Exactly.

Fuck GM in their dirty tailpipe.

Now you've done it. I'm going to have to go out and buy a rubber chicken to stick in my brother's tailpipe.

God that sounds like a terrible euphemism.

I realized one day that cigarettes were interfering with how many bong hits I could take....I quit in that moment and never had another.

This passive aggressive coercion is quite distasteful to me. I hate people who do this, pretend the smoke is bothering them when in reality it's the fact that someone is smoking that bothers them....not the smoke. What's hilarious is to see those kinds of people try to publicly shame a cigarette smoker with their fake coughing and death stares, then I'll spark a cigar and they'll not say a word or even tell me it smells great.
I used to ask people who complain about cigarettes (usually a fake health complaint) if they drive...then I would offer to sit in a closet smoking if they sit in their car with a hose from the tailpipe going in the window and see who cracks first. No one ever took me up on the challenge.

Next-level car mod shit FTW-Maybe now, doinks who modify their exhausts will invest in some urban video edification instead of craptacular tailpipe penis Toyota Supra!

I'm not Jesus, but I'll answer for him. ;-}
If I were the litter bug, I would have been embarrassed at having it pointed out by the first guy that returned the bottle and I would have apologized for my bad behavior, I would not have A. indignantly thrown the bottle back out repeatedly or B. gotten out and put it in his grill (as you suggested).
If I were the returner and the litter bug got out and approached the front of my car with the bottle like you said you would have, I would have 'accidentally' let the brakes off and squashed him.
Many people don't think about the consequence of their actions, to themselves or others, so many would be willing to get out of their car to return the litter. It didn't seem dangerous to do so until the litterbug rams the other car. A returner picking it up and tailpipeing it would be far safer than the litter bug putting it in the returners grill, the litterbug wasn't paying any attention to what was happening behind him, but the returner would have seen him coming a mile away.
It's about being passionate about litter, teaching douchebags a lesson, and ignoring the danger, not about being passionate about dying.

...and the tailpipe was there the whole time.

Watch it ant-Ol Alexs' name is the first hit to pop-up when you do a Googly search for his full name-name because of YOU!!....Ya really want his ultimate fail on yer conscience when he sucks onna tailpipe or something worse??

I mean c'mon, it's already a gay-as-hell event...

I like the shot of the girl/bikes "Tailpipe".

The thing with looking at the danger of nuclear power is you have to make a more complicated comparison. It's not just nuclear power or "safe."

For fossil fuels you have to consider every:

* Oil spill, Oil Rig Fire, other fossil fuel related disasters (tanker truck fires, gas station fires, CO poisoning in houses, etc.) Recall for instance, in New Orleans during the flood the contents of refinery storage tanks were spread all over the city, and the Deep Water Horizons disaster that killed more people than Fukishima and caused fantastic amounts of ecological damage.

* The broad diffuse pollution of fossil fuel power stations and refineries (including particulates, global warming from C02, other heavy metals and nastiness released). This is released not only from power stations, but every tailpipe of the millions of cars in the world.

* The damage caused by getting fossil fuels out of the ground. Drilling, fracking, strip mining for coal, and the nastiness released from this.

* Wars. (ie. fossil fuels are running out, but we got enough fissile material to last a long, long time--not that there couldn't be wars over this too (lots of it is in unstable parts of Africa)).

In short, fossil fuels do a huge amount of damage, it's just not as acute and widely reported as when something goes wrong with nuclear, and doesn't carry the same, often irrational, fear that the media loves so much. For instance, some area of land infused with heavy metals is just as unlivable as an area of land infused with radioactive substances, but one we accept as normal pollution, and the other is worldwide, front page news.

The overall comparison is very complicated. My inclination is to think nuclear is better, but that's difficult because it involves mostly *potential* problems, not actual quantifiable problems as with fossil fuels. There will probably never be a good study comparing the two given how much irrational fear and corporate interest is involved.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are very nice and should always be part of the equation, but it's pretty well accepted that it can't actually come near to replacing fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of energy output at any cost.

..I've lost it. I'm done. I officially have seen the stupidest thing on the internet. But stupid in a good way.

I mean, The guy breaks out of a van, and then shoots a gun that has "Pew Pew" sound effects.. and then he dodges a motorcycle.. and then he makes a jeep fly by hitting the radiator with a tailpipe..


and just when you think "This can't possibly get any worse"... then they show up.... the horses.
the horses that just so happened to be in the neighbourhood. Then, not only does he manage to get dragged between two of them.. he steals one. And then slides it under a truck.. and.. I mean.. why?

And then he goes through a building, and a jeep crashes through the front goddamn window? I mean seriously, who's paying for all this carnage.. and then he smashes through a glass bus.. for some reason Indian buses are made out of glass.. and explode. And..

I mean, I think the WORST part about all this.. was someone, somewhere, sat in a room and said "Here's my script" and then someone else read it.. and the other guy said "My god... the glass bus explodes, this is brilliant!" and.. but.. why?

Tailpipe. Radiator. Badass. Indeed.

Who benefits from a continued disbelief in anthropogenic climate change?

It would be more accurate to say, "Who benefits from the usage of inexpensive, efficient fuel?" The answer - of course - is everybody. Fossil fuels are the most efficient fuels we have right now. If 'low carbon' alternatives were feasible then it would be worth pursuing them. But at this point in time there is no other energy that can possibly replace fossil fuels. Except one. Nuclear.

For transportation there is no substitute. Electric cars are LESS efficient energy-wise than fossil fuel (FF) cars. It takes more fossil fuels to generate the electricity to charge up a battery than compared to just using gasoline. The only 'benefit' (if you can call it that) is that your pollution is coming out a smokestack instead of your tailpipe. It is a cheat - a ruse - a choice for ignorant suckers. The only way electric cars can reduce pollution is if they use a clean electrical source to charge.

So - can we swap over to 'clean' electical plants? Heck no. Solar doesn't operate at peak hours, and requires massive infrastructures to support - not to mention it needs 75% operating capacity in redundant FOSSIL fuel generation to deal with demand anyway. Same with wind. The only way to make it work is to replace all our coal plants with nuclear ones. Why aren't we talking about that? Because the 'green' movement doesn't like nuclear either.

You can't wish on a star and make green energy feasible. The hard reality is that the technology just isn't there yet, and that the green movement itself is standing in the way of the ONLY viable energy we have (clean coal & nuclear). Even the most promising 'alternative' energy options are still well over 30 years away from any sort of commercial, large scale viability that has any hope of even coming close to fossil fuels. That's just reality.

Now - are you (and your children) ready to pay 2,500+ a month for your electric bill? That's what it is going to cost you to use 'green' energy instead of coal. All so you can - what? Feel better about yourself? The planet isn't being destroyed except in the minds of the Flavor-aid drinkers.

>> ^Doc_M:
Texas is not trying to secede. It is simply re-affirming its constitutional rights to self-government. They're saying it'll be a cold day in hell when they bend over and take it up the tailpipe from the feds. Cheers Texas.


Doc, this has nothing to do with "re-affirming it's constitutional rights". It has only to do with Perry about to lose the coming election.

He's in a losing battle to save his Governorship. He is mostly hated by the Texas GOP establishment. He recently tried to shift $55 million from the state's general job creation account, to his alma matter, Texas A&M. The senate stopped it.

He wants to take the federal stimulus money (you know, from people like me and you) but he doesn't want federal oversight of what happens with that money, and definitely doesn't want to use it for unemployment insurance (screw the poor!!!) There is no "constitutional right" in accepting this stimulus money. He can either reject it (and lose the election) or take it and accept federal oversight and direction.

For more on why this guy is a douchebag:
http://www.gop12.com/search/label/Hutchison%20v%20Perry

Texas is not trying to secede. It is simply re-affirming its constitutional rights to self-government. They're saying it'll be a cold day in hell when they bend over and take it up the tailpipe from the feds. Cheers Texas.