Awwwww...just one more time. >> ^ant:

>> ^chicchorea:
...been trying for almost half a century...better luck to you.

...mwhahahaha...huhhhh, I mean...MWHAHAHAHA
>> ^ant:
>> ^chicchorea:
...see?!
>> ^ant:
Argh, this song is stuck in my head now.


Argh, make it stop!!!!!!!!


It stopped after a few minutes since my last comment about it. I forgot how the song goes and I am not going to play the video to recall it back into my tiny brain.

>> ^chicchorea:

...been trying for almost half a century...better luck to you.

...mwhahahaha...huhhhh, I mean...MWHAHAHAHA
>> ^ant:
>> ^chicchorea:
...see?!
>> ^ant:
Argh, this song is stuck in my head now.


Argh, make it stop!!!!!!!!



It stopped after a few minutes since my last comment about it. I forgot how the song goes and I am not going to play the video to recall it back into my tiny brain.

...been trying for almost half a century...better luck to you.


...mwhahahaha...huhhhh, I mean...MWHAHAHAHA
>> ^ant:

>> ^chicchorea:
...see?!
>> ^ant:
Argh, this song is stuck in my head now.


Argh, make it stop!!!!!!!!

>> ^chicchorea:

...see?!
>> ^ant:
Argh, this song is stuck in my head now.



Argh, make it stop!!!!!!!!

...see?!
>> ^ant:

Argh, this song is stuck in my head now.

Religious doctrine? Cults? Market research? Corporate policy? Economic policy by banks, hedge funds, Wall St.? Big Pharma? Big Agro? Big Oil?

These are all excellent points, and in my zeal I have to admit that it was rather hyperbolic to say government is the “only” institution that creates the “I was following orders” mentality. In that I stand corrected. However, I stand by the substance of the idea that government is the primary violator, and that history’s most egregious examples are government created.

If you are down on government save us all the time and just denounce humanity and go live in a cave somewhere.

I’m down on big central governments. Limited, small government at the municipal, county, and state level which are held to a high standard of culpability and performance by voters is fine. Big federal government that implements one-size policies on nations for social engineering are lousy. Federal government is for national defense and some intra/inter state trade regulations. That’s it. The constitution was designed to keep federal powers limited. It is no surprise that one of our man-child president’s great irritations with the country he runs is that the constitution doesn’t allow him to do more “TO” the public.

Build your own running water system, police, and fire dept. while you're at it.

Feds don’t do those things. Those are city, state, and county functions.

Maybe instead of bitching about the TSA you could suggest an alternative?

I have. Profile the likely offenders and stop hassling people who are low statistical risks. It will decrease the workload, reduce costs, and speed up the process a hundred-fold.

I'm not going to sit here and scream… even though I don't like them either. … The kid will be just fine. He'll get over it. … It's a brave new world.

Brave New World. Oh, what fools these mortals be. I’d suggest brushing up on your Huxley and Shakespeare. I doubt Huxley would be applauding your, “bend over and take it” sentiment. You might think it is admirable. History suggests that such a docile attitude towards central government is profoundly unwise. Government is meant to be questioned, held to account, challenged, and regarded with suspicion.

The problem, of course, is that the TSA procedures do not work, and using them to only inconvenience a demographic that does not happen to include you, will not make them any more effective.

Well – very true – this is a good point. What the TSA is doing is security theatre. It is not effective at preventing terrorist acts from succeeding. So why are we doing this? If the object is increased SECURITY then the procedure needs to change radically. But if we aren’t willing to do the things that will actually provide security then we’d be better off just abandoning the whole effort as a fruitless exercise.

Allan stole a loaf of bread. Allan is a thief. Allan is black. All blacks are thieves.

Except that’s not what I said or even anything remotely close to it. I’m saying…

“Over 95% of all air travel terrorism has been committed by foreign-born Muslim males between 17-40. The TSA should focus its efforts on this population to increase efficiency.” That isn’t saying “all Muslims are terrorists”. It is only saying, “This population sector is the highest risk”. Correlation does not equal causation but it does tell you where to weight your cases and analysis. Right now, even a basic statistical model would heavily weight the probability of a terrorist act towards foreign-born Muslim males.

Totally pointless and useless comment is totally pointless and useless.
In reply to this comment by Pprt:
Beyond reasoning with...
>> ^KnivesOut:

The end does not justify the means.
If we start forming special lines at airports for anyone that might be Muslim or Arab, who else should we be singling out for that treatment? What about Irishmen?
A very, very small % of the Arabs or Muslims in the world have actually blown up planes. There's 1.5 BILLION Muslims on the planet. How many have blown up planes? 20? Statistically speaking... how close is that to 0%?
>> ^Pprt:
Amazing that people like this can remember to breathe.. Just how far can we go into denying evident and verifiable facts so that we don't "offend" someone?
Half of AIDS infected Americans are Blacks, yet they are roughly 15% of the population.
White Europeans are more likely to be serial killers than any other ethnic group.
Muslims, mostly Arabs, are responsible for almost all transnational terrorist attacks in the past 20 years.
My guess is that most people are only "offended" by two of the last statements. Why must we completely ignore any racial data we have?
It's akin to directing half of breast cancer awareness efforts to men just because they're half the population. Yes, men CAN get breast cancer, but would it really be the most efficient prevention effort?
>> ^KnivesOut:
The logic goes like this:
Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.

Beyond reasoning with...
>> ^KnivesOut:

The end does not justify the means.
If we start forming special lines at airports for anyone that might be Muslim or Arab, who else should we be singling out for that treatment? What about Irishmen?
A very, very small % of the Arabs or Muslims in the world have actually blown up planes. There's 1.5 BILLION Muslims on the planet. How many have blown up planes? 20? Statistically speaking... how close is that to 0%?
>> ^Pprt:
Amazing that people like this can remember to breathe.. Just how far can we go into denying evident and verifiable facts so that we don't "offend" someone?
Half of AIDS infected Americans are Blacks, yet they are roughly 15% of the population.
White Europeans are more likely to be serial killers than any other ethnic group.
Muslims, mostly Arabs, are responsible for almost all transnational terrorist attacks in the past 20 years.
My guess is that most people are only "offended" by two of the last statements. Why must we completely ignore any racial data we have?
It's akin to directing half of breast cancer awareness efforts to men just because they're half the population. Yes, men CAN get breast cancer, but would it really be the most efficient prevention effort?
>> ^KnivesOut:
The logic goes like this:
Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.

The end does not justify the means.

If we start forming special lines at airports for anyone that might be Muslim or Arab, who else should we be singling out for that treatment? What about Irishmen?

A very, very small % of the Arabs or Muslims in the world have actually blown up planes. There's 1.5 BILLION Muslims on the planet. How many have blown up planes? 20? Statistically speaking... how close is that to 0%?

>> ^Pprt:

Amazing that people like this can remember to breathe.. Just how far can we go into denying evident and verifiable facts so that we don't "offend" someone?
Half of AIDS infected Americans are Blacks, yet they are roughly 15% of the population.
White Europeans are more likely to be serial killers than any other ethnic group.
Muslims, mostly Arabs, are responsible for almost all transnational terrorist attacks in the past 20 years.
My guess is that most people are only "offended" by two of the last statements. Why must we completely ignore any racial data we have?
It's akin to directing half of breast cancer awareness efforts to men just because they're half the population. Yes, men CAN get breast cancer, but would it really be the most efficient prevention effort?
>> ^KnivesOut:
The logic goes like this:
Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.

Amazing that people like this can remember to breathe.. Just how far can we go into denying evident and verifiable facts so that we don't "offend" someone?

Half of AIDS infected Americans are Blacks, yet they are roughly 15% of the population.
White Europeans are more likely to be serial killers than any other ethnic group.
Muslims, mostly Arabs, are responsible for almost all transnational terrorist attacks in the past 20 years.

My guess is that most people are only "offended" by two of the last statements. Why must we completely ignore any racial data we have?

It's akin to directing half of breast cancer awareness efforts to men just because they're half the population. Yes, men CAN get breast cancer, but would it really be the most efficient prevention effort?
>> ^KnivesOut:

The logic goes like this:
Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.

>> ^KnivesOut:

The logic goes like this:
Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.


Haha. He did it for the lulz.

The logic goes like this:

Allan stole a loaf of bread.
Allan is a thief.
Allan is black.
All blacks are thieves.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:blah blah blah I'm a racist.

My apologies for taking the comments seriously but, for most guitarists, it's not how the guitar looks, it's how it sounds and how it plays. I actually had a chance to play with a Parker Nitefly guitar and the tonal options on it were awesome. Now, you want to talk about a highly skilled guitarist playing an ugly instrument, I present to you: Allan Holdsworth and the SynthAxe.

^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/LarsaruS" title="member since December 27th, 2009" class="profilelink">LarsaruS
So you don't like the ufc.. because you can't paralyze people? ..?!?!?
It's supposed to be sport fighting. Not televised manslaughter.
There are rules in place to protect people's lives and careers.
Perfect example. Mark Coleman Vs. Allan Goes at min 1:55
Throwing knees to Goes' head while he's already in a choke on the ground.
Goes' brain is starved of oxygen while it's being bounced around his skull.
His neck is cranked and being compressed even more with each blow.
Goes was knocked out thankfully. If not:
1- His skull would've been busted open
2- His neck would've been snapped



Coleman was not choking or neckcranking Goes. It is physically impossible for you to effectively choke someone close to your body and land knees at the same time, especially since a large portion of the power in a knee strike comes from your core. Knee strikes from this position should be perfectly legal, to reduce the amount of stalling and stalemates that you frequently see in the UFC. What the ufc has done is neutralize what was previously an extremely disadvantageous position for guy on the bottom.

@LarsaruS
So you don't like the ufc.. because you can't paralyze people? ..?!?!?

It's supposed to be sport fighting. Not televised manslaughter.
There are rules in place to protect people's lives and careers.

Perfect example. Mark Coleman Vs. Allan Goes at min 1:55
Throwing knees to Goes' head while he's already in a choke on the ground.

Goes' brain is starved of oxygen while it's being bounced around his skull.
His neck is cranked and being compressed even more with each blow.

Goes was knocked out thankfully. If not:

1- His skull would've been busted open
2- His neck would've been snapped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second.

Saying that disallowing knees or stomps to a downed opponent benefits fighters "dumb enough" to "lie down in a fight"..

Is like saying disallowing eye gouges or arm breaks benefit fighters "dumb enough" to "leave their eyes or ligaments unguarded in a fight"

Please realize how crude your statement sounds. You may wanna cut back on the horror movies a bit. =/ =]