OK, had a chance to watch the start of the video again to remind me of the context, and thought of some other ways to look at it.

1. You could, if you were particularly heartless, look at it as the individual failures of the people who borrowed money they had no hope of repaying. That I consider this a rather unfair way of looking at it is unlikely to stop the usual suspects from actually voicing this opinion.

2. You could look at it as a failure of risk management. Each individual player understood that there were risks involved, but each thought that passing the risk along to the next person would avoid the risk being their own! Nobody understood that they were creating a risk to the entire system.

3. You could also look at it as a failure of regulation. I am quite astounded that, amidst the sea of fraudulent activity by banks and their agents, there were no charges laid against anybody for the activities that brought about the GFC. The regulations also, in some cases, prevented banks from taking sensible steps to avoid default. Once the loans were bundled together, rules 'protecting' investors by preventing discounting were actually what caused the investors to lose their shirts.

4. You could look at it as a failure of business: In many cases, the folks who had been encouraged to take out these dodgy loans were actually going along just fine until the banks increased the interest rates. There was, therefore, a huge missed opportunity for someone to buy these loans in default at a discount, and let the homeowners keep paying the introductory rates that they quite clearly had been managing quite well.

Also he should have never been pulled over as he has dealer plates and is exempt from inspection sticker thing.

Took him to the hospital and after was released from custody with no charges.

I haven't followed this too closely, but I at least partially disagree with Stewart here:

1) The original video from outside the elevator didn't really provide conclusive proof about what happened. Her being knocked unconscious as a result of physical violence was the most likely explanation for what we saw there, but I think there was room for reasonable doubt at the time. She could have been passed out drunk or otherwise intoxicated, or knocked out by somebody else.

That original video was certainly enough to have police look into the event further. I assume that happened, but I don't know the results. I can only assume that no charges were pressed. Beyond that, I didn't / don't think it was necessary for the NFL to get involved at all. Especially since the first video didn't really prove that he did anything wrong.


2) If the NFL wanted to get involved, sure they could try to get their hands on more evidence (like the 2nd video). But, it isn't really their business -- let the police worry about that. And taking any actions against a player that is a suspect of any crime would be risky too... For example, a policy of suspending a player that has an active investigation against them before it has been concluded could easily be abused.


3) Maybe the NFL saw the 2nd video a long time ago, and maybe they didn't. Their actions now definitely seem like spin / damage control, but I don't think it is particularly fair to get all ticked off at the NFL even if you assume that they are lying and that they had seen the 2nd video a long time ago.

If the police and prosecutors want to send Rice to jail for his actions, by all means do so -- it would be well deserved. But criminal justice isn't in the purview of the NFL. Let the police take care of it, and if they fail to punish him adequately it is their fault, not the NFL's.

Now that the NFL has (and is forced to acknowledge) the definitive evidence about what happened from the 2nd video, it is fine (and GOOD) that they suspended him. But, I'm not too upset at them for taking their time to decide to do that. The slaps on the wrist from the criminal justice system are a much bigger concern, at least from my point of view.

But, I haven't been following this story too closely, so maybe I missed some stuff that would sway my opinion.

Congratulations! Your comment on bronx man beaten and arrested on video for no charge has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on bronx man beaten and arrested on video for no charge has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 15 Badge!

Your video, bronx man beaten and arrested on video for no charge, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In Alaska if someone is firebombing your house you shoot them and then a grand jury says no charges.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

Isn't that what liberals want--"dialogue" with our enemies? Nixon also created the EPA. Pobody's nerfect. The 'crook' who had no knowledge of Watergate and never ordered it, but still stepped down, unlike Slick Willie the convicted felon. Nixon is a statesman by comparison to both Bubba AND Obozo.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

You mean the guy with higher test scores than Kerry? By international law tis only a crime to torture recognized enemy soldiers of an actual nation, not IED-laying sh1tbag terrorists. If it saves American lives, I'm for torturing every last one of them.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

Hearsay and bullshit, rebuked testimony, no charges filed. Nice try, though! Nothing brings out the racist in a liberal like a Black conservative, who by the way, is an intellectual giant compared to Obozo's recent affirmative action twins. Oh, and Thomas was never accused of rape like bubba.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Facts? Where? Oh, was that your version of facts? You've failed in your mission. Utterly. I expected less--much less--from a liberal. And you delivered. Let me know when you want another keyboard beating.










>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.
"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.
I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

>> ^Yogi:

Which credit union is the best one though?


Credit unions memberships are limited to a certain locality or group. So it varies depending on where you live. I'd choose the one that has the most locations, and is insured by the NCUA (nearly all are).

Also, it's helpful if the credit union is part of the coop network. If it is, you can use ATMs at other Coop network credit unions at no charge. And you can use any ATM with the Coop network logo for free. For example, all ATMs at 7-11s use the coop network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO-OP_Financial_Services

I'm quite happy with my credit union. Free overdraft protection to a line of credit beats the hell out of $30 overdraft fees at large banks.

And Here you get to see what happens when one of the workers does not meet his quota of fish for the day. The enforce moves quickly and silently with a quick strike to the family jewels. No charges were filed as all witness state it looked like an accident. but the worker knows what really happened and he also knows if he does it again. He gets to sleep with the humans....

Original 47 second vid, with lead-in title cards and timeshift footage

http://videosift.com/video/Dont-Mess-with-Buzz

Here's Wiki's coverage of this event:

"Most astronauts have refused to grant him interviews. The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon.

When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a "coward", a "liar", and a "thief".[1] An exasperated Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, which was recorded. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and (based on Sibrel's unfazed, nearly instant reaction to his camera man) did not actually injure Sibrel, and no charges were filed. Many talk show hosts aired the clip, making Sibrel the butt of jokes.[2] Sibrel said later that he wrote a letter of apology to Aldrin."

>> ^smooman:

>> ^cosmovitelli:
Smooman you should live in Singapore you'd love it. The government don't like people making a mess with gum so if they catch you with any they put you in jail for year.
Needless to say, their streets are spotless and their memorials are peaceful. And their people are repressed and want their gum back.

if jailtime for chewing gum anywhere and being arrested and consequently released with no charges for dancing in one particular spot is the same thing to you, then perhaps a lobotomy is in order because you are certifiable


If you can't see how letting people get body slammed for abstract localised unspecifiable silent body movements can't lead to getting dragged off to jail for dropping gum then you need to start hiding your gum.

>> ^bmacs27:

There is a law against organized demonstration in the memorial.. ..You just aren't allowed to co-opt that space for political purposes, period.


Understood. The question is whether there should be such a law, and what a reasonable state would do if it were challenged. Presumably the same thing applies to thousands of spots, like the front of the White house. What if a couple of dozen people turned up there and silently flash mobbed it with a little peaceful jigging for 10 minutes? Do you want to see them violently attacked and arrested? Do you think the white house PR staff would ever dream of letting that happen? This is not as cut and dried as you guys would like to think. As for respecting Jefferson, does anyone really think the dude would have said anything other than let them get on with it?

>> ^cosmovitelli:

Smooman you should live in Singapore you'd love it. The government don't like people making a mess with gum so if they catch you with any they put you in jail for year.
Needless to say, their streets are spotless and their memorials are peaceful. And their people are repressed and want their gum back.


if jailtime for chewing gum anywhere and being arrested and consequently released with no charges for dancing in one particular spot is the same thing to you, then perhaps a lobotomy is in order because you are certifiable