across the tracks. CNN reports neither of them knew the train was coming until it was too late.

He said he has a "New Respect for Life" and he wants to get married.

I just watched the CNN story on this. The guy (he works there, hence the hardhat) was directing the truck across the tracks. CNN reports neither of them knew the train was coming until it was too late.

He said he has a "New Respect for Life" and he wants to get married.

RoPaul is so low in the depths of naivety and foolishness the light on his hardhat can't be seen with the naked eye.

A Ron Paul America would sit on its hands while Russia and China gobble up the rest of the world. Only with the USA alone with the wolves right outside the door would he think the USA would have the right to defend itself, if then.

The world is too dangerous for Paul's warped "logic". Contrary to his beliefs, the USA did not make the world a dangerous place. It was on fire from the beginning.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. I agree that we need to make welfare (and other social programs) more like the hardhat than Vicodin. Better still, I want it to be like a cheap-but-effective hardhat, plus good training that makes sure people understand how to safely handle nail guns. People who want nicer hardhats are free to buy 'em, too.

As for Obama's qualifications, I agree about his resume being thin, but we've had a lot of great Presidents with thin resumes. To be truthful, I think his argument that a President needs more judgment than experience is accurate as well. The President will always be availed with the best experts he can find on any subject matter -- his job is to listen to the advice and call the shot. In a sense, as long as the President is passably familiar with the issues at work (and Obama has shown that he's more than passably familiar with the issues we face), and has a record of good judgment (which I contend Obama has had), he can be effective.

I'm glad you're more moderate than most around here -- seems like we have a lot of market fundamentalists hanging out here. I also agree with what you're saying about needing to make government more efficient in how it uses the money. I think Bush has shown that the modern Republican party is trying to make government as inefficient and broken as they can, so more people lose faith in government and fall for the siren call of the "small government" Republican party. Democrats on the other hand want desperately to fix it, make it efficient and effective, in order to restore people's faith in government. They're not the Socialist party -- increasing the size of government is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. If reducing the scope of government proves more effective, Democrats will go for it (think Clinton with capital gains tax cuts, and NAFTA). We just don't see reducing the scope of government as some sort of absolute necessity that shouldn't ever be questioned.

As far as taxes go, Obama's plan is primarily aimed at shifting the burden, but it does both increase the amount of expected tax revenue, while cutting some spending (Iraq war), and introducing new spending (healthcare). It includes a deficit, but a smaller one than McCain's (since he doesn't even come close to offsetting his tax cut with spending cuts).

I agree with you that corporate benefits can help regular people, I just think we've gotten to a point where we're doing too much corporate welfare, and not enough of the regular kind. I share your concern about cracking down too hard on oil companies, since the price of gas will likely increase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving them a big push towards helping find alternatives to oil, rather than new places to drill for oil. They're supposedly "energy" companies, after all.

I also think corporations have too much influence over government policy generally, and that the government shouldn't be run by people who equate corporate interest with common interest. There's certainly overlap, but common interest should be the priority when they diverge.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away. My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.


I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.

I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.

I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.

When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.