<snipped>

Wow, this video is currently triggering a 500 Internal Server Error at YouTube. I've never seen that before:

500 Internal Server Error

Sorry, something went wrong.

A team of highly trained monkeys has been dispatched to deal with this situation.

If you see them, show them this information:
EvJFWj0D1ZAgmhfM0pAcaEiPENbZ-6V7l0cFTFcglWkDV0bmf3Vo1Xvdhe3w
...[snip]

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right.

Says you. You have no idea what they knew or didn’t know. How many people would he have to endanger to declare martial law (which they didn’t)? This idiotic logic you choose to use, that 1 man couldn’t possibly be a risk to ¾ million people, completely ignores that he was, as evidenced by his actions up to that point, a danger to some of those ¾ million people. I can’t believe I’m actually defending the cops, but defending the public is exactly what I believe their jobs should be (as opposed to primarily raising revenue by writing tickets), and until I see evidence to the contrary, it appears they did just that with the knowledge of the situation and the suspects that they had at the time, and until you can show different, the warrantless searches seemed reasonable.

If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.

You don’t have a right to freedom from search and seizure. You have a right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Living in a free country gives you the right to be as ignorant as you wish about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, but demonstrating that ignorance in a public forum such as this should be embarrassing.

Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them.

“I have heard some say” is the most common and sleazy way of introducing an idea one has not a lick of evidence for, but wants to wedge into the conversation because it supports, again, a narrative he/she wants to advance. You said it and then only denied you were one who said it. You went on to truss up the notion of “compliance test”, and imply your agreement of it, with “difficult to argue against that idea”, and then revealed your conspiracy nuttery with “so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again”. The next paragraph’s lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma betrays an authoritarian worldview. You don’t have a reading comprehension problem. You have a reality comprehension problem.

Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.

Unlike you, I understand what the Fourth Amendment says, but I'm pretty sure I also understand what you and your ilk wish it would say. Again (again), you choose to detach “unreasonable” from “search and seizure”, which, I think, demonstrates that even you realize the invalidity of your blustering, and that your primary purpose here is to advance a narrative.

{snipped lots of ridiculous, ignorant horseshit of personal beliefs about police actions and procedures he has no evidence whatsoever to support; read it above if you need a chuckle; #youtubelawyer}

Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.

I didn’t suggest anything of the sort, although you continue on in your paragraph with the false presumption that I did. I don't even know of anybody who does suggest it. It only seems to exist in your paranoid fantasies. Do you have any point or argument that you didn’t pull out of your ass, or anything that doesn’t rely upon some other bit of info you assumed, presumed, or just fabricated? This isn’t YouTube. You can find support here, but your bullshit will be called, and criticism won’t be muted by the endless scroll of a thousand comments.

If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.

Oy... more authoritarian nuttery. Australia is awesome, btw. Bravest thing their government ever did was pass effective gun control. That we should have such courage…


Edit: Went a leeetle too far

You're taking context way out of proportion, Again, given the circumstances, the searches were valid and needed to find the suspect.

RE: Exigent Circumstances:
"In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. /snip"

The key part of this statement is "imminent escape", thus the searches fall under exigent circumstances. ACLU among a few others have already dove into this entire video and it's meaning, they also talked to several attorneys and legal experts and they all say that the searches aren't illegal. Maybe heavy handed, but not illegal.

And lastly (sorry for the long posts), many have already pointed out that this particular video (the only one actually) shows the defensive positioning of the law enforcement, the fact that there's a heli above. This could be a house of interest, possibly someone spotted someone running through the yard, or something seemed suspect. We may never know, but a few officers I've talked to (both in Swat as well as a few of my ex-military contacts) have stated that this isn't standard procedure positioning. That they only arrange themselves like this if they feel there's a threat in the building or car.

Snipping the tip is the way to go !

The Koch Brothers are a pair of uber rich oil magnates that fund far right think tanks like the Reason Institute (which produced this video), the Cato Institute, the Heritage foundation. They also fund far right front groups/astroturf outfits like Citizens for a Sound Economy, Freedomworks and the tea party. They also fund far right candidates like Mitt Romney, Scott Walker and many of the 'tea party' candidates. >> ^CrushBug:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nice try Koch brothers [snip]
Sorry pumpkin, but I am obligated to downvote this disingenuous Koch-media propaganda.

Sorry, what is a "Koch brother"? In my city, it is the name of a Ford dealership and I am pretty sure that is not what we are talking about.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Nice try Koch brothers [snip]
Sorry pumpkin, but I am obligated to downvote this disingenuous Koch-media propaganda.


Sorry, what is a "Koch brother"? In my city, it is the name of a Ford dealership and I am pretty sure that is not what we are talking about.

I call fowl ... er, foul! I see Ant [or one of his kin] makes an appearance beginning @0:10.

The FAQ clearly states:

Posting Guidelines >snip< Please do not self link. >snip< What exactly constitutes a self link? >snip< You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.

@shinyblurry

When you read the Parable of the Sower do you notice that he never threw the seeds hard enough to till the ground? >> ^shinyblurry:

What your analysis is missing is . . . <snip>
>> ^Sagemind:
In the past era, we hit a communications Boom.

Manager: "So, I'm going to need you to trace a cable out." Employee: "SOAB!! Does anybody have some snips?"

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Truckchase:
<snip my schtuff to save space>

The reaction is more to his self righteous, overly inflated, far reaching, conspiratorial nature more so than the 'core' message. If it'd been a video which had a light hearted feel, and pointed out the reams of posts from friends that are just entries into competitions or playing the apps or that sort of crap (of which I've ended up completely blocking people because about 90% of some people's post are just that crap), and that maybe not posting what your dreams were about each night... or you know, just common etiquette, it may have done really well, and probably been posted by people on facebook as a non direct way of telling others 'um, you're being sort of dicks on this thing'.
But no, he tried to insinuate he knows all, and that anyone using facebook is a mindless sheep, and that there is no good to come from it.
Well he can go back to his conspiracy bullshit on his websites and youtube videos and continue to think he knows better than everyone.
And die unhappy having changed nothing.


Makes sense.

Damn, I was just about to snip a chopped version of this.

*promote
*talks

Hey @shinyblurry,

I've had this bookmarked since it came out and finally watched it today. Thanks for this video. I found it quite interesting, and it brought me face-to-face with something I've been kinda half thinking about lately -- the meaninglessness of life.

I read some of the comments, but skipped most, so I may be repeating. Lemme know if that's the case.

About the video itself. To get this out of the way, many of Keller's individual arguments were made in intellectually dishonest ways, like using two meanings of the same word (e.g. "meaningless") to create false logic, and using philosophers' quotes as fact without challenging their validity or pertinence to the argument at hand. Keller isn't the topic though, so that's all I'm going to say about that.

About all the meaninglessness. I agree with the overall point, that if there's no god, then there's really no meaning to life in the grand scheme of things since we're here for a meaningless slice of infinite time. That's hard to face sometimes. That discomfort tends to drive me towards other people. Sharing that feeling with others feels really good. Helping them feel better about it makes me feel good. I might even say it gives me a purpose, gives my life meaning.

I don't see any contradictions in my philosophy yet though. Or, at least, I didn't agree with any of the ones that Keller brought up. For example, about love and about evil. I found those arguments fatuous. I believe there's love because I feel it, just like I feel pain. Also, I don't believe that evil exists as part of reality. There are certainly actions I've done, seen and heard of that I judge as horrible things to do, and which some would see as "evil", but that's my judgement or someone else's, a label, something external both to myself and the person who did the action. Conceiving of it as "evil" is either a metaphysical statement, or an internal reaction to the thought of you doing that action yourself. Good and bad? Yes. Virtue and Evil? No.

So let's go with good and bad. You and I have already spent many screenfulls talking about morality, but to reiterate my belief, I think that people have an instinct for which actions are good and which are bad based on how they affect other people. We instinctively know that torturing babies is bad. We also instinctively know that doing something to ease another's problems or enhance their life is good. The more we try and connect with those feelings of what's good and what's bad, the better we feel about our actions and the happier we are overall. I believe that following that sheer bliss wherever it leads us is the best thing we can do. Specifically, anything the Bible promotes against following your bliss and knowingly causing pain in others should be snipped out.

When I think of my own depression, how it might relate to a lack of reason for my life, and how I might feel better if I were able to believe in God, it makes me feel better when I think of other people I know who are genuinely happy people without a whiff of religion in their lives, and I ask myself what makes them happy, and try and emulate that. The answer is always following their bliss, which is always helping other people find their bliss. Wonderful how that works. FWIW, I don't know any happy, fulfilled people who actively judge any other people as right or wrong, good or bad.