>> ^shinyblurry:
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?


Feynman is not saying that god can't touch something on the scale of the universe. Feynman is saying how self centered, naive and provincial your silly little bible is to only focus on our tiny little insignificant corner of the universe.

Where are the tales of space Jesus who died for the sins of Omecron Persei 8?

Also, what I want to know is, what makes your understanding of a creator more correct than other religions? Why not follow Islam? I hear they have the direct word from god himself, far superior than your collection of mere stories.

If I understand the intention of the puzzle correctly, I'm assuming the lake is a closed system (a large pool, really), that all energies are transferred instantly and evenly, and that all things mentioned have mass.

After you pick up the anchor and start lifting, the boat will sink some amount (not a rate) proportional to the speed you're raising the anchor, and the lake will rise a proportional amount to the amount the boat sank. When you stop lifting the anchor, the boat will go back to the start height, as will the lake. The moment you release the anchor, the lake boat will rise above its start height, and the lake will drop below its start height. As the anchor enters the water again, the lake will rise back to the start height, so the final result is the water will stay the same level.

Or I could say that with any anchor that I could lift and an average-sized lake, the difference in the height of the lake distributed over the entire surface would probably be less than a molecule of water, so even without figuring out the forces, I could claim the difference would be insignificant, so "stay the same" again. But I guess I can't just assume the "lake" is not a wee tarn, where an anchor could make a measurable difference.>> ^Boise_Lib:

This is one I've seen used in job interviews:
You're in a boat on a lake. You pick up the anchor that's in the boat and throw it into the lake.
Will the water in the lake; rise a bit, fall a bit, or stay the same level?

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.

Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.

Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

I'm not particularly interested in the social issues either. This country is degenerating at an exponential rate and I doubt anything will change that.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.

>> ^heropsycho:

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

>> ^shinyblurry:


If you're going to keep cherry picking your responses, I don't see much reason to waste my time writing a reply.

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:
http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secre
tary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate
All of this is far left.
Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.
They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.
He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/ob
amas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/
The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.
When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.
Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.
>> ^heropsycho:

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

Women agree that this is a War on them or haven't you checked the poll numbers for women

It would be more accurate to say that LIBERAL women agree with these LIBERAL pundits that there is some mythical GOP "war on women". The so-called poll you reference is a single poll conducted by ABC was oversampled with LIBERAL women. The overall numbers show Obama having no significant lead (49 to 45 = insignificant) among women.

Still in denial?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_04082012.html

901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as (a Democrat), (a Republican), an independent or what?
Democrat Republican Independent Other (vol.) No opinion
4/18/12 34 23 34 5 3

Now - you tell me... Does 34% Democrats, 34% "Independants", and 23% Republican sound like any sort of representative sample? This poll's results were 100% unadulterated bullcrap, and they were used deliberately to reinforce the false claim that the Democrats are desperately peddling about this bogus, completely farcical "war on women". The whole "War on women" is a line of leftist propoganda that is being used as a distraction to try and talk about anything EXCEPT Barak Obama's record of failure, incompetence, and the REAL "war" in America, which is Odumbo's war on the economy with his stupid moron idiot policies.

The coffee in the Louis CK video is not the primary subject of the video. The coffee plays an insignificant, incidental role in the context of the clip. It would have been an identical video if he was buying a bagel from a bakery. The focus of that video is his hangover, not the coffee.

I haven't yet had time to view every video submitted for the contest, but if you feel there are other posts that should be disqualified for not meeting the stated eligibility requirements, please let @dag or myself know and we'll be happy to investigate. It would be unfair to accept any video with someone simply drinking a cup of coffee, especially when so many other videos adhere to the contest requirements.

@JiggaJonson - Maybe the videos you cited should be booted. If that's the case, they will be. Thanks for pointing them out! [edit] Those videos have been disqualified from the contest. Thanks again!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^shuac:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?

The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.
Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...
throws bullshit back @shuac


They are doing their best to keep each season within the book it's supposed to parallel but the big issue is the the books get bigger. A Clash of Kings is longer than A Game of Thrones by a bit and A Storm of Swords is substantially longer than both of those. *Spoiler Alert* To be able to fit the red wedding into the end of season 3 they are going to need to get started with a bit of book 3 at the end of the 2nd season. These guys have done a fantastic job of adapting season one so I've still got very high hopes for future seasons.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?


The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.

Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...

*throws bullshit back @shuac*

Between this and Neocons demanding to hear what they like, rather than what's true, I despair for American politics and by extension, Western politics and beyond.

How do you debate with people who just plain don't care about reality? How can a country elect any kind of worthwhile politicians when a section of the voters, too large to be ignored, seem to have no idea about how things are now and have no idea about what either party stands for?

They want another Reagan, yet what they want is nothing like what Reagan did. They want tax cuts, but no cuts on defence, medical aid or the other big federal expenses. They demand the government stay out of health care, yet demand that Medicare and Medicaid aren't cut. They want the government to bring in less money, spent about as much (cutting insignificantly small bits here and there) - yet somehow stop operating on a deficit.

There are so many contradictory demands and demands made on fantasy. And they won't compromise, no, because compromise is for people who are wrong.

I'm starting to think that the answer is Glenn Beck and his ilk. The solution may be for people like Glenn Beck who, intentionally or otherwise, radicalise and mislead these nutters so much that they become more isolated and increasingly irrelevant. Then this lunatic fringe might see their numbers dwindle from just being so ridiculous. When they won't listen to anyone who speaks about reality, what else is there?

You know a situation is FUBAR when Glenn Beck is the answer!

So tired of all the remakes, reboots, and re-imaginings. They redid Willy Wonka, FFS. Willy f'in Wonka! One of the greatest movies ever made! That's just wrong! What's next? "Citizen Kanye"? "Da GodFatha"? "Arbor Day", about a guy who wakes up over and over on the same insignificant holiday in perpetuity?

Hollywood, you wanna remake something that needs remaking? How about the last three Star Wars movies? Or anything with Ben Affleck in it? Take your pick of Stephen King movies. Godzilla without Ferris Bueller. King Kong without Jack Black. Gullivers Travels without Jack Black. Year One without... ok, anything with Jack Black without Jack Black.

Anyhoo...

Upvote for Emma Stone.

But see...dum dum...we're not talking about you. Stop thinking about only yourself. Expand your mind to other people and adopt THEIR perspective. Stop being selfish and narrow minded.

You said that that it doesnt matter because there were no emergency vehicles at the moment. REALLY??? What if there were? What if there are the next time?

It sounds like you're encouraging people to do this. Who gives YOU or HER the right to impose themselves on you or others? Can you imagine if someone did this to her and caused her delay?

Why is it okay for her to do this? Because it only inconveniences ppl for 10 mins? REALLY?

You dont think EVERYONE wants to just park wherever tf they want to? I feel like im talking to a third grader....If she in your weirdo world can do it then everyone should be able to do it. Then there would be no traffic problem AT ALL because the city would be one giant parking lot. No inconvenience then because there wouldnt even be a point in getting in your car.

This could go on forever. This is my last post on this vid.

>> ^longde:

I am quite used to gridlock and delay and have learned to take it in stride. I live and work in areas where it takes an hour to go 1 mile at peak rush hour. I regularly get held up for an hour or more. Two days ago, on a layover on a 30 hour flight, our plane was delayed for 50 minutes.
To only be inconvenienced for 10 minutes at a time would actually be a great improvement.
So, thank you for your ironic wish. I in turn sincerely hope you develop some patience and fortitude.>> ^Confucius:
May you be inconvenienced for 10 minutes many many times until YOU gain some perspective.......and half a brain.
>> ^longde:
There was no emergency vehicle.
It's not a big deal; and I hate to wait in traffic. If you think 10 minutes is a big deal, the problem with that attitude and this video is that people don't know how to keep things in perspective, and want to escalate everything into a mountain. What's next, honor killings 'cause I cut you off in traffic?
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^longde:
Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

Yea no big fuckin deal at all unless there is an emergency vehicle that needs to get by, or you are on your break and going back to work, or maybe going to pick your kid up from your asshole insignificant other. BUT BIG FUCKIN DEAL IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO BE AT THE MOMENT.

I am quite used to gridlock and delay and have learned to take it in stride. I live and work in areas where it takes an hour to go 1 mile at peak rush hour. I regularly get held up for an hour or more. Two days ago, on a layover on a 30 hour flight, our plane was delayed for 50 minutes.

To only be inconvenienced for 10 minutes at a time would actually be a great improvement.

So, thank you for your ironic wish. I in turn sincerely hope you develop some patience and fortitude.>> ^Confucius:

May you be inconvenienced for 10 minutes many many times until YOU gain some perspective.......and half a brain.
>> ^longde:
There was no emergency vehicle.
It's not a big deal; and I hate to wait in traffic. If you think 10 minutes is a big deal, the problem with that attitude and this video is that people don't know how to keep things in perspective, and want to escalate everything into a mountain. What's next, honor killings 'cause I cut you off in traffic?
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^longde:
Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

Yea no big fuckin deal at all unless there is an emergency vehicle that needs to get by, or you are on your break and going back to work, or maybe going to pick your kid up from your asshole insignificant other. BUT BIG FUCKIN DEAL IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO BE AT THE MOMENT.

May you be inconvenienced for 10 minutes many many times until YOU gain some perspective.......and half a brain.

>> ^longde:

There was no emergency vehicle.
It's not a big deal; and I hate to wait in traffic. If you think 10 minutes is a big deal, the problem with that attitude and this video is that people don't know how to keep things in perspective, and want to escalate everything into a mountain. What's next, honor killings 'cause I cut you off in traffic?
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^longde:
Yes, she blocked the street. Big fucking deal. Yes she was an asshole, but the blocked drivers were delayed for what, 5-10 minutes?
I would think that when the guy has posted her name, number, and business, inciting people to harass the woman, he opened himself to prosecution or a lawsuit. Or some heavy retaliation. If I was directly responsible for kicking bread out of someone's mouth, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder.

Yea no big fuckin deal at all unless there is an emergency vehicle that needs to get by, or you are on your break and going back to work, or maybe going to pick your kid up from your asshole insignificant other. BUT BIG FUCKIN DEAL IF YOU DONT HAVE ANYWHERE TO BE AT THE MOMENT.