Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The Bartender asks him, "how about a beer?"
"I think not," replies Rene. POOF! he disappears...

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Bartender-Hates-You

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by brycewi19.

Let's not be afraid of the dupe invocation. This is a dupe.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Bartender-Hates-You

dupe.

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Bartender-Hates-You

That was great! Ironic. Bartenders are usually so tolerant. I guess he didn't care about the tip.

Great flick, one of my faves. That's Joe Turkel in the stretcher who, much later, played the ghostly bartender at the Overlook Hotel in The Shining and Dr. Eldon Tyrell "God of the Replicants" in Blade Runner.

Oh, and Probies can upvote their own vids. No shame involved, trust me.

My ex-girlfriend (a redhead) worked as a bartender while we were dating. She once told me that when guys asked what drink they should get she would suggest Redheaded Sluts and Blowjobs. She was a classy lady. Tasty tho. The drink that is.

You just made my day.

In reply to this comment by Kevlar:
Hey, so, a woman walks into the bar and asks the bartender for a double entendre.

He gives it to her.

Hey, so, a woman walks into the bar and asks the bartender for a double entendre.

He gives it to her.

>> ^rasch187:
I've met that bartender one too many times.


You think Jedi bartenders are a pain? Try dating a Jedi! Not a damn thing I can do about it, I always agree with my girlfriend. And the times I disagree, I feel like I can't breathe... like someone is lovingly crushing my larynx.

Come to think of it, maybe she isn't a Jedi...

I've met that bartender one too many times.

ugh...
this person already feels that obama is the anti-christ.if i used this very poorly though out premise i could prove THIS man was the anti-christ.and to end it with that disclaimer../shakes head...thats like saying something dissrespectful to someone by prefacing "in all due respect" im gonna say something really shitty,but i mean no dissrespect.
i have posted before,but let me do so again for the sake of being thorough:
/takes a big breath...
satan does not exist.
the original bible was translated,as the video states,from aramaic to greek.
the sepaquintic translations fail many times(to the tune of around 22,000).
the hebrew word s'tn :meaning "diabolic=devil" as a noun and "adversary,adversarial" as an adjective.
so s'tn became satan,it was the church that used this as a rallying point.it has nothing to do with actual scriptural text.
so if satan doesnt exist that means???
yes,hell doesnt exist.
original sin was created by the church,not by jesus.
secondly,and this is just for fun.
there was a large community around the period of jesus that believed that prophecy had already happened.that the coming,ministry and resurection WAS the final judhement prophesized not by the book of john(hadnt been written yet) but by the more ancient hebrew texts concerning the messiah.
they were preterists.
thirdly,because i cant resist.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible.yes yes..it seems divine providence is a huge procrastinator around 325 a.d. just after the council of nicea.
the book of john was chosen over "the revelation of paul" due to its graphic imagery and imaginative span.which was most likely due to the fact that john was a strict sophian gnostic and practiced shamanism by ingesting magic mushrooms(this is only specualtion,but i find it hilarious)hence the more skillfully written prophecy of paul was beaten by a zealot who loved psychadelics.my point is that no gospel in the bible references jesus speaking about the book of john,though many christians are led to believe otherwise.
thank you for playing,dont forget to tip your bartenders.
good night.

^Why must you lower the level of discourse, rougy? Name calling and labeling are a bit childish, don't you think.

You're being outclassed and out-debated by a university student in her early 20's (and everyone else involved in this thread) while you, a self proclaimed "smart person," lament the fact that you haven't yet left the most wonderful country in world. As far as I can tell, the reason you feel you should leave is because people exist in America with views that oppose your own. I don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless so, I'll just site MLK on Socrates: "Socrates felt that it is necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal."

In short, debate is good for you, rougy!


MOVING ON...

To me, one of the most important things to remember in regard to civil disobedience is that authority is given to all to make the world the place that we want it to be. We are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Remember that Socrates, Gandhi, and MLK had no formal authority. They were able to impact the world through MORAL authority.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws...

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He also said, "An unjust law is no law at all."


While we may have cushy jobs that we don't want to risk losing at the moment, it is OUR responsibility to keep our government in check. When the time for action comes, not a job nor jail time will dissuade me from "nonviolent direct action." Our governments continue to pass legislation that slowly whittles away at our self reliance and personal freedoms, and if we keep on this path we will one day wake up to a nation in shambles.

Two things come to mind when talk of real "change" or discussion of a "revolution" comes up: 1.) There has been a trend away from self-reliance in this country and increasing dependency on social programs. Are the social programs the cure for the dependency or are they the cause? As the citizens become more and more dependent on the government, they become less and less motivated to defend the common good. We are ever more selfish (hence the rise in mental disorders and depression, in my opinion) and 2.) Living in America (or in the affluent nations across the world) is becoming a spectator sport. We feel it is inconvenient to have to: research something for ourselves, become self-reliant, read a book, get out of debt, study history, engage in thoughtful discourse, be a good neighbor, take responsibility for our own actions and situation, etc. We are so "connected" to television, the internet, MP3 players, and mobile phones that we are becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.

What am I getting at?

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were willing to give their lives for religious freedom. Socrates gave his life for the law. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. devoted their whole being (and ultimately their lives) for the cause of freedom and equality. Change takes a lot of hard work and dedication. I mean, it takes EVERYTHING from at least one man. If we want policy change, we write letters to the editor, we start a website, we knock on doors, and so on. When it really matters (such as what the world protested against in2003, civil disobedience is in order. Anything worth civil disobedience is absolutely worth our cushy jobs. But, we'll need moral justification and moral leadership. I don't think that we're past that as some have said. I DO, however, think that wading through opposing propaganda would be more difficult today than it has historically been, but I digress.

The question I have is, "Which modern day issues/hypothetical scenarios would require civil disobedience to be solved?"


>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
It's just not worth it any more, to me.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week.
Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.

I was being facetious when I said that. That's why I contradicted myself. I don't know why I bring my dry humor to the sift and expect people to read between the lines and understand that I'm joking. I didn't mean to offend you. My sincerest apologies.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.

Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.

But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.

Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week. Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.

It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.

Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.