I'm not sure what bias there would be. I seriously doubt that's the kind of thing you could easily study, so I'm not going to bother looking for data. But we all know that people on drugs, meth in particular, are/can be very paranoid and twitchy. It doesn't take but a bell to ring at the door for them to be spooked enough to pull the trigger while it's aiming at the clerk. Besides, I think that if they had access to AK-47s they'd use them the first time. It's why I go to the range as much as I can to keep my aim as good as possible. If I get the chance to draw a bead on someone who is actively and willingly endangering someone's life, they probably won't live to regret it. 15 hollow point rounds to the chest would make sure of that.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.

Try this logic. Walgreens guy defends Walgreens with a hand gun...at the next Walgreens robbery a few towns over after this has made national news the robbers come in hyper aggressive with AK-47s. They don't fuck around they just shoot if they think anyone can possibly be reaching for a gun.
I remember when I used to work at Gamestop I helped out at another one...and they told me someone was just fired for leaving too many envelopes of the days earnings in the safe. I thought "That's stupid whats the big F'n deal?" They explained to me that if a robbery had happened and the thieves got away with a large haul...it could potentially put more people in danger because it would get the message out that there's a large haul to be had from Gamestop...people could die over something like that.
Also your "some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands..." comment. Is it based on fact or a study?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Anti-escalation policies can get people killed. Some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands ans someone who tried to resist. I'd take the shot in a heartbeat.


Try this logic. Walgreens guy defends Walgreens with a hand gun...at the next Walgreens robbery a few towns over after this has made national news the robbers come in hyper aggressive with AK-47s. They don't fuck around they just shoot if they think anyone can possibly be reaching for a gun.

I remember when I used to work at Gamestop I helped out at another one...and they told me someone was just fired for leaving too many envelopes of the days earnings in the safe. I thought "That's stupid whats the big F'n deal?" They explained to me that if a robbery had happened and the thieves got away with a large haul...it could potentially put more people in danger because it would get the message out that there's a large haul to be had from Gamestop...people could die over something like that.

Also your "some robbers will just as easily shoot someone complying with their demands..." comment. Is it based on fact or a study?

The ladies must be all over you.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
It's a good thing you have that marked as sarcastic, because you sure as fuck weren't just saying it to "help" someone. You give someone harsh criticism to help them in a friendly, reassuring way, not by making snide, rude remarks on the internet

>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
What's the difference between saying it to someone's face or over the internet? You DO know that person can (and has)read your nasty comments, right?>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@ForgedReality: Are you sure that the only reason you're fine in society is because you're too much of a bitch so say stuff like this to a person's face?

I'm too compassionate to say that to a person's face. Get it right. I'm a really fucking nice guy! If that person were here in this room, I wouldn't say it to her face. But lord, almighty, you know she knows everyone in the room is thinking it, so it's really not necessary in the first place, now is it?


Honesty is the best policy.

Why spare someone's feelings when the truth stands a much greater chance of helping them in the long run?
It's like when your friend thinks they can draw really good artwork or make really good music. You let them show their talent and then realize they're really not that good, and it's actually kind of crappy, but you don't want to hurt their feelings so you praise them and tell them how great it is. Then they enter an art competition because they think they're so awesome because all their friends told them they were. Simon Cowell then tells them they suck and whoever told them they didn't was lying to them. Now they feel HORRIBLE because they just embarrassed themselves on national television, AND had their aspirations crushed AND they hate you for lying to them. GOOD GOIN, BUDDY!! You just ruined someone's life!
Wow you're a shitty person.


Okay let me rephrase my original message: "Sweetie, honey-bun, you're fucking huge, baby. And your fat rolls stink. Go on a fucking diet, because holy fucking shit you're pissing off the people on the bus because there's no motherfucking room to sit, and you and your kind are eating up the world's food supply while costing humanity millions in extra fuel for cars and planes to haul your fat ass from place to place, and I don't like seeing 800lb humans get out of a giant car taking up two handicapped spots that could have been used for normal people who know how to control their eating habits. So please, beautiful, drop the happy meal and eat a nice salad. I'll even make one for you, sweetie-bumpkins! "

>> ^MarineGunrock:

It's a good thing you have that marked as sarcastic, because you sure as fuck weren't just saying it to "help" someone. You give someone harsh criticism to help them in a friendly, reassuring way, not by making snide, rude remarks on the internet

>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
What's the difference between saying it to someone's face or over the internet? You DO know that person can (and has)read your nasty comments, right?>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@ForgedReality: Are you sure that the only reason you're fine in society is because you're too much of a bitch so say stuff like this to a person's face?

I'm too compassionate to say that to a person's face. Get it right. I'm a really fucking nice guy! If that person were here in this room, I wouldn't say it to her face. But lord, almighty, you know she knows everyone in the room is thinking it, so it's really not necessary in the first place, now is it?


Honesty is the best policy.

Why spare someone's feelings when the truth stands a much greater chance of helping them in the long run?
It's like when your friend thinks they can draw really good artwork or make really good music. You let them show their talent and then realize they're really not that good, and it's actually kind of crappy, but you don't want to hurt their feelings so you praise them and tell them how great it is. Then they enter an art competition because they think they're so awesome because all their friends told them they were. Simon Cowell then tells them they suck and whoever told them they didn't was lying to them. Now they feel HORRIBLE because they just embarrassed themselves on national television, AND had their aspirations crushed AND they hate you for lying to them. GOOD GOIN, BUDDY!! You just ruined someone's life!
Wow you're a shitty person.


Okay let me rephrase my original message: "Sweetie, honey-bun, you're fucking huge, baby. And your fat rolls stink. Go on a fucking diet, because holy fucking shit you're pissing off the people on the bus because there's no motherfucking room to sit, and you and your kind are eating up the world's food supply while costing humanity millions in extra fuel for cars and planes to haul your fat ass from place to place, and I don't like seeing 800lb humans get out of a giant car taking up two handicapped spots that could have been used for normal people who know how to control their eating habits. So please, beautiful, drop the happy meal and eat a nice salad. I'll even make one for you, sweetie-bumpkins! "

True story: in 2002, I purchased a pair of tiny clip-on condenser mics with a portable power supply for the purpose of capturing sound effects in NYC. I clipped these two mics to either side of a baseball cap I was wearing, making sure the distance from each other was the approx distance between my two ears (just like Empire said). So I walked from our hotel (the Millennium on 44th and B-way) all the way down to ground zero, recording all the while to a MiniDisc recorder. It was quite a haul.

On the way back, I walked through Washington Square Park, where I was approached by a drug dealer who could tell I didn't belong there. He said to me, "you buyin'?" I said, "no, not today. I'm working." Then he notices the mics clipped to my hat. They're small but they're not invisible. He gets this solemn look on his face and says, "You a cop?" I laughed and said "No, I'm recording sound effects." Then he gets genuinely worried, asking "You recording me right now?" I said simply, "I'm afraid so." He turned right around and walked away. Sprinted, more like.

Then I ducked into the nearby restroom to check to see if my MD was still going and, lo and behold...it had stopped: our encounter was not recorded. DAMN!

But I did get quite valuable street sounds: buses, cars, people shouting, talking, all the sounds you'd expect to hear in NYC. And it was all recorded using this method. The stereo playback sounds exactly as though you're there.

@heropsycho, I wasn't saying the Bush Tax Cuts alone would do it, I was saying just letting existing law play out would:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/22/a-do-nothing-congress-could-solve-deficit-woes-cbo/

That includes spending cuts, and more taxes going up than just the Bush tax cuts disappearing.

None of that is pretty, but it's just one more layer of things I'm annoyed about with this whole debt ceiling hullabaloo. The budget isn't really unbalanced.

People struck "grand bargains" in the past that would raise taxes, cut spending, and balanced the budget. Why hasn't that happened? Because future Congresses kept passing laws to delay or reverse those elements of the balanced budget agreements of the past each year.

That's why I think all this BS about "shared sacrifice" is going nowhere. They didn't do entitlement cuts in the past because they're political suicide. They still are today. The reason they haven't raised taxes is because wealthy people grease an awful lot of palms in Washington, not because raising taxes on millionaires is unpopular, even amongst Republican voters. You'd have to permanently change those things for a mix of entitlement cuts and tax increases to be the way we balance the budget over the long haul.

Health care reform is the real solution, and like I mentioned before, we already did that.

>> ^shagen454:

It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!


Sounds like you've got a false arrest case there. Don't make other things illegal just because someone wrongly arrested you.

Coors?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^shagen454:
It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!

Find a beer-container that can kill people. PROBLEM SOLVED.

>> ^shagen454:

It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!


Find a beer-container that can kill people. PROBLEM SOLVED.

It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!

LOL! I wasn't at work! Where in the heck did that come from?! It's called context! There's social context (black friend knew me, knows I'm not a racist, knows what the intent was when I said it, I wasn't at work, I wasn't around others who might misinterpret it), and then there's the context of the joke, which you can discern that I'm actually poking fun of society often assuming the black guy did it. I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work. I also know it's a bad idea to for example play solitaire at work, too. Does that mean solitaire is an evil thing? OF COURSE NOT! The only thing you're pointing out is a joke like that heard out of context could be misinterpreted as racist because it involves race. I could see my joke being misinterpreted had my friend not known me. I wouldn't walk into a group of people who didn't know me and say the same joke! For that matter, I wouldn't walk up to a stranger and debate economic theory either. Doesn't make debating economic theory wrong! LOL...

Your point is ridiculous in this case. Racism was very often *fought* by comics using similar tactics. Are you suggesting Richard Pryor, Gene Wilder, Jon Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, all of them are racists?! It's ridiculous. Jon Stewart, who is ethnically part Jewish, makes jokes relating to Jewish stereotypes, so that makes him anti-semitic?! Kevin Smith made an entire movie making fun of Catholicism, and he's catholic. That makes him a Catholic hater?! There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!

If you can't understand that, your brain can't understand context, and what is acceptable in various social situations. The joke I told to the people I told it to, when I told it made everyone laugh and offended no one, and that was entirely expected. In no way was it ever said or implied that blacks are inferior to whites whatsoever. It's therefore NOT RACIST!

You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to. That's what Maher was railing about as sexist, and he's dead right about that. That's not as sexist as him telling her, "Go make me a sandwich!" But it is sexist that she had to do it simply because he told her to because he's the husband, and she's the wife. Unless of course, in their marriage, if she told him to go become a nurse, he also had to do it simply because she told him to. But once that happens, that's no longer "wives must be submissive to their husbands". That's "spouses must be submissive to each other". That's the difference.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.
A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.
If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.
I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.
That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.
OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.
If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!
Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.
Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.
Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.
Untrue and hyperbole.
Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.
No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.

A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.

If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.

I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.

That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.

OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.

If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!

Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.

Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.

Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.

Untrue and hyperbole.

Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.

No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

"And how many of the couples who manage to stay together for the long haul have done so by resigning themselves to sacrificing their eroticism on the altar of three of life’s irreplaceable joys: family stability, companionship, and emotional, if not sexual, intimacy?" Sex at Dawn: Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality", the book that Dan Savage calls "the most important book on human sexuality since the Kinsey Report," which makes the argument that, while fidelity may be very well and good, it is in fact fighting evolution and human nature.

Yup. That's a state trooper, alright. I've seen them enough in my rear-view to recognize 'em anywhere. >> ^aaronfr:

The blue sedan that pulls up at around the :36 second mark is police. He stops in the intersection and gets out of the car. And there must have been a lead car as well since the truck is driving on the wrong side of the road. Also, the cars on the opposite side of the intersection are sitting there waiting for it to pass so someone must have stopped them. Police escorts, just no flashing lights.
>> ^Porksandwich:
No police escort that I could see. They usually make trucks hauling oversized loads or especially long loads hire police escorts or at least have follow vehicles ahead and behind to make sure it'll fit under all the bridges and places coming up and one to follow to make it really visible that this truck can't avoid things and other reasons I assume (visual problems with load, etc).

Yeah I see his flashing lights and him get out now on a rewatch. I was watching the rear of the load to see if someone was dumb enough to pull up behind it even over the median since it stuck out so far.

Kinda shocked traffic stayed put for the blue car to pull into place.

>> ^aaronfr:

The blue sedan that pulls up at around the :36 second mark is police. He stops in the intersection and gets out of the car. And there must have been a lead car as well since the truck is driving on the wrong side of the road. Also, the cars on the opposite side of the intersection are sitting there waiting for it to pass so someone must have stopped them. Police escorts, just no flashing lights.
>> ^Porksandwich:
No police escort that I could see. They usually make trucks hauling oversized loads or especially long loads hire police escorts or at least have follow vehicles ahead and behind to make sure it'll fit under all the bridges and places coming up and one to follow to make it really visible that this truck can't avoid things and other reasons I assume (visual problems with load, etc).