This video made me fume.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Keep it going for the band!

I'm guessing the bag acts like a filter and lets air (and flammable fumes) escape through the sides.

>> ^Encumberance:

The fact that it is all legal gets me.

I think a combination of rarity, expense, and just plain impracticality is why these things are legal.
Besides, while it may be legal to own one, mounting something like that 50 BMG on your car is probably not legal. These weapons might be big and scary but not suitable for common criminal activities like robbing banks and knocking over convenience stores, subtly is not a common feature of these weapons.
On another note, I wonder how full those gas cans were? Less would be better I imagine since fumes go up easier than the liquid.

I always just used the microwave.
The fumes are a bonus!

you have annoyed me by already sifting this.


*fumes*

>> ^blankfist:
That scenario is needlessly specific and extreme. Every argument a statist makes against a voluntary society seems to be some extreme work of fiction involving a rogue and crazy Bill Gates doing terrible things to a defenseless group of people.
The answer to your question, I don't know what I'd do. Who could plan for that? You want a system that guarantees something that's unlikely, and that's looking at it the wrong way. There's also no known protections against an alien invasion.


How about this. I'm pretty sure my neighbor stole my bong. He denies it and refuses to let anyone on his property to check. How do I, as a reformed former-statist, rectify the situation without violating the rights of my neighbor?

That was such a great bong too. I've been hauling away some friends' old tires and trash for a small fee so I had a little extra money to spend. I don't have a place to store that stuff, but it's fairly easy to burn it on the far corner of my property. Sure the fumes are toxic, but that only affects the people downwind of me. Some of those people have complained, but do they really have any other options that don't involve shooting me?


These are, of course, not about the specific situations. People are often assholes that care more about what benefits them than what affects others, and I doubt removing government will change that. These kinds of situations come up fairly often, so how does your ideal citizen and/or government (or lack thereof) handle situations similar to these?

Note: I'm not trying to disprove your stance, I'm just trying to figure out what it is.

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

Okay, but let's have data.

I have about five cigars a year. I know it's harmful... and in some sense, it's completely disgusting of me to take risks with my life and health just for the sake of some cigars. But I'm more worried about the pollution in the city I live in, the fumes from vehicles and the cavalcade of chemicals that we ingest every day from our environment and food.

I'm just a stupid primate with an interminable need to put things in my mouth.

>> ^nach0s:

Fuel pump working too hard maybe? Busted a hose/line? Basically like puncturing the artery in your neck as you're dead-lifting 500 lbs.


Or the tires lit up/fumes from the heat caused by friction ? if he had bursed a fuel line they would not let him continue, as well the fuel pressure would be fucked if their is a leak. I dont think its a fuel leak at all. Just hot effin tires.

*brief

Crazy a$$ Japanese. Must be the fumes from Mt. Fuji.

lol love how they deliberately left out the sound bites in some scenes. The film just leaves you there with full blown awkwardness, out in the open air, fuming. LOL LOL!

Ah Moon, I love that. That's an example of the joy of keeping something simple and ending up with something far more complex. And marvelous acting of course. Just sticking Sam Rockwell in Inception would have improved it 100 times over.

>> ^dag:

I'm with you Deano. Total Recall, for all it's sugar-candy pop-coating- was a much more enjoyable SF movie. Dark City or any Alex Proyas movie is also better. The accolades this movie received are undeserved - I wish Moon had gotten a quarter of the hype.
>> ^Deano:
Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.
To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.

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

I'm with you Deano. Total Recall, for all it's sugar-candy pop-coating- was a much more enjoyable SF movie. Dark City or any Alex Proyas movie is also better. The accolades this movie received are undeserved - I wish Moon had gotten a quarter of the hype.

>> ^Deano:

Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.
To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.

Oh and one more thing while I'm fuming. Several weeks ago as part of the PR blitz for the film, it was suggested that Nolan is a modern Stanley Kubrick.

To which I say - in your dreams Nolan, in your dreams.

There's more than one video floating around on this site talking about what the Exxon spill did to animals and people alike. What is said in this video is very similar to those, and all of them are from different people that I've seen. I think it's more likely that government is full of shit in anything they do to downplay it versus what these individuals are saying that are in the medical field and have been studying it trying to cure people since Exxon.

Because we already know that government and oil have not invested in new methods to clean up oil spills, so it's very unlikely they would also invest money into research on what exposure does to people during and after clean up from the Exxon.

If this oil leak is not taken of when they estimate it will be which from what I've read is late July and August for the relief wells to come online. If it keeps spilling out even with the additional wells, I don't see how anyone in this part of the world will be safe from it's effects given weather patterns and ocean currents. I saw on Craig Fergeson they had I believe his name is Jean Cousteau, son of Jacques Cousteau, who was talking about how the oil in the gulf would begin appearing in England due to the water currents and how saturated the water column is because of the disperants.

Lots of very disturbing videos out there regarding what the oil spill has done already. People on the water who were vomiting over the side because the fumes from the water was cutting off the oxygen and causing nausea. Fish so disoriented they were swimming into boats, swimming on their sides and upside down with their mouths sticking out of the water trying to breath. No sightings of dolphins in Florida for a long while, so they are either dead, dieing, or left the area. Kids breaking out in rashes who mysteriously recover shortly after leaving the areas in proximity to tainted zones. Fishermen who are aiding in the clean up, coming down with upper respiratory problems, going to their doctors and being told their lungs look like they've been smoking 3 packs a day when they are in fact non-smokers.

The same responders who at 911 telling people they should wear respirators for the clean up, who say that firemen who refused to wear them in 911 rescues came down with "the crud" from exposure to toxins. They say every person helping clean up the oil spill is offered a respirator, but BP took over distribution of them. And they won't allow people to have respirators without proper training in how to use them, which they will provide. But they won't begin the training until they feel people need the respirators. So you have the right to a respirator, they will give you one when you are trained, but they won't provide training until you need one. Makes perfect sense, like everything else associated with the handling of this.

Crops are diseased and dieing already from just the rain carrying the chemicals used to "clean up" the oil spill. I can't imagine that people out on the water aren't already severely exposed to these same chemicals if it can travel via water evaporation into the clouds to come down as rain...it has to be in the air for them all.

From other sources, they call exposure in Exxon and 911 "the crud" or "The Exxon crud". And people exposed to it have it for the rest of their life and eventually die because of it. I could see people in 911 being exposed just because it was a fast response situation and people were trying to do the right thing in a very short period of time. But there is no excuse for what is happening now, especially with the Exxon spill being there as evidence and proof of what can and will happen to people exposed to the oil and the chemicals used in it's clean up. A disaster caused by BP for money/time saving measures is one thing, but then allowing people trying to help contain a problem they had nothing to do with but bear all of the consequences of it to become ill and probably die from their efforts to help....that's something that can not stand.