Nah see, mindless tourists on their first-go aren't expected to master the thing on a one-time downhill-The guy with the cam has done it a few times perhaps, if not, he's definitely douche.

The girl is visibly distraught and shaken after that whiplash (which can seriously mess someones life up, much less a holiday) and the only saving grace for the douche when he came to stop was to jump out and inquire as to her condition, and that with sincere apologies...You gotta understand, choggie has this particularly sensitive douchebag meter that stays calibrated, with updates to software daily-I only had to watch this once-Upvoted for the thrill of a new experience to write down on the bucket-list, not the cunt filming himself douching-out.

@criticalthud - Pretty much completely eradicating smallpox and polio, rabies is no longer a death sentence, there has been a 55% reduction in cardiovascular disease fatalities since the fifties, there is a 90% childhood leukemia survival rate, transplants, bacterial infections are generally no longer a big deal...

This is just what comes to me off the top of my head, with research I could go on for hours.

Of course there are flaws and in some cases corruption in western medicine just as you would expect with any such massively complex and lucrative human endeavor, but trying to equate it with the blatant quackery of "alternative medicine" only displays your intentional ignorance of reality and makes you the butt of any joke.

I have no patience for this kind of mindless drivel. Somehow, it has become trendy to ignore the benefits of modern medicine. Honestly, I don't care if you die needlessly of cancer because you waited too long to see some western doctors, but when scum like you try to contribute to the general atmosphere of rampant unfounded mistrust of science based techniques that have an astoundingly successful track record, then you are trying to spread your inane poison and I have to reprimand your idiocy.




http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150698.001.0001/acprof-9780195150698-chapter-18

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/childhood-leukemia-survival-rates-improve-significantly

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

Btw, @Fletch

Holy fuck...just holy fuck. Good reasoning Fletch, on all parts. Mindless drones on both sides always piss me off and I am glad to see you have an open mind. I remember my first year on the Sift when I came with a partially positive outlook on cops, yet pointed out when they were fucktards--I was this commie cum dumpster that everyone loved to hate... But my views are mostly like yours (Just a little less jaded.)

And we wonder why cops get jaded...

I cannot figure out what you are trying to debate? That there is no science behind DMT? That there is nothing to DMT? That "spiritual" does not exist? What is your point of this continued conversation? That you are scared of psychedelics? Why do you think such an experience would have been programmed into our head, the most powerful experience a person can have?

I have trouble understanding "spiritual" to be the same as "awesome" or "awe-inspiring", but if thats what you mean by "spiritual", I suppose we agree. I understand "spiritual" to mean "that which concerns the spirits or the spiritual world", ie something supernatural.

I suppose there is little point in continuing this debate, I get a little carried away.. My point ws only that it is unscientific and nonsensical to think that stimulating your brain with chemicals can help you discover some sor of spiritworld or some nonsense like that, the reason I KNOW this, as you put it, is what I've fruitlessly to express over several long comments. Basically, to repeat myself for like the 5th time, it has to do with basic facts of the origin of our brains and so forth, it is now established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that our brains evolved. If you understand what biological evolution is and how it works, you'd know it is the mindless reshuffling of nucleotides acted upon in populations of animals over countless generations, this produces amazing survival machines, and some of them develop brains, and some of those grow big brains.

How do you think DNA evolved over so many years,
DNA probably evolved after RNA, nobody knows exactly how replicating nucleotides started to replicate, it was probably a staggeringly unlikely event, but then there was literally all the time and space in the universe for it to happen..

you ever read Francis Cricks, who helped found DNA, Well, I've read The Double Helix, and I'm currently studying biology and genetics.
what his theory for DNA was? Panspermia. Yeah.
No,
It was speculation, probably tongue-in-cheek that he later regretted. In any case, the argument was based on the fact that the origin of DNA/RNA was an extremely unlikely event, and that if it didn't originate on earth, it could have been brought here from elsewhere. Both options are essentially saying the same thing, that abiogenesis happened and that it later evolved (either here on earth, like most scientist now think, or somewhere else.)

It doesnt really matter whether directed panspermia is true or not, DNA is still strings of molecules that abide by the laws of physics and chemistry. They are not some sort of magical quantum spirit crystals mind-controlled by aliens.
The Universe is a lot trickier than just our basic Science.
Whatever you say boss.

I'm very excited and can't wait to see this.

Mindless action? No problem. Give me Hit Girl goring and maiming people until the sun comes up and I'll enjoy every second of it.

I'm not as interested in having loose ends to tie up as much as I am just having my mind blown and being entertained.

As much as I loved Kick Ass, I don't think it needed a sequel. It pretty much said everything it set out to say. The sequel just looks like fun, but mindless action.

I agree. Fun video, but maybe it's because that I am fundamentally an introvert no matter how well I try to disguise it, but the whole thing felt like a huge DUH! to me.

So you're telling me that collaboration isn't always good? Sometimes you have to work alone? No shit sherlock! What's that? striking some sort of balance between collaboration and independent work is preferable to mindlessly succumbing to group think? Common sense much?

problem is, certain people will see this and take it too far and use it as a justification for Ayn Rand's philosophies and legitimize selfishness

A balance has to be struck. There is value in individualism and there is value in collaboration. just have to find the right mix and it's not always going to be the same mix.

@cosmovitelli he can't have understood Marx if he can't tell the difference between Communism and Socialism, and he shouldn't bother either since Marx rarely makes any goddamned sense. He's better off learning socialism from anybody else.

You make statements loudly, but you don't make a point. Yes, we need governments, but like you said, they're not agents of the people, they're corrupt and selfish power hungry institutions. I agree with you. If that's the case, doesn't it logically follow that having LESS government is the way to reduce the amount of damage the "powerful" can do to us?

@aaronfr I won't argue whether you were pandering, just that the points you made were awfully cheap, had nothing to do with libertarianism, but with the obvious and laziest misinterpretation one can make of it. Starting your reply with "Libertarian nonsense" is the easiest way to get upvotes from the videosift scum of mindless socialists that can't be bothered to read a full post worth of innacurate statements.

@dag it makes me even sadder that you seem to believe government has your best interests at heart. The government is the agent of that very wealth inequality that makes you so angry. I see limiting government as the way to limit that blatant social injustice, the very institution that tricks suckers into thinking it is "redistributing wealth", when in fact it's been acting as an inverse Robin Hood all this time, taking from everybody, and wasting or giving to the disgustingly rich 1%. Don't dehumanize me, don't dismiss me as some shill for the wealthy, as a brainwashed second-handed thinker. Can't you seriously consider the possibility that government is not part of the solution, but part of the problem? Is that too unbelievable for you?

Blah blah abuse of power, abuse of this yadda yadda yadda mindless blather.

A) He was there for something simple, like a traffic ticket.

B) He was a total prick, douchebag, asshole and completely uncooperative.

C) Cameras ARE NOT PERMITTED inside courtrooms for PRIVACY. Dumbass award again. He thinks he can waltz in and violate everyone's privacy and harass another person because he has "rights"?

D) The officer didn't express ANY type of abuse whatsoever. If you think he did, sorry, but you might want to reconsider who's been brainwashed.

The officer had a choice: potentially violent altercation with a young man in a confined space where others could potentially be injured, or tazer him. If you think the officer is wrong for not allowing this to escalate and potentially injure others, then you really need to reassess your concept of police control and abuse of power.

The officer told the douchebag calmly, and concisely, that he was NOT permitted to pass that point with the video camera. The douchebag tried to push his way through, and surprisingly, the officer DID HIS JOB and kept the man from entering WITHOUT using excessive force.

Unless, of course, you think an officer touching a person who claims to NOT be a US Citizen is abuse. The douchebag began escalating the situation further until, well, I'm sure his biggest worry now isn't simply a speeding ticket anymore but a list of actual 1st Degree Misdemeanors and possibly a Felony.

So yes, I AM PERFECTLY FINE with the officer's use of a tazer to restrain the individual. And the reason I am, is thankfully the douchebag was recording it and we now have proof of who was in the wrong.

Not all situations are equivalent.
Personally, I make value judgements based on circumstances.

Not all cops are mindless thugs like these guys are.

Policing is a shitty job that I wouldn't want for a second. If I had to I'd hope I would do the job with the minimum amount of force and the maximum amount of courtesy, but you can damn well believe I'd defend myself if I had to.

At first I was going to freak out if they did disrespect the flag......but whew. But the sad thing is so many people take our freedoms for granted and mindlessly follow our politicians without question, and so intently follow sports games, memorize stats to show off at work and never for one minute think about the initiatives and referendums on the ballot....or even the ballot itself. Sigh

Anonymous is quite literally....anyone.

Why should we listen to just....anyone.

Just like....anyone else, there are things we will agree with and there will be things we disagree with. Anything else is mindless obedience. Kinda like the mindless obedience the right has to the NRA, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbauh. and Fox.

No one elected these assholes, yet for some reason, they have more influence over our government than it's own voters.

Ah, what a refreshing discussion. Kudos to @snoozedoctor, @jmzero, and @Mordhaus.

Too bad you have been trolled, your wise comments and discussion promoting to numero uno a terrible video showcasing the opposite political opinion.

I'm guessing most viewers will just stop at Sagemind's mindlessly upvoted rant, and won't bother reading better dissenting arguments that follow it.

Well, that's videosift for ya!

Usually I keep what this guy says to myself. I have 3 items, 2 of which are shipped out from Newegg and 1 questionable and possibly in limbo, ordered online. All done in the comforts of home, on my own terms and hour.

I'm a tad bit surprised at how the cops are handling this. They did nothing since all this guy was doing was yelling at the hordes of mindless freaks. Well, I can't really vote for this. I support the notion of callin' people out in their stupidity but at the same time, I cannot help but feel that at some point, some of these people will snap.