Wow that is surprising. He's actually fairly articulate. I can't believe he's actually 50. I would have asked to see his driver's license.

I believe it when Michael says that there was no knife, no murder stuff, no parole or jail time. Tom just made that up.

But perhaps the most debated thing in this entire incident, as to who started this, is still unclear. In the original video, Tom seems pretty sincere when he says "You offered!". And I found another (possibly fabricated) Internet post claiming to have seen Tom before he got on the bus and he was indeed discussing apparel for a funeral.

Michael was drunk and Tom is a bit off his rocker. But against all odds they both seem like decent people. Except for the camerawoman.

Watching the follow up video and reading about Epic Beard Man, it's clear that he's a little off his rocker. Sad, really. I think he probably did say something racist and insulting to the other guy in this video. But still, the old guy moved away from the argument and the young guy threw the first punch. I don't understand how you pick a fight with someone as large as that old guy. He's clearly extremely strong. I guess that's why it's EIA.

The most pathetic people in this video are the ones filming it, alternatively encouraging the fight, feigning outrage at the outcome, and then stealing the old guy's bag.

"Will you marry me" isn't supposed to be an open-ended question. Private is fine, public is fine. The point is, you 100% know the answer before you ask the girl. You should have already talked about it plenty (though not "officially" asked her yet). For something like this to work, you should be at a point in the relationship where she's already expecting the question and just wondering when and how you will ask - where's she's already made up her mind before you ask. Putting her on the spot is a huge mistake.

And if you think I'm off my rocker, I'm from the South. Yes, it really is a different culture than the rest of the U.S., but I thoroughly love it.

In reply to this comment by laura:
That, my friend, was fantastic.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
do guys really have this problem?
wanting to fuck women who are equally horny,yet desire for a partner that is a passive,meek door mouse for a relationship?
and then get confused to why there seems to be a sexual schizophrenia in their life?
it is not that complicated.
if you do not desire your girlfriend in the beginning,yet stick around because she has great "susie-home-maker" qualities,you might as well prepare for the divorce now.
the same goes for the opposite.
... real woman because a real woman would only play with him like a cat does a mouse.
8.i could totally be off my rocker and just spouting nonsensical bullshit.
9.while that may be true...woman utterly fascinate me.

what was the question again?


why thank you miss laura.
it really does not seem complicated to me but i have heard men lament this before.
silly men....

That, my friend, was fantastic.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
do guys really have this problem?
wanting to fuck women who are equally horny,yet desire for a partner that is a passive,meek door mouse for a relationship?
and then get confused to why there seems to be a sexual schizophrenia in their life?
it is not that complicated.
if you do not desire your girlfriend in the beginning,yet stick around because she has great "susie-home-maker" qualities,you might as well prepare for the divorce now.
the same goes for the opposite.
... real woman because a real woman would only play with him like a cat does a mouse.
8.i could totally be off my rocker and just spouting nonsensical bullshit.
9.while that may be true...woman utterly fascinate me.

what was the question again?

do guys really have this problem?
wanting to fuck women who are equally horny,yet desire for a partner that is a passive,meek door mouse for a relationship?
and then get confused to why there seems to be a sexual schizophrenia in their life?
it is not that complicated.
if you do not desire your girlfriend in the beginning,yet stick around because she has great "susie-home-maker" qualities,you might as well prepare for the divorce now.
the same goes for the opposite.
having fantastic sex with a woman only to find she is an idiot who looks banging in a t-back.
look,
i am not telling anyone how to run their business but for you guys out there consider this:
as men we are visual.
give us something to look at and some friction and we be happy lil dudes.
women are wired totally different.
while they can be visual,they are not as single-minded as men.(we have all seen the ugly dude with the hottie and thought wha???).
for women the two strongest components are sensual (touch) and emotional.
the emotional is the biggest key for a woman.this component decides how far she will surrender to you.
i use the word surrender specifically for a purpose.
because at it's core that's what it is.
as men we do not think of sex as "opening up" but that is EXACTLY how a woman views it.if i have to explain that further you need help.
a woman surrenders to you,she allows you access.
she is the gatekeeper..(sorry..gozer reference.i'll stop).

now do not confuse a hook up with the sex a woman craves.
women get just as horny as men but in our culture it tends to be frowned upon.so they use excuses like being drunk or whatever to ease their conscience.a hook up is a woman using YOU for something she needs,something we all need.
touching,kissing,caressing and yes..orgasms!
and you thought it was due to your irresistable charm..you go right ahead and keep telling yourself that.
unless the woman is mentally deficient she just needed sex.
*hint* if you can keep your trap shut and not brag to your buddies 5 seconds after she leaves your room she will come back...and often.
BUT..this arrangement will never be long lasting because at it's heart it only serves the purpose of the body and a woman needs to have the heart nourished also.
this is where i do not understand the question put to mr savage:
when a woman feels safe and secure in not her emotions but YOURS,this is when she will surrender to you.
she will open up and give you everything.
so even miss meek quiet doormouse will reveal a sexual experience to you that you thought not possible.
ALL women have this in them.
she will reveal a side of her that NOBODY else,including YOU,knew existed.
be prepared for the ride of your life.not only will be the best sex you ever had with her but from anybody!
so yes..even missus susie home maker can be a porn star if she trusts you enough.
*note* by the way.you might as well get prepared because you my friend are getting married.

so the only thing i can surmise from this question is:
1.the questioner is young,most likely early 20's
2.he watches waaaay too much MTV and thinks thats how a young man is supposed to act.what up dawg?!?
3.does not realize that women pay attention to EVERYTHING.
4.so while he may be attractive and fun,they consider him a DAWG and will only let him in so far.being very aware of his promiscuous nature.
5.predominantly the women he experiences are other predators with breasts(girls can be just as DAWG as dudes,dont kid yourself),while the girls with things like:self-esteem,strong personality and a strong sense of self avoid him like the plague.
6.the quiet meek women this man has encountered are also buying into a lot of the media,socialized Bullshit and see him as a notch into a particular crowd.future stalkers of america!
7.has never been with a real woman because a real woman would only play with him like a cat does a mouse.
8.i could totally be off my rocker and just spouting nonsensical bullshit.
9.while that may be true...woman utterly fascinate me.

what was the question again?

Thats messed up. I can't believe he can say that on t.v. without being fired or thrown into a home because obliviously this guy is off his old rocker.

"Are you a Mod or a Rocker?"... "Neither. I'm Mock." Nah...

'Should've sang "Happy Together", being a Turtle and all.

Showing respect to any non-elected leader is regrettable, but Cheney is as usual off his rocker.

>> ^arvana:
Freaks rock.


and rockers are freaky.

End of Golden-Era pop/country crossover. Nothing resembles this in modern soul-devoid 'pap' music. Also, early Charlie Rich was a rockabilly rocker.

>> ^billbalance:
My name is Bill Dan - check out more of My work here [ 30+ videos ] - http://youtube.com/bebalance - and more images - short video clips to see here [ http://flickr.com/photos/rocker ]

Great work! Before I saw you making them I never imagined structures like that were possible.

My name is Bill Dan - check out more of My work here [ 30+ videos ] - http://youtube.com/bebalance - and more images - short video clips to see here [ http://flickr.com/photos/rocker ]

*beg for dead rockers!

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
Wow. I'm accused of making lazy arguments, when some of the best you guys can throw at me is that we have 100% odds of living on the planet we live on under the conditions that currently exist. That's not lazy?
"Well, we're here, so how we got here is irrelevant."

Let's be clear about this. No scientist has ever or would ever say that "how" we got here is irrelevant. Why do you think so many people are fighting to make sure natural selection and the theory of evolution are taught in schools?

No, what's irrelevant is the "odds" against life developing. As with an earlier example that you seem to have ignored (big surprise), imagine you roll a die a thousand times and write down the numbers you get in order. Now show that list to someone and say "What are the odds against rolling those numbers in that exact order?" The odds against it would be enormous! But that doesn't mean God made those numbers happen, it happened because the die was rolled and there was a record. It doesn't matter what the odds against doing it again are, because it already happened. It took an estimated 13.7 billion years for life to develop to this point. A whole lot of crazy shit can happen in that amount of time, with an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and who knows how many planets and moons around each star?

So what are the odds against you having rolled that sequence of numbers on the die? Zero. It happened. There are no odds against it. The odds against it happening again may be huge, but it happened once and there's no wagering against that. So the odds against life developing on Earth? Zero. It happened. Pick something else to base your silly arguments on.


"I do take exception to how off-handedly dismiss the Bible, though. The Bible has been validated through historical accuracy of events depicted, is a unique document in all of human history, and is validated through the fulfillment of prophecy over time."

There are massive and glaring historical inaccuracies, or at the very least, completely uncorroborated by contemporary historians. There is no evidence of Herod's Massacre of the Innocents, no evidence that a "city" named Nazareth existed at that time, no evidence that there was a tradition of letting a prisoner go free (when the crowd supposedly chose Barabbas instead of Jesus), no record of a disruption in the temple during passover (when Jesus drove out the money changers), no record of a prophet who had thousands of people going to listen to him.

There were a number of good writers in those times, many of whom wrote on the events of the times. Nobody mentioned a person resembling Jesus at all until many decades after his supposed death.


"The lazy argument probably on the tip of your tongue is that the Bible has been altered a bazillion times to make it look like it got the story right. You've got quite a steep slope to climb to make that argument. The Bible includes 40 authors, 3 languages, 3 continents, and a authorship span of 1500 years. Studies have verified that the transcripts have held up without material alteration according to the earliest known records."

You are off your rocker. All you have to do is look at a few passages from a few different translations to know that is complete bunk. Consider for instance the most famous of the ten commandments: Thou shalt not kill - King James Version. That is also translated as "You shall not murder." (New International Version) Consider the difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Killing can be self defense, or what a soldier does in war. So making a new translation that uses the word "murder" instead will allow priests the justification to let people go become soldiers, or perhaps use the death penalty ("It's not murder, it's justice.") Huge difference in just that one translation, and you think that doesn't happen all over the bible? You know nothing. And religion depends on you remaining ignorant and pliant. Why do you think it took so long to translate the bible into English? Because before that happened, the priests had complete and utter control over the interpretation. Now they have to twist the words around and create convoluted justifications for weird stories there. It's not as easy, and fewer people are buying their bullshit every day.


"I'm still not impressed with the answers."

You won't be impressed with anything that anyone has to tell you about the truth behind religion until you stop holding on to the idea that blind faith is a good thing. Faith in something without any evidence is never considered a good thing by anybody, with the sole exception of religion.

If you want to be impressed, start looking for real evidence that what you believe about God is true. And when you find that there is none, anywhere, except for the dubious scribblings of some unknown authors many centuries ago, maybe then you'll be impressed. But I suspect your head is just too far under the sand for that to happen.


"If you want to get into a theological debate on whether my Bible is rubbish...I ask a similar question. Why would Jesus' disciples subject themselves to being cultural outcasts and ultimately suffer fates of excile and execution if they didn't truly believe in the message? Wouldn't at least one of them, seeing their reflection in the executioner's sword, yell out "Just kidding!" unless they passionately knew theirs was the most important message of all time?"

You don't know the bible at all do you? "And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." Who knows how many others abandoned their belief after supposedly being in the presence of the Christ himself, and we are all asked to devote our lives to him without even having met the guy? Again I call bullshit. If God wants me to believe in him, he can come tell me why himself.

But the messages I'm getting lately are quite the opposite. Just a few years ago I discovered there is no evidence outside of the bible that the person we call Jesus even existed.

"The Bible depicts Herod, the Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search and kill the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history supports such a story. Pontius Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or several decades after, ever records such a human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known historical record speaks for itself."

- Jim Walker, nobeliefs.com

The Jews were very good record keepers, and these glaring omissions are very telling.

On the other hand, there are many, many legendary mythological figures, from Mithras to Hercules, that have a very similar story to Jesus. I see absolutely no reason why Jesus isn't just one more myth that will eventually fade into time and be taught along side Greek and Roman mythology.