Recent Comments by scheherazade subscribe to this feed

Lava Bomb Hits Sightseeing Boat In Hawaii

AMA - a short film by Julie Gautier

scheherazade says...

I believe only the ascent is slow mo (around 5 min mark).

The rest just looks slow because it's under water and she's freediving (only slow movement to save air). The reflections give away the timing.

-scheherazade

BSR said:

I can't hold my breath in slow motion.

Very nice though.

Dancing FBI Agent Negligent Discharge

scheherazade says...

Eisenhower by today's standards is some enlightened being sent from above.

-scheherazade

Buttle said:

You lost me there, dude. We haven't had a decent president since Carter, nor a competent one since Eisenhower.

Dancing FBI Agent Negligent Discharge

scheherazade says...

It's a glock. It has no external safety.

You can always pull the trigger on a charged glock and it will send the striker.

This is why I call B.S. on the idea that glocks have a safety.
Trigger dingle-berries as a primary 'safety' is a retarded concept.
If you can pull the trigger and fires, it isn't safe.

-scheherazade

KrazyKat42 said:

1. The safety was off. Dumb.
2. He stuck it back in pants, with the safety still off! Dumb!

Starship Alamo

Hey Incels, women don’t owe you anything

scheherazade says...

The last comment about 'be a nice guy' is interesting.

I was listening to Joe Rogan Experience, and they mentioned something about how the genesis of the 'woman hater' is actually the forever-friend-zoned-nice-guy who gets so fed up with being 'taken for granted'/'shot down' that his niceness turns into hatred

It made sense to me. Essentially, the woman hater is what becomes of a boring nice guy who lacked the patience/endurance to wait for women his age to make their way through all the exciting unreliable men before being satiated (or just getting too old to fetch the interesting men's attention) and finally settling for the nice guy that was boringly always available.



And I get it. It plays into the human natural value system, where things that are scarce are more valuable.

The ahole is fleeting. You can't always have him, and if you do you can't hold him, so he has an element of scarcity, which creates value.

The nice guy will reliably stick around if you go with him, so he is less scarce, so he is less valuable. The lower value in turn makes him more likely to be single and always available, further reducing his scarcity, and further devaluing him, and further increasing his chances of being single. A feedback loop.

I suppose that there is also a 3rd path - the element of nice guys that just stop giving a crap before turning into haters, which makes them more scarce, which actually finally gets them attention, and they stop being single.

(And a 4th path - nice guy finds 'a girl who wants a nice guy from the start'. In my observation this isn't the typical case.)



Cases like this (forever alone nice guy, not specifically Mr Van Driver) are when I think 'arrangement' web sites create a good solution. The guys get to not be lonely anymore, and the women gets taken care of. Kind of plays into the nice guy natural instinct, too.

Amusingly, 'arrangement' may be a better fit for the forever-alone nice guys than 'waiting it out'.
In both cases (waiting vs arrangement) the women are mainly after stability/support.
The older women 'nice guy' matches with by 'waiting it out' would not have picked 'nice guy' if they still had the looks to keep pulling exciting men.
So, if you're gonna be with someone because they want you for support, why not just go with a younger woman and be up front about the situation. If it doesn't work out, either party can walk away. No messy divorce. Seems like a safer and more practical option.

(Not picking on older women, just observing that : as people get older, the single scene becomes more and more 'leftovers' that are 'left over for a good reason'. The odds of finding anyone worth while diminish with time, because the highest quality individuals get retained first. Wait long enough, and you're left with over the hill jaded pragmatists who once may have had looks but now have nothing left to offer. At which point, both 'arrangement' and 'being single' are legitimately better options.)



Regarding Mr. Van Guy specifically, I'm not sure if he had a chance. He had some social anxiety that made him unable to talk to people. So he was likely not gonna get a partner naturally, and was unlikely to succeed among professional peers well enough to get the financial security necessary to be some sugar daddy.

So, yeah, dude was likely a romantic dead end. Possibly even the same mental (brain developmental?) issues that made him unable to talk to people also made him susceptible to getting the sort of crazy tilted that allowed him to run people over. The dude could have actually been fated (circumstantially) to end up in tragedy. Just speculating, wouldn't shock me.

-scheherazade

This 11-Year-Old Racing Prodigy Is Breaking Records

scheherazade says...

Hmm, I partly agree.

Surely, what goes around comes around. Kids are people, too.

You do some shit to poke your kids in the feels, you'll have to live with the consequences.

However, I don't see the debt (owe).
People are free to make their own choices regarding their own affairs, and their personal part of any relationship with others.
People are free to dislike other people's choices.

Happiness/contentment is not a requirement, and no one else has to go out of their way to make whoever else happy.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

I would agree.....had they not allowed my brother to do all those dangerous things on their dime in front of me, but then denied me the opportunity to do them, even on my own dime.

Their favorite line used to deny me fair treatment was "we made that mistake with your brother, we aren't making it again with you."
They never once used that line on him, nor did they ever change the behavior they called a "mistake".

So I disagree. Parents owe their children love, honesty, and fairness (and food and shelter). Failing that, they should expect some well deserved bitterness later.

This 11-Year-Old Racing Prodigy Is Breaking Records

scheherazade says...

I race on my own dime.

Everything my parents thought was dangerous when I was a kid, I had to fund for myself after I was an adult.

My parents spent their money as they pleased.
I spend my money as I please.

Not angry about it. It's not like they owed me anything.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

I'm angry because, even though when my parents would ask 'what do you want to do when you grow up' I would always answer 'a race car driver', they wouldn't even let me drive a go cart as late as when I was 15 (note, they bought my brother a truck at 14 and got him a hardship license), and so I didn't get to race until I was nearly 30.....on my own dime.

This 11-Year-Old Racing Prodigy Is Breaking Records

scheherazade says...

Ouch. XA. ::cringe::

My condolences.

On the bright side, at least it's not a yaris?

-scheherazade

skinnydaddy1 said:

Why be angry? I'm angry as hell. But not at her....

I'm angry as hell at me for being so damn jealous of her.....

She gets to drive that and I'm stuck in an 04 scion XA......

This 11-Year-Old Racing Prodigy Is Breaking Records

This 11-Year-Old Racing Prodigy Is Breaking Records

scheherazade says...

"Starting as young children" is typical for professional racers.

In that regard, she is not advantaged (compared to her professional peers).

-scheherazade

Response to Trump's Video Game Montage - #GameOn

scheherazade says...

Reps blame evil games for violence.

Dems blame evil guns for violence.

Both forget about the individuals actually responsible.

Retard fight, GO!

-scheherazade

Sarah Silverman Comments on Louis CK

scheherazade says...

The Louie thing is a watershed moment in what is classified as unacceptable ... because he asked permission and they said "yes" ... but because they really /felt/ "no", it's as if they had said "no".

-scheherazade

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

scheherazade says...

Ah, I see you didn't read the links.

Else you would know :

* The post 1990 borders of Ukraine include historically Russian lands populated by Russian people.

* Ukraine's nukes could not be to guard against Russia because Russia had the crypto keys and guidance control over Ukrainian nukes.

* U.S. support for the 2014 coup against Ukraine's government was arguably also a treaty violation. (I don't actually care about this one)

* Government corruption, rising nationalism, and anti-Russian sentiment, are what led to the coup, which kicked off the fighting, which led to Russian intervention, which led to the "land grabs".


(Anti-Russian sentiment was brewing for years before the 2014 coup. You can see it play out in the 2012 language law issue, which was one of the historical turning points leading up to conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Proposals_for_repeal_and_revision)


Sidenote, this statement is pure insanity : "We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions"
War with Russia would last less than an hour, and the only winner would be South America and Africa.
Nuclear powers can never go to war. I mean _never_ never.






Regarding collusion, here :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/opinion/collusion-meaning-trump-.html

"
President Trump declared on Twitter: “There is NO COLLUSION!”
"
There ya go. A Trump declaration that the campaign was not illegally secretly coordinated (i.e. no collusion). Not backwards at all.

The link also explains the irrelevance of the term regarding legal issues.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

Expansionist Russia is back, and their neighbors need help guarding against Russian overthrow. That time is back.
Ukraine is not Russian, and it had a nuclear weapons program to safeguard against Russian incursions...which we convinced them to give up under our, and Russia's guarantee of their sovereignty and borders, and our guarantee to defend them militarily against Russia should it ever try to take any back, Crimea had the same guarantees. We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions. Russia entering either area at all was an act of war against us by treaty, one we barely responded to with defensive missiles in countries that wanted them desperately before they became Russian themselves.
The anti Russian sentiment is because of the land grabs, not an excuse for them. Holy shit!

Collusion against your own government and country to subvert the law with a foreign country is a crime. The collusion compounds the subversion.

People use the word collude to assert that Russia and the campaign illegally coordinated, you wrote it backwards.

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

scheherazade says...

The USSR is gone. No one is trying to guard western industry against communist overthrow anymore. That time is long gone.




Imagine person A pushing person B, and person B pushes back, and the news runs around screaming that B pushed A. That's basically our simplistic news coverage about Ukraine.

Feel free to read about the 2014 coup : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution
I take no issue with Ukrainians giving their old government a swift kick out the door (and for understandable reason - such as corruption). However, with that comes the usual scapegoating of the undesirables. Would it have been better that Russia let groups like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector ravage ethnic Russians just across their border?

Crimea has been Russia from 1779 till ~1990, when it happened to end up under Ukrainian control after the USSR broke up. People living there are also Russian citizens, born either while it was still Russia, or to Russian parents.
Take a look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
Then ask yourself, considering the right wing neo nazi anti-ethnic-Russian shitstorm in Ukraine, where would the Crimeans rather be?

Russia isn't a saint. It's acting in self interest. It's also not a villain. Things happen for reasons.

The treaty you refer to is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The link explains how it can be read to fault either the U.S. (for coup involvement) or Russia (for subsequent conflict involvement).

Just to put things in perspective :
Imagine Russia getting involved in a coup in Mexico or Canada. Or imagine Russia placing missile launchers in Cuba. Do you think that we would be as cordial to Russia as Russia has been to us?
So Russia tries to help a candidate who prefers friendly relations, that's hardly the sign of a committed adversary.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I shouldn't think and analyze the situation from multiple perspectives with consideration for circumstance and motivation, and instead I should just accept what the news has on 24/7 repeat. /s





Collusion is not a crime because /literally/ it is not a crime. You will not find the word "collusion" mentioned as an offense in any criminal code. It's only on TV because people started using that phrase to assert that the campaign and Russia were acting independently (which is irrelevant, they don't need to coordinate to break the law).


-scheherazde

newtboy said:

Way to ignore point one...the illegal hacking of what he hoped contained top secret information by a hostile power at Trump's public direction.

The fact that you would even try to contend that the relationship between the U.S. and Russia is not adversarial makes anything else you say moot, because you have already proven to either be a liar or insanely naive. It is, and since ww2 has been adversarial. Your contention that responding to an illegal-by-treaty Russian military build up and invasion on it's borders with a long term international defence program stoked the Russian invasions of Crimea and the Ukraine shows you bought the Putin propaganda, and your follow up that it's an excuse for them installing their candidate in a hostile nation, as if that's proper, shows you aren't being rational at all. What we were required by treaty to do was protect the Ukraine...all of it...with our full military force, securing their borders....we balked and Russia just walked in.

Really, you think collusion with a foreign power to perform illegal acts against private citizens and the government and the interests of the U.S. isn't a crime? Sorry, but it absolutely is here in the U.S., where he did it.

So far, "he" isn't charged with a crime (only because it's likely he's so incompetent that he actually didn't know his entire staff were covert foreign agents....some have admitted as much when confronted with proof)...what his cabinet is charged with varies but all of them perjured themselves to congress about the crimes, who they work for, who paid them, and who they owe millions... so that's felonious.
Just a few crimes (of many) that the campaign is accused of is working with Russian diplomats for the benefit of Russia and against the interests of the U.S., hiring foreign agents, and hiding tens if not hundreds of millions secretly paid to the managers by Russia.
The campaign managers did directly receive money, all of them it seems, tens of millions...and lied about it over and over. What's more, they have admitted (only after recordings were produced) having subverted government policy by making arrangements with Putin before taking office that were diametrically opposed to the current (at the time) policy...again, that's treason.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon