You understand why the cops were there right?

It wasn't to protect you or "silence" your thoughts.
>> ^notarobot:

"Why would this event be any different?"

Because YOU weren't there witnsess the event. Because YOU didn't have your shoulder dislocated by an officer in full riot armour. Because YOU did not have your prosthetic ripped from your leg. Because you were not arrested without any warrant or concern for your civil liberties.

There are a lot of good cops in this world, Pprt. I have a strong belief that the real good cop bad cop ratio is something to the tune of 99:1 but that "one" left over can sometimes give the other 99 an undeserved reputation and THAT is exactly what this ISN't about.
The truth is that when an officer is ordered to do something that makes him feel like he needs to take his name tag off to execute that order (and keep his job) then something is wrong. If there are plain clothes officers able to leap out of the crowd to protect, what? Why were there plain clothes officers among the crowd NOT preventing vandalism of private property and their own police vehicles?
Why?
We know that police are sometimes ordered to commit the very acts forbidden by law. We know that police have broken the law so to twist public perception of otherwise peaceful protests because THEY HAVE PUBLICLY ADMITTED doing so. It is also very likely that an inquiry could reveal similar tactics used during the G20.
What is wrong with this? A group of well trained, capable individuals, sworn to uphold the law and protect the people used against the very people they are trusted to protect. Orders passed down through subterfuge, obfuscated behind veils of lies.
And 99 of them know it's wrong.

...
http://videosift.com/video/Police-admit-they-went-undercover
-at-Montebello-protest
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19928
>> ^Pprt:
Next time you see cops blocking a crime scene or an accident.. go ahead and give them a hard time. Tell them how it's your right to walk right up to a dead body or a smashed car.
No? Why not?
Because you understand that sometimes the police are there for a reason and you respect that. Why would this event be any different?>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Pprt:
Bunch of unemployed losers determined to get into confrontations with cops and then get what they ask for... Outrageous!

Shut the fuck up you piece of shit. You don't say the same about people throwing Tea into the Boston Harbor do you?

"Why would this event be any different?"



This event is different because YOU weren't there witnsess it. Because YOU didn't have your shoulder dislocated by an officer in full riot armour. Because YOU did not have your prosthetic ripped from your leg. Because you were not arrested without any warrant or concern for your civil liberties.



There are a lot of good cops in this world, Pprt. I have a strong belief that the real good cop bad cop ratio is something to the tune of 99:1 but that "one" left over can sometimes give the other 99 an undeserved reputation and THAT is exactly what this ISN't about.

The truth is that when an officer is ordered to do something that makes him feel like he needs to take his name tag off to execute that order (and keep his job) then something is wrong. If there are plain clothes officers able to leap out of the crowd to protect, what? Why were there plain clothes officers among the crowd NOT preventing vandalism of private property and their own police vehicles?

Why?

We know that police are sometimes ordered to commit the very acts forbidden by law. We know that police have broken the law so to twist public perception of otherwise peaceful protests because THEY HAVE PUBLICLY ADMITTED doing so. It is also very likely that an inquiry could reveal similar tactics used during the G20.

What is wrong with this? A group of well trained, capable individuals, sworn to uphold the law and protect the people used against the very people they are trusted to protect is a breach of that trust. Orders were passed down through subterfuge, obfuscated behind veils of lies.

And 99 of them know it's wrong.



...
http://videosift.com/video/Police-admit-they-went-undercover-at-Montebello-protest

http://videosift.com/video/Provocateurs-stopped-at-SPP

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19928
>> ^Pprt:

Next time you see cops blocking a crime scene or an accident.. go ahead and give them a hard time. Tell them how it's your right to walk right up to a dead body or a smashed car.
No? Why not?
Because you understand that sometimes the police are there for a reason and you respect that. Why would this event be any different?>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Pprt:
Bunch of unemployed losers determined to get into confrontations with cops and then get what they ask for... Outrageous!

Shut the fuck up you piece of shit. You don't say the same about people throwing Tea into the Boston Harbor do you?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Was that a prosthetic cock?

The only CGI that they used here was that they scaled up his mouth significantly, and then had some great prosthetic work.

Why do I know that?

Very cool stuff... (unfortunate thumb image)

Advanced prosthetics is a difficult field; costs a lot to do this intensely interdisciplinary work. As long as the DoD continues to fund people pushing the boundaries we'll eventually produce lightweight, smart prosthetics with intuitive interfaces... at this point it appears that things are exciting at first but cumbersome for practical use, but its not hard to imaging miniaturization and commercialization these problems by V3.0 (so to speak).

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

WTF?!?!
How often does it occur that a person needs only their knee amputated?
Wouldn't a prosthetic knee or knee reconstruction work just as well?


Bone cancer, bro. You don't want that spreading. Better to have a foot/knee.

*WTF?!?!

How often does it occur that a person needs only their knee amputated?

Wouldn't a prosthetic knee or knee reconstruction work just as well?

Also, notice now the hands are just static prosthetics. Hands are insanely complex to simulate properly.

What happened to the elevator pictures?

"REPORTER: Can you talk about the montage of pictures at the end of this film? The blowjob. Apparently the MPAA didn’t watch the closing credits.

COOPER: Is that against the rules? Really? It’s a dildo though.

GALIFIANAKIS: But that woman was seventy seven years old. I think there’s an age where it becomes non-sexual.

REPORTER: Was that a prosthetic?

GALIFIANAKIS: I don’t remember. I have to look at again to see what the size was. We were just talking about it. It didn’t match my skin color. It looks like a piece of taffy. I would never."

Source: Link

lol, "I don't remember" - yeah right.

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Amputee-cat-gets-pioneering-new-prosthetic-feet

Also.... http://videosift.com/video/Amputee-cat-gets-pioneering-new-prosthetic-feet

Didn't look painful? Did you recently have a face transplant made with a titanium prosthetic?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)


Wow.. are you trollin' Tymbie? Or just thick?
Cause if you can't find the faults in that statement. I think you should immediately take some critical thinking classes.
Have you ever wondered why most women you know don't consider themselves "movie buffs"?
Female 1: "Hey the new Comic Book/Action/Eddie Murphy Comedy movie is out."
Female 2: "Fuck yes! I've been dyin' to see gratuitous explosions/shoot-outs/prosthetic fat all year!!"
And then, like some marketing executive from the 60s, you have gall to suggest that female movie enthusiasts truly crave to be spoon fed stereotypical bastardized depictions of themselves in films.
~~ written by @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/BoneyD" title="member since July 7th, 2006" class="profilelink">BoneyD - A lot of chick flicks would fail the Bechdel Test as well, btw...
Like real world women all are desperate love-obsessed delicate lilies that: need to reunite with their sisters and babble about romanticism. Or find a rich man so they can stop whoring themselves. Or reunite with their "mature" party slut friends and babble about sex.
I bet female movie goers find those films ultra empowering! =D
And on top of all that - deep breath - "chicks flicks" don't even begin to scratch even the bottom of any list or review of the most popular movies.
So what have we learned?
- Realistically relatable females aren't depicted in mainstream media.
- The niche genre for females depicts them as clueless whiny emo kids hoping some stronger, usually male, character saves them from their shitty situation/themselves.
- You find that's perfectly normal and don't see an reason why younger females shouldn't be raised to expect the same.


I agree in a number of ways with you regarding the way women are depicted in a majority of modern movies. However, the part that I think there are two big factors here that are being overlooked by you and by women who argue for more "realistic and substantive" roles for women in movies. First and foremost in my opinion at least is the fact that making movies is all about making money (again looking to the majority here, indie films are somewhat of an exception to this but then I think you'd agree that they are also largely an exception to this Bechdel Test). Since it's about making money, the unfortunate truth is that the majority of the target market for films these days is men, and what most of them want is the same mindless, formulaic story over and over again. If making films was primarily about telling a good, detailed and deeply thought provoking story, I think things would be very different. This just doesn't sell on a large scale and you'd have one hell of a time convincing the film studios of the world to begin shooting films for the artistic appeal and forget about the financial aspect.

On a bit of a side note to your point below,

"Like real world women all are desperate love-obsessed delicate lilies that: need to reunite with their sisters and babble about romanticism. Or find a rich man so they can stop whoring themselves. Or reunite with their "mature" party slut friends and babble about sex."

I agree that this is a very unrealistic depiction of real women. I would also contend that real men don't drive cars off ramps onto moving boats, or shoot anything that moves, or smoothly sweep any attractive woman off their feet with a few suave words. That is however, the image of men in the movies and I'd wager that it's not only the male population of moviegoers that enjoys seeing men depicted that way. And that's why it continues to sell...

My advice is... stick to indies.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)



Wow.. are you trollin' Tymbie? Or just thick?
Cause if you can't find the faults in that statement. I think you should immediately take some critical thinking classes.

Have you ever wondered why most women you know don't consider themselves "movie buffs"?

Female 1: "Hey the new Comic Book/Action/Eddie Murphy Comedy movie is out."
Female 2: "Fuck yes! I've been dyin' to see gratuitous explosions/shoot-outs/prosthetic fat all year!!"

And then, like some marketing executive from the 60s, you have gall to suggest that female movie enthusiasts truly crave to be spoon fed stereotypical bastardized depictions of themselves in films.

~~ written by @BoneyD - A lot of chick flicks would fail the Bechdel Test as well, btw...

Like real world women all are desperate love-obsessed delicate lilies that: need to reunite with their sisters and babble about romanticism. Or find a rich man so they can stop whoring themselves. Or reunite with their "mature" party slut friends and babble about sex.

I bet female movie goers find those films ultra empowering! =D

And on top of all that - deep breath - "chicks flicks" don't even begin to scratch even the bottom of any list or review of the most popular movies.

So what have we learned?

- Realistically relatable females aren't depicted in mainstream media.

- The niche genre for females depicts them as clueless whiny emo kids hoping some stronger, usually male, character saves them from their shitty situation/themselves.

- You find that's perfectly normal and don't see an reason why younger females shouldn't be raised to expect the same.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
For what it's worth:

The man later got a prosthetic face (an interesting story by itself, created by a man who had his own history working for the CIA): http://www.healthaire.co.nz/images/mark_tatum3.jpg

And apparently he did die of unknown causes: http://www.mold-help.org/content/view/544/

"Mr. Mark Tatum, also known by many as the man without a face, passed 4:00 CST Saturday, February 26, 2005 at the Medco Center of Franklin, Kentucky. Tatum lost his eyes, upper jaw, and nose to a fungal infection in 2000. This type of infection is not that unusual, but the extent of the damage that it did to Tatum was very rare. Tatum was a medical phenomena due to the fact that he survived the infection. Due to his extreme experience, Tatum was highly profiled in the media by many people including Larry King, Maury Povich, and Ripley's Believe it or Not. He was a courageous individual who served as a symbol of strength for the thousands of people who have lost their health, homes, and livliehood from fungal exposure.

According to a friend who spoke to him that day, Mr. Tatum was in good spirits and feeling very positive towards his future. He had just been fitted with a new prosthetic face (see below). He was extremely excited about helping victims of toxagenic mold exposure so he could uncover the real truth about fungus as a synonymous predator to the virus and bacteria.

At this point, the cause of his death is still unknown. An autopsy has been requested by his family. More information will be posted when we obtain the results.

Funeral services were held March 2, 2005 at Crafton Funeral Home. The Rev. Winston Roberts officiated with burial at Hillsdale Cemetery. Tatum was a native of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, and worked as a security guard until his fungal infection in 2000. He was the son of the late Franklin Eugene Tatum and Emma Thomas Tatum.

Donations in Mark Tatum's name will be gratefully accepted to assist the Children's Angel Fund:

Children's Angel Fund
P.O. Box 1026
Pepperell, MA 01463"

You can read more on the page. I will be sending along a donation for that fund soon. I was impressed by the strength and courage displayed by Mr. and Mrs. Tatum. I don't know if I would have had the same strength of will to keep fighting if I were in the same situation.

One more vote to send this to the front...