Fail videos are so ubiquitous that one can usually predict the outcome based upon the setting and props involved. Ramp/pond/bike, guy on roof/folding table on ground, skateboard/stairs, skateboard/park bench/handrail, skateboard/steep hill, merry-go-round/motorcycle, large group of people posing for picture/dock/platform/stage, rope swing/lake, rally car/rally, idiot(s)/fire, idiot(s)/fireworks, concert/stage diver, cat/slippery counter, dog/slippery floor, pickup truck/guy riding something attached to pickup by a rope, park/parkourer parkourering, motorcycle/ramp, motorcycle/wheelie, poser/posing with animal, person buried in sand/dog, inattentive jogger/signpost, ridiculously expensive luxury car/just drivin' down the road, car/trolley, car/bus, car/train gate, car/other traffic control devices, singer/national anthem... etc.

I still like watching them, though. The misfortune of others can be very entertaining (as long as no one gets seriously hurt).

Honestly, I think he's being facetious. He's a conservative radio host, so he must be against the affordable care act and the individual mandate specifically. I think he's saying "taxing people over being uninsured is as ridiculous as taxing them over not going to church, because church is good for you". It's a version of the supreme court's 'eat your broccoli mandate' slippery slope argument. Only, as KnivesOut said, designed to troll liberals.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^A10anis:
If you watch at the end, when he attempts to stop, you notice his feet are still moving backwards which almost makes him fall. Also, I think sparks are just discernible as he crosses pedestrian bit. These observations, coupled with the sound, make me think that he is wearing those shoes with the tiny wheels on them. My kids have them.

Or the street is wet and slippery.

HMM, Ok. I bet you believe in big foot too..

For the record, I do not believe that Bigfoot can moonwalk.

>> ^A10anis:

If you watch at the end, when he attempts to stop, you notice his feet are still moving backwards which almost makes him fall. Also, I think sparks are just discernible as he crosses pedestrian bit. These observations, coupled with the sound, make me think that he is wearing those shoes with the tiny wheels on them. My kids have them.

Or the street is wet and slippery.

>> ^bobknight33:

Your comments make your a bigot.
liberals claim to be open minded and let everyone under the tent. I guess you only let those in if they agree with you.
You only open minded if I agree with you.
Not only are you a bigot you are also a hypocrite.

>> ^VoodooV:
Poor @bobknight33
Do you have a learning disorder, memory problem or both?
1. I very clearly stated that being a bigot in the privacy of your own home and in your own head is perfectly fine. Just that when it comes to public policy, your religious views have no place. Did you just fail to read that or did you choose to ignore it?
2. You made the argument questioning the number of homosexuals in America. Again, you failed to comprehend or you chose to ignore it when I said that the number of homosexuals in America, or the world is irrelevant and they are deserving of the same inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as you are.
Thirdly, there is this wonderful thing called a post history. You may not have said anything explicit in this sift about homosexuals (debatable), but thanks to your post history we know PRECISELY how you feel about homosexuals, blacks and other minorities. You're a coward bob, but you can't run away from your own documented words.



Ahh the "I know you are but what am I?" defense. Tell me bob, what is open minded about thinking homosexuals should be corralled into concentration camps? Please...enlighten me. Explain to me how homosexuality is wrong without using the bible and "it's gross" and "slippery slope to bestiality" Show me a glimmer of rational thought. Reason and logic beat myths and superstition every time.

You have a right to your opinion, but you're not safe from being criticized when your shit just doesn't pass muster. All opinions are not equally valid and shitty ideas have a way of being tossed aside

If you wanted an echo chamber, you're in the wrong place, bob.

I just shake my head.

Anyone who (A) insists on wearing ridiculous high-heel shoes, (B) sends models out to walk on slippery fucking walkways with giant swinging pendulums they have to avoid and (C) expects it to be taken seriously has fucking lost their mind and deserves any and all punishment coming their way.

Fuck this obsession with pretentious fashion.

Fact: Police depriving someone of their liberty is never an appropriate response to anything besides a criminal offence, no matter how annoying or draining on resources. In an ideal world, or in a community that still behaves like a community and the police actually care about the people as individuals, "teaching them a lesson" would be fine, but in our world, cops abuse power, and to sanction false arrest as an appropriate measure when someone's merely being annoying is more like a cliff than a slippery slope.

OTOH, if by some law they're actually doing something illegal, then they should be warned they're doing something illegal and asked to stop it, and then arrested.

Sort of a play on "jumping off slippery table and swan-diving to the floor" videos.

So even though the law specifically states partial birth abortions won't be allowed unless to protect the life of the mother, which btw, the average American you keep sighting would agree should be allowed, it's going to effectively let virtually every partial birth abortion to occur. That's right wing paranoia. The law specifically states otherwise, period. So even when it says that, you're saying otherwise.

Past that btw, are you saying that if a woman didn't abort the baby she would die, they should be legally required to have the baby anyway? Here's the problem; even if what you said is true that the floodgates for partial birth abortions would open, all you're proving is the impossibility to enforce the law. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against partial birth abortion bans that don't allow exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

There are plenty of laws where it's just impractical to enforce properly. I think if the entire US would abide by Prohibition, our society would be much better off without alcohol in the end, considering rates of alcoholism, etc. But it was impossible to enforce, so it was a bad law. I don't personally drink, and both my parents are recovering alcoholics, but I'd never be in favor of Prohibition.

Regardless, FOCA is not far left. It's not. This isn't intellectual dishonesty. I don't even care honestly if it passes or not. But it's not far left. Far left would not contain provisions at all to limit partial birth abortions. It would outright say parental consent laws are superceded and invalid. Etc. FOCA hasn't a single one of those things. It's center-left. But you're calling it far left because it's in any degree more left than where we are now. Same thing with what you're saying about moving any direction to the left on gay marriage. That's ridiculous. This is why we can't make any progress anymore legislatively or politically. Everyone thinks giving up an inch, even when it's a reasonable concession, is a slippery slope, the flood gates will open, Armageddon is coming, blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is while we're split on abortion, probably 70% of Americans would agree that we should limit partial birth abortions, but we should have exceptions for rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. FOCA is a reasonable compromise to move a tick to the left. Instead, it's tared and feathered as hard left, with many allegations that are outright lies, not just bending of the truth. Your point about the parental involvement requirements as a case in point. That's utter horsecrap, and you know it.

Prove provisions of the Obamacare is causing your mother's current health insurance coverage to be eliminated, and her premiums to go up. Prove it, explain what's going on, and show me where in Obamacare it's causing this. Until you can prove that, I'm calling BS.

I'm not saying companies don't end certain insurance policies because of Obamacare. I have a friend who works for Microsoft, and they're ending their health insurance plan in favor of another because the current plan falls under the category of a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, and will be penalized via a tax. So he'll go from super-awesome health insurance better than virtually any plan you could hope to find to a darn good one. He's pissed as hell because of this, but when I asked him did he look at this from the perspective of if this is good policy for society as a whole, he looked dumbfounded, as if why should he even consider that. If society as a whole is better off, I don't really care he has health insurance coverage a little closer to what the rest of us have. That should be the debate, not people deciding based on their own selfish interests.

The simple fact of the matter is health insurance premiums were already going up well before Obamacare was ever passed, but a lot of people now blame current premium increases conveniently on Obamacare when they don't know that was the reason why. Forget facts, it's that dang communist Obama!

I have a warped view of what's center-left vs hard left? If the only thing concerning gay marriage that Obama is advocating changing is that the federal gov't will begin recognizing the marriage legal IF and ONLY IF the couple's state considers it legal, explain how that's far left. If the only change to abortion laws is ensuring exceptions to partial birth abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother, explain how that's hard left. Explain how Obamacare, which largely keeps the same health care system we already have in place, is hard left. By definition, if we still have employee sponsored health insurance, no public option, no single payer, that's not a hard move to the left. It's not. The conservative right paints them all as these extreme measures, but every single one are compromises. Every single one of them, period.

And here's the result - Conservatives are urging the Supreme Court to dismantle the most significant health care reform since the invention of Medicaid to go back to a system everybody knows is broken, with no plan ready to fix it. We haven't even let Obamacare take effect quite honestly, but it's not stopping the GOP from claiming it's killing the economy. Ridiculous.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.
Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.
Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.
I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.
What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.
>> ^heropsycho:

I think you may be missing the point of what the Congressman was getting at, and especially what rights we have under the constitution. Are you aware of what the free exercise clause is about?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Every person is guaranteed the right to practice their religion free from government interference. This is a fundamental right for every citizen, and religious liberty is one of the principles this country was founded on, if you know your history.

Here is a basic description:

"The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”227 It bars “governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such,”228 prohibiting misuse of secular governmental programs “to impede the observance of one or all religions or . . . to discriminate invidiously between religions . . . even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect.”229 Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs.230 Interpretation is complicated, however, by the fact that exercise of religion usually entails ritual or other practices that constitute “conduct” rather than pure “belief.” When it comes to protecting conduct as free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent.231 It has long been held that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question.232 What has changed over the years is the Court’s willingness to hold that some religiously motivated conduct is protected from generally applicable prohibitions"

Now, when you say Government should do what's best for "all citizens", what you're really saying is that Government should do what's best for "some citizens", because most citizens of this country are religious. Over 80 percent of us profess to be Christians, and that doesn't include all of the jews, muslims, hindus etc. Clearly, what's best for most citizens is the guarantee of religious liberties, a constitutional principle which, again, is at the heart of why we even have a United States of America.

As far as human sacrifice goes, that is what the Congressman meant when he spoke of the balancing test in regards to constitutional law. The Supreme Court decided for instance, on balance, that the fact of polygamy would harm the interests of the United States more than it would be compromising the the religious liberties of mormons. Allowing people to murder one another for a religious ritual would be in that category. This is not something the Supreme Court does lightly; on the main, they rule in favor of religious liberty.

So, while you may prefer a secular country with secular values, that isn't where you were born. This country was founded on freedom, not secularism. If you want to tamper with that, you are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

As far as contraceptives are concerned, the government is treading on the religious liberties of catholics by forcing them to carry contraceptives in their health plans. Changing the rule so that they are distributed for free changes nothing, because the catholics will have to pay higher premiums, and also because some catholic institutions have their own private carriers, which means they will have to pick up the tab. They shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience and pay for contraceptive use, and the Supreme Court will agree with that when they hear the case.



>> ^Sepacore:
Gowdy Grills "When a state banned a practice of animal sacrifice and a religious group objected, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won that?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not sir"
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Gowdy Grills "I think the state has an important interest in having license tags on automobiles so law enforcement can know who they're dealing with. When a religious group objected to having a certain license tag on their cars, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Groups given exceptions to compassionate/reasonable behaviors/expectations because they say they're religious.. this type of occurrence is wrong for Governments to allow/support when they are supposed to be doing what's best for all citizens, not letting some groups who have a personal preference get away with things that would put anyone else in jail. When it comes to physical well-being/suffering or reasonable safety/accountability, those who have their personal preferences that oppose such rational positions need to pull their heads in.
I'd like/hate to see what would happen in a supreme court case where a religion stated "it's my religious right to kill that person/human because of my holy doctrine".
Where the same situation occurred but with animals, and the group were authorized to carry out their murders.
More relevant to the HHS mandate, if someone doesn't want to use contraceptive, they don't have to just because it's covered in their universities/schools health plans by government policy. The government is trying to give people the option. Catholics could exercise their abilities to be devout to their subscribed belief system and simply not use the contraceptives.

Sweeping generalizations don't play any better than slippery slopes.

I'm sure someone has told you that government involvement always leads to higher costs, but it's simply not true. Maybe you're new to this argument, but there are tons of examples.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Most importantly, do you or do you not acknowledge the connection between a successful economy and education?

About GE specifically, they wouldn't exist as they do if it weren't for an educated populace from which to draw skills. Without university-educated engineers, chemists, managers, accountants, lawyers and so on they couldn't run the business they do. Where did all these educated people come from? Did GE pay for their education? Nope. The people themselves did. They make GE fantastically wealthy with their labour, and in return, they get crushing debt for years and years while GE reaps nothing but profits.

About sales taxes, I'm no expert, but I believe sales taxes are consumer taxes only, so GE doesn't have to pay them to suppliers, or they get credited back. I could be wrong.>> ^bobknight33:

The government should not be in the education and student loan process at all.
The rate should be at fair market value.
Government involvement has helped caused such high tuition costs.
Government involvement always lead to higher cost, no matter what.
Healthcare cost are going up because government got involved.

The government should not be in the education and student loan process at all.
The rate should be at fair market value.
Government involvement has helped caused such high tuition costs.

Government involvement always lead to higher cost, no matter what.
Healthcare cost are going up because government got involved.





>> ^messenger:

@bobknight33
Is the slippery slope argument the best you've got? Do you not understand the value to the economy of an educated public?
Further: the debate here isn't about whether the government should give out or regulate student loans; it's only about what the interest rate should be. Nothing more. Do you think the interest rate should be higher for students? Would the economy be better off with more educated people with lower debt and more free cash, or would it be better off with the banks holding more money? This is the only question raised in this video.

@bobknight33

Is the slippery slope argument the best you've got? Do you not understand the value to the economy of an educated public?

Further: the debate here isn't about whether the government should give out or regulate student loans; it's only about what the interest rate should be. Nothing more. Do you think the interest rate should be higher for students? Would the economy be better off with more educated people with lower debt and more free cash, or would it be better off with the banks holding more money? This is the only question raised in this video.