Word is, they were fighting some forest fires and when the pilot spotted the burning house on his approach, he simply turned his fat lady around and took a dump straight on top of the house, soaking both firefighters and a nearby TV crew.

i have always had a HUGE crush on Exene.

>> ^Morganth:

I'm guessing Morocco. Can anyone verify this?
youtube comment says:

This happened in Jeddah , Saudi Arabia it's happened nine mothe ago . Also king Abdullah give the two brave guys one million for each of them.

>> ^shogunkai:

Good thing someone had a crowbar, that's why you don't put bars on windows.


In some places in the world you are guaranteed to have thieves climbing in your window if it's not barred. I'm sure the bars were there to protect their kids, but it's a tough decision.

Videosift is obvious. Lets turn it into a religious argument herp derp.

>> ^Fade:

Stop saying god is great you dumb cunts. God did jack shit.

>> ^Fade:

Stop saying god is great you dumb cunts. God did jack shit.


Hey, credit where it's due. Someone had to start the fire.

>> ^Fade:

Stop saying god is great you dumb cunts. God did jack shit.


It's a catch all that means everything from Fuck me to Oh My God to Gitsum!

Also, when western life expectancy was at that level we were on the whole pretty dementedly religious too..

>> ^visionep:

To any law enforcement officers out there...
What is more important? The public safety or your personal safety? Would you forfeit the life of a kid so you didn't have to suffer through a bite on your leg?
Obviously this guy would happily forfeit the life of a pet.
People like this aren't heros and never will be to this family or any of the people around them.


Not sure about this question? Officers have a duty to act, but not to sacrifice their lives or safety. (I don't think these guys are heroes either. I would have kicked the dog away...but that would have been reported too and I probably would have gotten in more trouble for that "brutality"...)

Either way, police are trained not to put their lives at severe risk, even to save their own. Jump into a burning house to save a child? Now there are two people to save. Jump into a river to save a drowning man? Not really a good idea. Run into a bullet storm to save a fellow officer when you probably will be shot? Yeah, frowned on...

Besides that, this situation has nothing to do with saving a life in my opinion...they were jerks. But to compare shooting a child, perhaps in his skull, to shooting a dog...which is property...that is very sensational...

I meant that the constitution limits the government, not the people. That is not to say that it doesn't spell out a few rules it should enforce. And besides, "limits" is not saying that it cannot punish at all. I specify that in the bill of rights because it favors my context well...

When I say "If it is not prohibited, it is allowed," I mean that in a very broad sense. Making laws for one...unless otherwise noted...

>> ^heropsycho:

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.
The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:
Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.
However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:
1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.
The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?
It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.

The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:

Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.

However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:

1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.

The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?

It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.


First we need to ask "what" the constitution is in the first place before we say what is "in" the constitution...nobody seems to know what it truly is. It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)

You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.

In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

But this is a double edged sword because it leaves much not covered completely to the Federal Government and States with only the people to balance them out with their morality.

If the federal and state government both said Pot was legal--pot is legal. If they say alcohol is banned, it is banned. If they say contraceptives are prohibited, they are prohibited. Period. If they made rape legal, RAPE is LEGAL. We may not like that scary thought--but that's the power, that's the force of government, even in a democracy (Adolph Hitler and his followers would have agreed, so would Rome and many other democracies.)

Sadly, dumb fucks even say the constitution only applies to citizens...even though it really has nothing to do with "The people." It cannot apply to anyone because it only applies to the State...

Now, and this is where I detach and am not a blind fanboy of Ron Paul's, he get's the constitution ass-backwards... Still, I would take his broken views and make honest men out of politicians than to propagate the election of spineless bad-guys-finish-first shit bags.

*dead and presumably a dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Dog-Risks-Life-for-4-Kittens-Trapped-in-Burning-House.

these are the same people that try to save their TV from a burning house

"Socialist nanny state" firefighters laugh at your burning house from the curb.

The house two lots away from my mother caught on fire, and most of the house went up in smoke (I say that carefully--only half went up in flames, but all of it had enough smoke to kill anyone inside). My mom went out to watch with the neighborhood, and the neighbor who lived in the burning house was crying about her cat inside a shut room. The firemen went in, got the cat, which was not breathing.

Those firemen spent 20 minutes giving that cat first aid, including mouth to mouth, and the cat pulled through.

The next morning my mom sent a check to the firedepartment in appreciation.

I know some people wouldn't think it was appropriate for the firemen to waste time on a cat, but it certainly calmed the hysterical pet owner and made fans of the neighborhood.