The problem is A-it did not stop the train wreckage, B-it doesn't replace Gadaffi with anyone that is humanitarian so it isn't really doing jack shit. We would be better of jacking off at home imho.

They might have been at first, but from the wreckage lying about I'd expect they'd been watching the full deck become largely cleared for several hours before they took the video.

So surreal to hear the lyrics "Everybody let's lose control" "Everybody let's hit the floor", ".. let's let it blow" "Scream and shout and let it all out" While there is flaming wreckage and secondary explosions going on.

Personally I would have turned off the dance music the second I saw the collision and stopped safely.

Wreckage maybe, garbage is a strong word there, Judgy-How do you know she lived in a trailer??

Worse yet are the worthless gibbering tools who call themselves alternative journalists, these two tools who host this draining pustule of driveling infotainment.

Which content? The sub-human wreckage dressed in shitty Halloween gear, the raping of pop, the extreme lack of creativity or the idea that cops in Seattle have a winning sense of humor??

Flashdance in the Wreckage!

Now would this be free or interpretive??

Primarily they are douche bags. /endsarcasm I say this from years of experience, both good and bad. Plenty of nice ones, but for every good cop there are a couple impatient asshole cop doing an arbitrary job at keeping the peace. But, really, the common denominator is that they are human. So I'm fair in my judgement and so I have decided to point my hate at most humans. Tolerate most people, yes, for the most part. If cops were a showed their humility as public servants, admitting to their poor decisions as they recognized them, then unacceptable behavior can be easily forgiven. Unfortunately pride fucks with even the best of mankind's heads.

Cops shouldn't let their personality quirks inform their decisions as law enforcement. Sort of like rulers should be philosopher kings. It's not realistic to think that this will change all that much over the years, but it is realistic to try and at least confirm to others that most interactions with cops will NOT end in your favor. They will, however, protect the shit out of you when actual f'ed up criminals show up. It's just a shame that (often) they take out the time in between on the common citizens, who could use some firm law enforcement without the macho bullshit.

My judgement is based off of the frequency of my interaction where I either should not have been at fault or was at fault in one way or another and treated as if I were were a hardened criminal, my opinion minimized and was downright insulted by their candid and inappropriate comments. (I was once derided for getting into an accident with my mother's car when I was 19. "You're still driving your mama's car?" That really helped my mental state after climbing from the now upside down wreckage.) There were several occasions where I was completely at fault and, in fact, most of these times I had a fairly nice and patient cop. But the number of bad interactions at inappropriate times outweighs this, so I can only assume that there are more bad cops than good.

>> ^valorumguygee:

Then stop going online. Assuming that all cops are like the ones specifically pointed out in videos about abuse is foolish and makes you look uninformed and silly.
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Zaibach:
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Bruti79:
Those cops must be tired of dealing with that guy.
TOO FUCKING BAD. Cops are getting PAID to respond to calls. IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, GET ANOTHER JOB. Powerhungry self-centered control freaks want this society to walk on their toes around cops. Fuck them!

Looks like someone got arrested recently lol!
nope, just getting more and more tired seeing power abuse.

You think firefighters are just peering out the window of the firehouse, waiting for a fire? Or going from one car wreck to getting a cat out of a tree, then onto a fire?

Talk to one. You'll have all day to talk.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@doogle
I hope your house burns down. With you in it.
But at the last second.. one of these "ungrateful" FireFighters pulls your mostly burnt body from the wreckage.
The only disgusting things about this video are the State thievery and your dumbass comments. fuckin' troll

@doogle

I hope your house burns down. With you in it.

But at the last second.. one of these "ungrateful" FireFighters pulls your mostly burnt body from the wreckage.

The only disgusting things about this video are the State thievery and your dumbass comments. fuckin' troll

>> ^doogle:

Disgusting. You're not hired by the state to turn against it. You don't like the retirement plan? Learn another trade where you can sit on your ass all day waiting for an incident.


Typically in these cases the state is reneging on a contractual obligation.
I get that it's a "good" job from a financial and employment standpoint, but this isn't CEO's making 500x what the average worker does.
Fireman also enjoy the added perks of pulling shattered corpses out of wreckage and generally risking their lives on a much more frequent basis than you and I.

What is disgusting is "austerity" measures that keep chipping away at the working class, while the current economic shitstorm was caused by the financial industry, who still haven't been held accountable. I dig that these guys aren't taking it like sheep.
I'm kinda impressed by those cops tho too.

The best bit? The go out and stand in the wreckage like it wouldn't happen again!
Idiots.

@marbles:

First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but I used the term conspiracy theory, not conspiracy. Conspiracy theory has a separate and more strongly suggestive definition (this one from Merriam-Webster): "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

I openly acknowledge that the government of the United States has and does commit conspiracies, as you define the word. (You mentioned Operation Northwoods in a separate comment; a post on Letters of Note from few weeks ago may be of interest to you, too, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/08/possible-actions-to-provoke-harrass-or.html.) The actions described therein, and other such actions, I would aptly describe as conspiracies (were they to be enacted).

Definitions aside, my problem with posts like that of @blastido_factor is that most of their so-called conspiracies are easily debunked. They're old chestnuts. A few minutes' worth of Google searches can disprove them.

It may be helpful to distinguish between what I see as the two main "conspiracies" surrounding 9/11: (1) that 9/11 was, to put it briefly, an "inside job," and (2) that certain members of the government of the United States conspired to use the events of 9/11 as justification for a series of military actions (many of which are ongoing) against people and countries that were, in fact, uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The first I find no credible evidence for. The second I consider a more tenable position.


The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside?

Once again, much of what you mention can be attributed to poor communication between the FAA and the government agencies responsible for responding to the attacks (and, for that matter, between the various levels of government agencies). And again, this is one of the major criticism levied by the various 9/11 investigations. From page forty-five of the 9/11 Commission: "The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the biggest mistakes made by a lot of the conspiracy theorists who fall into the first cateory (see above) is that they judge the events of 9/11 in the context of post-9/11 security. National security, on every level, was entirely different before 9/11 than it is now. That's not to say that the possibility of this kind of attack wasn't considered within the intelligence community pre-9/11. We know that it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate). But was anyone adequately prepared to handle it? No.

In any event, when's the last time you looked at a map of Washington, DC? If you look at a satellite photo, you'll notice that the runways at Ronald Reagan airport are, literally, only a few thousand feet away from the Pentagon. Was a no-fly zone in place over Washington by 9:37 AM? I honestly don't know. But it's misleading to suggest that planes don't routinely fly near the Pentagon. They do.


And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?

In truth, I don't know enough about ballistics to speak for how well a titanium engine would withstand an impact with a reinforced wall at hundreds of miles an hour. But, if you're suggesting that a plane never hit the building, here's a short list of what you're wilfully ignoring: the clipped light poles, the damage to the power generator, the smoke trails, the hundreds of witnesses, the deaths of everyone aboard Flight 77, and the DNA evidence confirming the identities of 184 of the Pentagon's 189 fatalities (64 of which were the passengers on Flight 77).

Regarding the debris: It's misleading to claim that only small amounts of debris were recovered. This from Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer on the scene: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts." In addition, there are countless photos of plane wreckage both inside and outside the building (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+wreckage).


Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found?

You help prove my point with this one: "almost always located." Again, I'm no expert on the recovery of black boxes, but here's a point to consider: if the black boxes were within the rubble at the WTC site, you're looking to find four containers that (undamaged, nonetheless) are roughly the size of two-liter soda bottles amidst the rubble of two buildings, each with a footprint of 43,000 square feet and a height of 1,300 feet (for a combined volume of 111,000,000 cubic feet, or 3,100,000,000 liters). (You might want to check my math. And granted, that material was enormously compacted when the towers collapsed. But still, it's a large number. And it doesn't include any of the space below ground level or any of the other buildings that collapsed.) Add to that the fact that they could have been damaged beyond recognition by the collapse of the buildings and the subsequent fires. To me, that hardly seems worthy of conspiracy.


Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.

Here, finally, we find some common ground. I couldn't agree more. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent critic of America's foreign policy.

>> ^marbles:
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is ...

Did they edit out the Transformer wreckage?

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

That's a good point about the deputy dad. I have a feeling that his expanded role might be on the edit-room floor. The pacing was very tight, and I bet they chopped a fair bit out to keep the momentum.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm adding some spoilers to the mix. You've been forewarned.
I agree, excellent homage to the kid ensemble films of the 80s. Each scene with the five or so boys never felt as if they were waiting for their line reading. Each of them were given things to dwell on that differed from the overarching through line of each scene. During important scenes the kids took time to be kids, called each other names, have their own conversation objectives, etc. Those scenes were rich. And I really wish nearly every blockbuster movie was made like that.
The story itself didn't live up to what the film delivered in tone and pacing. If you disagree, then let me ask you a question. What exactly did the deputy father do the latter half of the movie? During the first half, he sets himself up as a major player when he starts sleuthing around the train wreckage, goes against the sheriff's wishes to investigate further and ultimately gets arrested by the Air Force.
And then what did he do to advance the story forward? Virtually nothing. He contributes nearly zilch outside of freeing the little girl's father, and at that point they have a little "them" time to heal their rift. He was set up as a major role that advanced the plot in the beginning, then he was given busywork to finish out the movie while the children picked up where he left off.
I'm not sure yet if I like or dislike the scene where the alien picks up the protagonist kid, does some psychic exchange, then when the boy tells him "bad things happen, but you can live," the alien thinks, "yeah, that's sound advice," then gets the hell out of dodge. I don't know, am I just too cynical now? Maybe I am, because...
The movie was rated PG-13 even though it had cigarette smoking, pot smoking and hard liquor drinking in it. I don't think those things are deserving of an R rating, but the MPAA sure as shit does, but only when it's an industry darling's movie. If you're an indie filmmaker and put a cigarette in your movie you're pretty much guaranteed to get an R. Spielberg and Abrams do it, add some hard drinking, a couple shits, a fuck, guts splattering and a hell of a lot of focus on getting high, and the MPAA bends at the knees.
Also did you notice when the stoned guy passes out cold and the kids leave him, it appeared that they had to ADR in a new line for one of the kids: "Drugs are bad!"
But other than that, the film was great.

I'm adding some spoilers to the mix. You've been forewarned.

I agree, excellent homage to the kid ensemble films of the 80s. Each scene with the five or so boys never felt as if they were waiting for their line reading. Each of them were given things to dwell on that differed from the overarching through line of each scene. During important scenes the kids took time to be kids, called each other names, have their own conversation objectives, etc. Those scenes were rich. And I really wish nearly every blockbuster movie was made like that.

The story itself didn't live up to what the film delivered in tone and pacing. If you disagree, then let me ask you a question. What exactly did the deputy father do the latter half of the movie? During the first half, he sets himself up as a major player when he starts sleuthing around the train wreckage, goes against the sheriff's wishes to investigate further and ultimately gets arrested by the Air Force.

And then what did he do to advance the story forward? Virtually nothing. He contributes nearly zilch outside of freeing the little girl's father, and at that point they have a little "them" time to heal their rift. He was set up as a major role that advanced the plot in the beginning, then he was given busywork to finish out the movie while the children picked up where he left off.

I'm not sure yet if I like or dislike the scene where the alien picks up the protagonist kid, does some psychic exchange, then when the boy tells him "bad things happen, but you can live," the alien thinks, "yeah, that's sound advice," then gets the hell out of dodge. I don't know, am I just too cynical now? Maybe I am, because...

The movie was rated PG-13 even though it had cigarette smoking, pot smoking and hard liquor drinking in it. I don't think those things are deserving of an R rating, but the MPAA sure as shit does, but only when it's [edit] NOT an industry darling's movie. If you're an indie filmmaker and put a cigarette in your movie you're pretty much guaranteed to get an R. Spielberg and Abrams do it, add some hard drinking, a couple shits, a fuck, guts splattering and a hell of a lot of focus on getting high, and the MPAA bends at the knees.

Also did you notice when the stoned guy passes out cold and the kids leave him, it appeared that they had to ADR in a new line for one of the kids: "Drugs are bad!"

But other than that, the film was great.