Take away the guns and I will:
stab you,
choke you,
bludgeon you,
poison you,
bomb you.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Cool, informative.

The ominous music made me expect a huge Higgs boson to show up and bludgeon them both, or just Athene at least.

They live in that area, so they know what to expect. The behavior by this lion was relatively strange. I'd personally have wondered if marine animals can acquire rabies, rather than any of the typical dangers they might present. Either way, I'm sure these guys were ready to bludgeon it in the head and paddle for the shore if anything.

Lions aside... look at those fish! Whew! Man those look amazing. I kind of can't blame the lion!

@Drachen_Jager, that's quite a straw man you've bludgeoned there, not me. Extremism is relative. Free speech in the Middle Ages could be dismissed as extremist too.

I'm sorry for talking about freedom of speech yet again, but bear with me.

The reason I often make the analogy between freedom of speech and freedom of economy is that neither of them are supposed to be extreme, they both require minimal government participation, but the more the government gets in on them past this minimum threshold, the freedom itself is threatened.

None of us in the US would ever put up with government censorship like they have in China, because we know it hinders freedom of speech in general and establishes a bad precedent. If we have people using free speech to say terribly stupid things and deceiving millions with bad ideologies, it would suck, we could do something about it, raise awareness, expose and argue incessantly against those lies, etc. but we'd never blame freedom of speech itself for it, because, even though it's the freedom that allows such lies, we know that freedom of speech can take care of it. Censoring opinions would be the worst thing to do. We all believe that an environment where people have free speech is healthy, no matter what people say, because we are optimistic about freedom of speech in that, hopefully and eventually, society's opinions will evolve and lead most people closer to the truth, whatever that truth may be. That is why people debate all the time, they are seeking the truth, and it's in a free speech environment where people have the most access to information.

Truth isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to the truth", and have government control the media, TV, newspapers, and the internet, to provide truth to society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with providing the truth, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, we know that no one has authority over truth, it would be too presumptuous for anyone to say they do!

Now what happens if we apply the same thinking to another kind of freedom?

If we had a free market, not everyone would be well behaved, not at all, and whenever someone would cross the line and commit fraud, break contracts or disrespect private property, we'd need government to step in. Other than that, well, it would suck, but we'd just have to let the free market take the hit, let people learn the lesson and evolve. As harsh as that seems, people would use their economic freedom to handle the problem, they would *have* to watch their own backs if they know they can't cry to government to "censor" every bad economic behavior. It wouldn't make any sense for them to blame this bad behavior on the free market itself, even though that's what liberals do in a heartbeat, and they want laws banning everything they perceive as abuses they portray as unsolvable by the economy, not understanding that these laws end up screwing over a healthy environment, making people complacent and irresponsible. These restrictions have hard to predict and usually counterproductive consequences that distort the market and lead it to misbehave even more. I am optimistic about freedom of economy in that, whatever people do, hopefully and eventually, society's business practices will evolve and lead most people to prosperity. That's why people trade all the time, they are seeking prosperity, and it's in a free market environment where people, poor or rich, have the most access to resources.

Education, healthcare, affordable houses, things an economy provides, isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to free education, free healthcare and affordable houses", and have government control the economy to provide these things for society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with that, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, politicians and bureaucrats might consider themselves authorities over how to employ society's resources, but it's the same kind of presumptuouness of thinking one owns the truth: that they have better judgement than a whole lot of people coordinating their own resources in a complex economy.

People can always argue some contrived examples where socialism apparently worked, but to me it's like someone arguing in favor of censorship. Does it have any use in society? Well, it can be helpful to maintain a dictator in power. You can weed out bad ideologies or criticisms. Propaganda to help exterminate the jews. That sort of thing. I personally think it's something a supposedly evolved society like ours can do without.

Enjoy your Cold Steel Value Meal with a side of Bludgeoning.

I wish that white woman would pipe down.

You're stating a number of things as facts which are not necessarily so, budzos.

"You realize manslaughter is by definition involuntary?"

No, there are two varieties of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter is done with intent, but perhaps provoked, a classic example being when you walk in on your spouse in the act with another and flip out.

"Killing someone who is assaulting you is not murder."

Depends on the state, what manner of assault and the manner in which you kill them. Self-defense is typically only a defense to unlawful homicide charges if you retreat to the wall, (provided you're not in your home) but NOT if you run quickly to the other room for a bludgeon and then come charging back, and particularly if you keep swinging once they're down. If she were to die that could very well turn into a 2nd degree murder charge.

@EMPIRE & @petpeeved ..ugh

You're both arguing strawmen. Darkhand's observation was very succint & accurate.

@EMPIRE apparently didn't read the bit when Darkhand said:
I'm not saying he should have kept whacking them with a pipe while they were down..

Also, whatthefuck does them being women have to do with it? Would it be okay to bludgeon two helpless MEN on the floor?

@petpeeved

Whining at an enraged convict in the middle of an assault is about as useful as screaming "STOP! STOP RAPING ME!!" to a serial rapist.

Darkhand never called for violence on that whiny bitch's part.

But A.) Turning to a bystander. Asking "May I use your phone to call 911".
Or B.) Jumping behind the counter to shield the women

..would've been much more useful then just standing and yelling like a jackass.

Why do people always think libertarians are anarchists? Just because I don't belong into either of these bullshit parties doesn't make me not believe in government. I do, however, believe that government is a social contract between you and me, and everyone else, and that contract has to be balanced since we all don't have the same opinion. With that said, I do not believe anything a democrat says, and I sure as hell don't believe anything a republican says. The sad part about these parties is that the only time in the last decade where they actually agreed unanimously at the house was right after 9/11. As for the people (fans), only sheep will agree with their party all the time.

As for size and function of government, this is dependent on the state of the country and the scope of government's responsibility (Federal vs State). If you read Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract (Du Contrat Social), you'd see that an exemplary government is one that focuses service, and not laws. If you have a serious drug problem, then you should get help, not get thrown in jail. Alas, we have an archaic emotional government. Republicans want to limit personal freedom, and democrats want to limit economic freedom. I see no point in either one of those as long as nobody is unfairly treated. That is THE bottom line.

Three things should be considered essential to our future economy:
1) Education
2) Healthcare
3) Science Projects / Environment

I'd vote for anyone who is willing to throw everything else under the bus for reconsideration - regardless of partisanship. The reason I brought the politician's case to pay their own healthcare and get a pay cut is not to save money - You can't consciously deny others free healthcare when you yourself have it. That's what's happening in congress today.

I like your statement about the legalizing and taxing Marijuana; however, Marijuana can't be taxed as most people would grow it at home - I say just legalize it and stop wasting DOJ resources. I don't mind taxing the shit out of oil, use of plastics, tobacco, and alcohol.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?




You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.
No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.
Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.
It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.
Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.
Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.
Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?





You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.

No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.

Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.

I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.

It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.

Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.

Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.

Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

Susan Lindauer:
...
I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq’s cooperation after 9/11. In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an “emergency broadcast alert” across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001 I described the strike on the World Trade Center as “imminent,” with the potential for “mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device.”

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott’s staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.

You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged “civil rights violations.”
...
I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington — independently and collectively verified my story— then falsified testimony to Chief Justice Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed “classified.”

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be “cured” of believing what everybody wanted to deny— because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.
...

I'm starting to feel like we need a new 911 to call when bad cops attack.

9111: What is your emergency?

Terrified citizen: Twelve cops have been bludgeoning a face down homeless man for 10 minutes.

9111: Okay, stay on the line. We're sending help.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
astr0, MrFisk and MarineGunrock are absolutely right. Anyone who is being beaten by an authority figure for acting within their legal rights, and then cries out are such pussies. Forget about the fact that you can totally hear the pepper spray. Cops totally have the right to put their hands on you any time they want, and if you are afraid when they do it, then it's like "two for flinching", and they are totally exonerated. Especially if it doesn't make a loud noise. When I beat my six month old son, sometimes my wife can't hear it in the other room. So if he cries out in pain, I usually give him an extra shot in the testicles, because he's such a whiny little bitch. But don't worry. You can't actually "hear it" when I do it. So it's fine. I'm really glad that there are people like astr0 and MrFisk and MarineGunrock in the world. Otherwise, we would be ruled by a bunch of people who cry when you invade their personal space while wearing a gun, pepper spray, a large composite bludgeon designed for cracking bone, and handcuffs to make sure you can't fight back while being violated and stripped of your personal rights. What a bunch of little bitches they all are. Here's a question that MarineGunrock and MrFisk and astr0 might be able to answer. Sometimes, I'll pick a girl up in a bar. Then, after I drug her, take her back to my garage, tie her up, and show her my collection of boning knives, she screams like a little bitch. Now here's my question: what could possibly set her off like that? I mean, it's not like you can hear anything happening to her. WTF? Right? Remember, here in America, it's not assault if you just force someone to the ground and break their camera. You actually have to make a noise while doing it. And that holds doubly true if they are screaming.>> ^MarineGunrock: I'm honestly surprised they didn't delete the footage. Also, why he was screaming like a little bitch? I didn't hear st striking or the click of a taser. Pain compliance, maybe?

Out of curiosity, at what point in the video do you hear pepper spray? To me, it sounded like the guy was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed, at which point he started screaming "HHEEELLLLPPPP" for a few minutes until he ran out of breath and began acting in a somewhat civilized manner. If he had been pepper sprayed, his screaming would have been a lot more erratic and it would have taken him a lot longer to recover.

I'm not saying that the cops didn't handle this badly, but to label this a "beating" is a bit hyperbolic.

astr0, MrFisk and MarineGunrock are absolutely right. Anyone who is being beaten by an authority figure for acting within their legal rights, and then cries out are such pussies. Forget about the fact that you can totally hear the pepper spray.

Cops totally have the right to put their hands on you any time they want, and if you are afraid when they do it, then it's like "two for flinching", and they are totally exonerated. Especially if it doesn't make a loud noise. When I beat my six month old son, sometimes my wife can't hear it in the other room. So if he cries out in pain, I usually give him an extra shot in the testicles, because he's such a whiny little bitch.

But don't worry. You can't actually "hear it" when I do it. So it's fine.

I'm really glad that there are people like astr0 and MrFisk and MarineGunrock in the world. Otherwise, we would be ruled by a bunch of people who cry when you invade their personal space while wearing a gun, pepper spray, a large composite bludgeon designed for cracking bone, and handcuffs to make sure you can't fight back while being violated and stripped of your personal rights. What a bunch of little bitches they all are.

Here's a question that MarineGunrock and MrFisk and astr0 might be able to answer. Sometimes, I'll pick a girl up in a bar. Then, after I drug her, take her back to my garage, tie her up, and show her my collection of boning knives, she screams like a little bitch. Now here's my question: what could possibly set her off like that? I mean, it's not like you can hear anything happening to her. WTF? Right?

Remember, here in America, it's not assault if you just force someone to the ground and break their camera. You actually have to make a noise while doing it. And that holds doubly true if they are screaming.>> ^MarineGunrock:

I'm honestly surprised they didn't delete the footage. Also, why he was screaming like a little bitch? I didn't hear st striking or the click of a taser. Pain compliance, maybe?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I see this as a singular corporate-governmental beast with two backs bludgeoning anyone or anything that stands in its way.


I agree. Limit it or get rid of it.

I don't see this as string pulling. I see this as a singular corporate-governmental beast with two backs bludgeoning anyone or anything that stands in its way.

I just read a wikileak cable in which the USGovernment talks about strong-arming France into weakening their nutritional standards in order to boost profits for Monsonto and the biotech food industry.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html

Here is a related news story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQGg.HOIcKv8

If our government will go to bat internationally for frankenfood distributors, then what makes you so sure they wouldn't do the same at home for the banking industry. It wasn't the will of the people to give Bank of America 20 billion dollars.

Here is another cable in which the USG fights for the international domination of Visa/Mastercard. The same government that denies us healthcare is out in Russia, fighting for leaches in the credit industry. http://213.251.145.96/cable/2010/02/10MOSCOW228.html

I'm standing by my hypothesis.