*promote keeping your priorities straight~!

From the large thumbnail you can see two posts and a chain as a barrier. Seems they didn't have them in place. I'd think they would have the loading area outlined and a big painted warning on the ground. I'm guessing they will after this.

I love how she still had her priorities in order after the crash. They were on a mission and no crash would keep them from there candle supply's.

I totally agree, we should always strive for perfection, but to me it's the priority that is important.

So when we strive for perfection, the priority would always be clean up the most damaging parts first.

I'm in no way implying that we shouldn't aim to reduce civilian casualties, but really trying to put things in perspective.

I highly recommend reading Jocko Willink's book to get an understanding of these conflicts.

This guy makes it sound like the war is a mess akin to the fast pace of Battlefield 3 multiplayer and it couldn't be further from the truth. The US armed forces go to some pretty extraordinary lengths before dropping a bomb - for starters they give prior notification to the residents before any area is considered combat zone.
Imagine fighting a war, where you are constantly being open about where you are going to strike, it seems insane. But they do this to minimize civilian casualties as a priority over destroying targets.

As a (slightly retired) fencer I love this, but I'd say a couple of things about the description.

The 'whap on the back' needs to apply 500g of pressure for 15ms in order to count. The time rule came in a while back to discourage 'flicking' - that exact problem.

The idea of dropping someone 'before he strikes back' is central to the roots of foil (fleuret in the video) and sabre. Essentially, if your opponent is attacking you have to parry them as a priority. The foil was traditionally the practice weapon which prioritised blows to vital areas, and defence over attack. Unfortunately, this also makes them very hard to follow if you don't know what you're watching.

Great video though. Makes me want to pick up a weapon again. Feel free to imagine some tragedy that made me swear never to fence again.

Pardon me, shots. It was a criminal level of incompetence. Yet neither the Commander who gave 'conflicting statements'(lied) nor the Officer have been charged with anything, even at this late date. Additionally, something else I forgot was that they let the victim bleed while handcuffed for 20 minutes without providing any first aid or making it a priority that he was treated. It was lucky that he didn't bleed out or go into shock.

But this is the type of thing I am talking about and was referencing to @bareboards2. I mean, I'm white and of Italian descent, so I could do damn near anything to an officer and not be killed. I even conceal carry, although they know that as soon as they see my license or run my plates. Yet we have people of color that are being run rampant over, be it racism or fear of a different culture/people. Like in that video where the guy was shot and the female officer's husband was in the pursuit helicopter saying that he looked like a mean black dude. We simply can't keep this up.

As is the case in many areas, good people do nothing, and the wrong type of people fill the void.
This is why good people need to speak up, and get involved, even if it's against their very nature. It's a simple case of keeping the wrong people out of the system.

IMO the whole system needs to change. A progressive society would have a committee of elite scientists at the top of the hierarchy setting out the overall agenda for humanity through evidence based reasoning. The scientists themselves would be elected through their achievements and contributions to humankind alone, as a way to weed out those who are doing it for power or money.

Political parties would still exist, but below the top level, and their role would be to choose which parts of the agenda to work on first, so that the general public can elect the political party that represents their own priorities. The politicians pay would depend on how much of the scientist listed agenda has been achieved during their term.

Politicians themselves would get paid decent figures, but they would never be allowed to work, receive financial or material support of any kind to ensure that they cannot be "bought".

Political donations would go into a central repository, accessible by all parties.

When you really think about it, this is insane. I've read all the discussion and everyone seems to agree that there is no justification possible. There's not even room for confusion or panic or any irrational emotion here.

In my opinion, anyone deciding to shoot on the basis of the conversation that took place was doing so deliberately, knowing that it was not legal or appropriate.

So did he do this in retaliation to the attack on police, or would he have done this anyway?

And was the man left bleeding on the ground for fifteen minutes in the hope that he would die? And therefore leave no mentally sound witnesses available for the hearing - they did not know of the recording at the time?

Once a person is in your custody, their life is in your care. You have a duty to protect them and provide them with appropriate assistance. It should be the number one priority of any person present, once the subject(s) have been controlled, to offer immediate medical assistance regardless of their prior behaviour.

Could you imagine being the person with blood pouring from your leg, not allowed to stand up, stood over by three people walking around and radioing around ignoring your cries of pain and/or cries for help? You have no idea if you're going to bleed out, you only know that these people are refusing to help as you lie there possibly dying.

Think of that for a minute. They didn't know the extent of the damage..... they stood impassive as a man potentially died in front of them.

Even scarier? How many times has this happened in the past?

Unless clear action is taken by authorities or government, this is a time bomb waiting to go off. You can't have state sponsored ethnic cleansing without expecting a backlash - you can't expect a people to allow themselves to be killed.

What I think newtboy is saying is that, at some point, this turns into a justified resistance to an oppressive and violent regime... and describing them as thugs or anarchists becomes state propaganda. And who is anyone to decide when that time has come but those who have most to fear? Let's hope there is still time to fix this problem without further violence.

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

I disagree on nearly all points.

Can't outrun the radio. That's why they have backup. They can't outrun the helicopter in town either, and there's no escape on the freeway if the cops roadblock it.
I guess you didn't notice the one they did hit. No one pulled a gun and attacked the cop, did they?
Could have trapped them all in the underpass if they were on the ball. They should have come in with 4-5 cars at once and blocked it off front and rear, then shot anyone trying to escape.
Really, you assume they're so dumb they would all commit crimes armed (making just dirty riding a violent felony) and have a shootout with the cops (which would instantly make any group riding a SWAT priority from now on). Guaranteed, the first time that happens is the last time more than 3 motorcycles ride together without being stopped and harassed anywhere in the country.
Couple of hundred?!? I only saw around 50. Cops take control of riots that have thousands -tens of thousands of actors all the time. That's no excuse or reason.
They aren't any danger to the police or public if they're wrecked on the road.
Police follow in hopes of catching them in any way, be it trapped, fallen, wrecked, given up, went home, on camera, etc.
Lots that can be done. Since they have multiple camera views of all of them, they can stop them any time they see a bike that looks like one of them on the road and try to put them in prison for wreckless endangerment (a good reason all riders should HATE these people, innocent bikers get harassed for having similar bikes all the time). I do understand that SOME of those bikes are stolen, or unregistered, but most are not and those riders may give up their compatriots.
1%ers only make up 1%.

My point is, if police take this seriously like the attack on the public that it is and aggressively go after them with the cop cars, they will think twice and not operate on YOUR assumptions that the cops won't do a thing....which is why they continue this crap, that assumption. If every single time a group goes 'riding dirty' at least one of them ends up dead or paralyzed, it will end FAST.
You know how much damage that cop car would suffer by running them over....none! ;-)

I heard the Hooliganism was getting out of hand, but Christ, I didn't expect them to compliment each other's wives and reflect on their priorities in life. The sport is doomed.

@Mordhaus

"We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. "

Don't you think that that idea is outdated in 2016? Fine, that's the culture. Change the fucking culture.

When I grew up in Ireland, nobody gave a second thought to driving drunk. Sunday after church, people went to the pub, had a few pints with the neighbours, the kids played space invaders and then the whole family got back in the car and drove home.

And most of the time, it was absolutely fine. People got home, there was the occasional accident, but ya know, what can ya do?

Until it wasn't fine. And it took decades, but eventually, it became socially unacceptable to drive drunk.

"I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision."
I get that. But be reasonable. You're ok with not letting people fly, but you draw the line at owning weapons?

That is some fucked up list of priorities. I would be far more concerned with restricting someones right to travel (essentially restricting their freedom of movement, or a lighter form of incarceration) than whether they can own a gun.

You say that owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas travel isn't. I say that freedom of movement is a fundamental basic human right... oh, look at that, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

I'm completely willing to say that it should be a lot harder to put someone on this kind of list, but there's no way the right to own a weapon is more important than freedom of movement.

Finally, re: slippery slopes
"The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights."

The Patriot Act wasn't a slippery slope, it started at the bottom of the slope and went straight over a fucking cliff. It should never have been passed in the first place.

IMO the delay on the FBI and State side is that while HRC is complicit in ignoring the rules the investigation will expose them(FBI) in being complicit in not enforcing them. Not because they were directed to ignore but because this matter simply isn't a priority. I'd be shocked if the use of personal e-mail wasn't being used at times by a majority of those in govt. The issue is way overblown regardless of the outcome or those involved.

@Asmo , @enoch , @Jinx --

I appreciate what you're saying and I know that I *should* feel the way(s) you suggest. ...But I have a hard time actually getting there.

At some point, we are all responsible for our own actions, and the consequences of our own actions. Even though these people may not have any of the sort of opportunities that I take for granted, even though circumstances well outside of their control might push them into the direction of addiction, at some point they made a choice to start up with this crap. And they make a choice to continue with the drugs, even if the physical and mental addiction makes it nearly impossible for them to choose anything else.

There's a lot of problems in the world. There's a lot of people who unjustly have to contend with major problems that are absolutely 100% in no way their fault. Addicts are at least partially at fault for getting themselves into the mess that they are in. That puts them way down the line on my empathy list, that's all I'm saying.

Asmo said "To fix a problem, you first have to understand it. That does not require sympathy or empathy." That in particular helps me look at the issue from a different angle. Just because addiction is not a problem on my personal priority list, I 100% agree that it *is* a problem, and it is a problem that affects *me* also, indirectly if not directly. I live in a society of people, and helping each individual person in the society can help *everyone* in the society.

The war on drugs and its approach of mass incarceration, etc. pretty clearly doesn't work well to alleviate the problem. The part of me that (mostly jokingly, but not entirely) would tag this as EIA might be happy to take the approach of letting these people all shoot themselves up with krokodil or whatever else until they kill themselves. But rationally, I know that wouldn't fix anything. I'm not convinced that it would be worse than the war on drugs, but it definitely wouldn't be ideal.

So rationally, I know that social systems to help people break those addictions and whatever situations or psychological problems contributed to them are probably the optimal solution, from a society-wide sort of view. But I don't want to be at the front lines of any of that myself, because I think that it *does* require some empathy to the situation to be an effective contributor there, and I simply recognize that I personally can't scrounge any up.

So by all means, STOP taking my tax dollars and spending them on the war on drugs, and START spending them on social programs that experts and scientists who study addiction believe will do a better job of actually fixing the problem. But that's the extent of the personal involvement that I want to have.

I think that the GOP is in full-on panic mode, and doesn't care about legitimacy / shot at winning for this election.

They (the party elites) will do absolutely everything they can to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Hence Colorado and Wyoming. Those actions make it seem like they prefer Cruz, but actually they dislike him close to as much as they hate Trump.

Although it is still mathematically possible for Cruz (559 delegates) to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination (1237 needed), realistically it is out of reach (826 still available). Trump (756 delegates), on the other hand, could well manage it. So, the GOP strategy is to avoid that at all costs by encouraging people to vote for Cruz or Kasich in primaries, or even better to encourage more state GOP offices to hold a smoke-filled room convention that grants all the delegates to #NeverTrump instead of even bothering to let people vote.

If they manage that, the contested national convention will get ugly. They (GOP elites) would turn on Cruz instantly -- cast aside. In any other election cycle they would have turned on him already, but with juggernaut Trump, they have to use him to get to the contested convention.

So the question becomes who if not Trump or Cruz? Who will the GOP try to push in? I think that right now, they aren't as worried about answering that question as they are about trying to get there. That being said, they have some options:

Mitt Romney was their first thought. He took some tentative steps towards playing along with the GOP plans, failed to generate any excitement, and has since faded back into relative obscurity. But he remains an option.

Next up was Paul Ryan. A lot of the GOP see him as the future of the party; the "great white hope". There was a flurry of activity making it seem like he was going to take up the flag, but has since denied that he would be interested in or even accept getting the nod. However, he was cagey and close to as vocal against getting the nod to be speaker of the house, and then accepted that. You never know.

Kasich would be another option. He's relatively benign, and wouldn't offend many more of the republican base than the GOP is already ready and willing to offend in order to prevent Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz).


Of those, I tend to think that Romney is the most likely choice for the GOP in the end. I think it would be extremely stupid to foist "future of the party" Ryan into this election, which would certainly taint his political future. Kasich makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as long as the GOP is willing to go to these great lengths to keep Trump out they might as well just own the illegitimacy of it, shoot the moon, and hand pick someone that a) they have complete control over, and b) has nothing to lose in terms of political future. Voila, Mitt Romney.


I also don't think that the GOP will just throw in the towel if Trump locks down the number of delegates needed for the nomination. I'm sure they already have some last-ditch, scorched earth preliminary plans in place for that contingency.

However, I think that they essentially already have thrown in the towel with regards to the election in general. At least to a sufficient degree that they don't give a rats ass about the chances for whoever is the republican nominee winning. That's a *distant* priority behind NOT TRUMP, among other things. Which is pretty stupid, because the likely nomination of Hillary on the democrat side gives them what should be a *golden* opportunity to steal the election. IF they could come up with a vaguely tolerable candidate ... which they won't.