Sooooo what was his point again? I kinda got lost with the blah blah blah. All I heard was there was 11 thousand gun murders in the US, 35 in the UK, YELL YELL YELL 2nd Amendment is God, yadda yadda yadda. Did I miss anything?

I tend to find (i watch a lot of comedy stuff, not just current) that a lot of jokes have been around for ever and it just took a particular event, and a slight change of words and there it was - probably invented by several people at the same time. For example take the one about being angry enough to fly a plane - i'm pretty sure that it would have been adjusted after the event from a joke like "why do muslims blah blah blah? well you would too if you couldn't eat bacon." And i suppose then you could consider changing the target and the food, but the structure of the joke is still there. I think it's good. When people talk about stealing material, i think they're referring to anecdotes and stuff like that which are obviously lengthy constructions.

I've made little jokes up in the past that i didn't know existed, to have someone else say they'd heard it before - that must have happened to you when you were wise cracking, surely.

Blah blah blah genius test trick question, etc. etc.

Make for a fun 'gotcha' trick I suppose, but it certainly does not test intelligence.

Lower taxation? Much like people who say it's against their so-called privacy to run red lights without a camera taking their picture? Because I'm pretty sure spending 20k is cheaper than 50k it'd cost to hire just 1 officer to stand at an intersection and chase people down.

Cameras aren't some big evil. It's improper use of the cameras that's evil. It's illegal wire tapping that's evil. It's the recording of all text messages without any safe guards in place that's evil. You're worried about a camera? Seriously, what are you doing that makes you so terrified of a little camera?

Why do police cars have cameras? I doubt it's so they can be all big brother on you. It's to keep the officer honest. It's a non-biased witness to a crime. In most cases a camera isn't going to prevent a crime, but it certainly helps when it's a he-said/she-said incident.

I think I vaguely recall some discussion about guns not killing people. Or something along those lines. If guns are perfectly okay despite the massive evidence of the rampant gun use and rampant gun sales to foreign entities that use them to suppress and murder, I don't see the same argument being applied to CCTV. Why is the gun ok but the owner bad, but the camera bad and the owner is never talked about?

Maybe instead of cheering on the destruction of tax payer property we should discuss the rules and regulations of handling the data from these cameras. After all, I for some reason see tons of idiot criminals on here due to these things. Obviously that benefit outweighs any lame excuses listed above.

1. CCTV is a lot cheaper than an armed guard at every intersection, every school blah blah. Not to mention, armed security hasn't really been all that effective. Hell, someone just shot a few cops the other day. I'm pretty sure the cops had guns. But who's counting.

2. First they make us drive on roads. Next they're going to make us get LICENSED! OMG! Pretty soon they're going to require us not to run over babies, or run red lights, or shoot people who are going too slow! Jesus we're becoming such a nanny state! Why can't I just hire a doctor who went to Joe Bob's School or 3 Day Medical Training?

3. Aside from all the evidence pointing to the fact that CCTV does deter crime. If 1 out of 5 crimes don't take place because of a camera, that's called a Deterrent. But I could be thinking of statistics and not emotion. The reason why these cameras catch idiots is because they're stupid enough to do them in the first place. Locks don't stop criminals. Locks determine your level of honesty. If you're determined enough, you will get in no matter what. If I reaaaaally want in your car, I will find a way, even if you lock it. So why bother locking it? Oh, right, because 1 out of 10 will be super desperate while 9 out of 10 will be ok with just opening the unlocked door.

4. Yeeeeaaaaaaaaah. That's such a good reason. Hey, I don't really like these whole murder laws. I say I should dissent. Or I don't like financial regulation, let's just crash the entire countries economy . . . or sell futures for a product that doesn't exist. See your number 2. Slippery slope here . . . so while I agree with you that some laws should be broken, ignored, fought etc, it's not exactly a "one good reason".

Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking).

They're not ad homs. They're what I see. They're substantiated by fact. "Crackhead" would be an ad hom because I have no reason to believe that you are addicted to illegal narcotics. But it's empirically true that religious canon is dogma and you believe religious canon, that you repeatedly speak in non-scientific ways, and that you jump to convenient conclusions as part of your argument style rather than investigating the claims you're making.

You say you've inquired about my views. I don't remember that happening, except when you were baiting me into a certain admission that you had a prepared answer for. But then you didn't listen to my response to your answer, at least not in an open-minded and critical way. You regularly claim to have the answer. It's only when forced into a corner based on the fact that you're human and fallible that you ever admit you technically could be wrong. You just proved it again, BTW. "Your PoV is apparently blah blah blah." There's all sorts of possible PoVs that I could have, but dogmatically believing in everything a scientist says couldn't be one of them. As a scientific person, that's not a possible position for me to hold. You haven't accepted that you have lost credibility due to your lack of scientific understanding. You never ask how your understanding is wrong. If you wanted to learn, there's all sorts you could learn, but you retreat into playing the victim. If you've got nothing left, you claim you're being attacked. I'm arguing against you, and then honestly explaining why I'm not putting in any more effort; I'm not attacking. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm telling you mine, my opinions about you, what those opinions are based on and what they entail for the limit of where I'm willing to go in our conversations.

I may or may not understand the basics of your current argument about uniformitariansim, and so forth, but I sure understand the basics of scientific thought, and that comes first. I can read a book or watch a lecture and learn about uniformitariansim, but when I come back, you still won't understand how to talk scientifically. That's why I'm not going to bother talking to you about science except to hear your reasons for claiming something in modern science is pseudoscience (If I were dogmatic about science, I wouldn't even ask you), and if I think your argument is strong enough, I'll get interested and maybe learn something. I have learned some things, but none that overturn the science you claim it does. The fact that you think you have presented enough information to overturn anything in science shows how little you understand science.

So, you wanna be openly curious about my religious views, I'm here for you. I'll talk about that as long as you want. You want to have a real conversation about science? You have to accept that you don't understand what science is first. Are you humble enough to admit you might not understand it? As always, curious, open-minded and willing to be surprised.

He really doesn't know the answer to this? Why would the president cry for his own nations children and not the ones his nation killed? It's a valid point but it's just more blah blah talk.

It's like asking why would someone get mad when their car got keyed and not cry when they keyed someone else's car. It's just a dumb question.

A voice crying in the wilderness mate, it's been going on here for quite some time-This woman regardless of which president she worked under is not about bullshit, sharp and schooled in the United States when 8th graders read Shakespeare and joined debate teams. Today, similar curriculum and standards are relegated to private schools and universities, the masses get seconds. It's evident in ANYONE who blames masses of simpletons on simply, "not trying hard enough" , ..etc etc blah blah

Limbaugh says "All of my thinking" blah blah blah.

Yep. Limbaugh. Show how good your thinking muscle is.

blah blah blah blah....

http://videosift.com/faq#polls

Anyway like @BoneRemake said it's nothing personal.

i ran a rather succesful pizza franchise for a while. i was quite generous with my pay and even in a low-mid income pizza store, i could easily afford to pay $15/hr to all my staff (of 20). Tim Hortons (canada) sells enough volume of coffee at roughly $2 a cup (plus other things) to afford starting wages of $11/hr in my town (plus benefits like basic health care stuff/drug palns blah blah blah) and pay/hour only goes up from there.

big corps have the margins to support this, in theory based on experience, for most low level income areas (10-15k sales a week) have a 10-15% proft margin. thats a week. once the mortgages and other build loans are paid, a business runnings expenses half. and that margin doubles. so in practice, most major fast food chains could easily afford to pay more and the only people who suffer most is the top level. they would raise prices to make the same yearly income. so, yes, an economy could sustain and only really gain from paying its own employees more. happy employees at home means less drama and stress related "mishaps" (food industry is very stressful) in the kitchen, would in theory benefit the company.

primarily, the only real people to suffer is the top level. the guys that skim the left over (profit margin) after expenses are paid.

if a company raised its prices because its employees wanted more wages, and they actually did pay them more and treated them better, i would shop there more often as that is a business i want to succeed. but thats another issue altogether to discuss is the need for people to spend as little as possible, making places like walmart and black friday sales so succesful. in part, we are to blame for what is happening, but we do not ask those companies to treat their staff the way they do to achieve this goal.

um, also good for them, most of those franchises lost thousands in one day due to loss of sales. so remember that if you think this wasn't successful.

>> ^bmacs27:

I'm just curious, are you guys happiest because a successful treatment for a serious condition has been discovered? Or is it more because medicinal uses of recreational substances you happen to enjoy have been found? I only ask because my suspicion is that if a video had come along saying "blah blah blah drug you've never heard of" has been shown to be effective at treating PTSD you all probably wouldn't care.


i'm happy because it's pretty obvious the MDMA is great for all sorts of therapy, especially in getting people to talk to eachother. On MDMA, you tend to see the positive sides of things.

I'm just curious, are you guys happiest because a successful treatment for a serious condition has been discovered? Or is it more because medicinal uses of recreational substances you happen to enjoy have been found? I only ask because my suspicion is that if a video had come along saying "blah blah blah drug you've never heard of" has been shown to be effective at treating PTSD you all probably wouldn't care.

blah,blah,blah,blahtity blah [retch] =o(

3:40 with the kids shooting guns --> City of God
4:54 with the shotgun --> Funny Games
5:17 the Asian gentleman yelling --> No idea!

Also:
* Darth blah blah from Phantom Menace a "great villain"? Seriously?
* As a side note, this is a very American-centric (and yoof-centric) selection. How about some Hong Kong or Japanese super-villains? for that matter, where are the early, and I would say iconic super-villains like "M" and Doctor Mabuse?

Ever watched campaign speeches? By practically any candidate, ever? They all say "next year, when I am the president of the United States" blah blah blah.

Is Romney a cocky SOB? Perhaps, but I don't think this clip is compelling evidence of that.