I love how that little guy can go flying and flipping four times the length of his body, crash and burn, then jump up like nothing happened.

It's like if you tossed a human 25 feet off a ten foot platform and he didn't bat an eye.

Boss dog!

Evil face of the US... Hoookay. One fundamental flaw though, this would require Assange to grow a pair, and lets face facts, a chicken never changes its mile wide yellow streak.

>> ^SevenFingers:

I say he surrenders. I do support his role in trying to get the corporate oligarchy to crash and burn, but we can never know if he is a true rapist unless he faces the courts... Now, if he gets sent to the US and tortured, etc. Then people will know those rape charges were manufactured, and maybe... just maybe something will actually happen to help change the evil face of the USA

I say he surrenders. I do support his role in trying to get the corporate oligarchy to crash and burn, but we can never know if he is a true rapist unless he faces the courts... Now, if he gets sent to the US and tortured, etc. Then people will know those rape charges were manufactured, and maybe... just maybe something will actually happen to help change the evil face of the USA

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security
I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.
I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.


When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we" you're referring to? There's very good evidence that SS is responsible for the significant drop in the rate of poverty among the elderly over the last half-century. The facts are that when social security spending (per capita) increases, the poverty rate among seniors reliably decreases, and vice versa. Opponents of SS may honestly believe that an increase in elderly poverty is a painful tradeoff that must be made in order to protect the financial future of the country. That is an honest position that can be debated. But at least acknowledge the existence of the tradeoff. The program has had a huge impact in the lives of some our most vulnerable fellow citizens.

The idea that abolishing SS will do no harm because people will be able to invest their own money to protect their future is ridiculous. First of all, investing wisely is psychologically difficult. We are not built to plan carefully for that far in the future. Second, even if you do make the decision to invest sensibly, it is not easy to do, given that the financial system has been set up to prey on small investors for short-term profit, with high fees and fraudulent advice. You just can't expect the average person, who has no idea how or why to invest in a suitably diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds, to successfully invest in the market.

So I think there is very good reason to think that getting rid of SS will have a significant cost attached. Of course, it is also true that SS faces a long-term financing problem, and we need to be having a discussion about how to deal with it. But it does neither side any good to just deny that there are any worthwhile arguments on the other side.

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security

I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.

I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.

@Stormsinger whatever system you're envisioning seems to me like a common fantasy of underestimating the complexities of society. I invite you to rethink your idea of a society with economic freedom, because it's definitely not Somalia, an uncivilized society ruled by criminals has no freedoms.

No state regulation doesn't mean less regulation. Instead of coming from above in the form of laws, regulation would come from the people and however they decide to organize themselves to deal with anything they perceive as abuses in the economy, without resorting to force. State only comes in to enforce contracts and respect for private property.

Yes, there would be failure, bankruptcy, loss, but that's what makes a system alive, adaptable and capable of evolving, as opposed to the static oligarchic power structures we have now. If you think people are stupid and don't care past the end of their noses, wait until they have to pay dearly for their bad decisions. Which doesn't mean I want to live in a cruel and abusive world, I want a society that can learn and react faster and more appropriately to whatever complex problems that may come up. Leaving that job to regulators and central economic planners is painfully inefficient, not to mention anti-capitalistic.

You know why you talk about a system where regulators, which would still have power, would be held responsible for their actions? Because you like responsability, and I like it too. No one should have power and not be held accountable for their actions.

So here's a thought: take the power away from regulators, let people have the power and the responsability: if they use it wisely, they succeed and profit, otherwise they crash and burn. No, I don't like to see people failing either, but forcibly removing failure from society is what leads society itself to fail.

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan
I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.
Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year...
The point I was trying to make is, he wasn't saying there should be no laws. He even mentioned that even the 1st amendment has rules, that you can't injure or defame others. He believes that your personal choices should be your own.
If someone injures another, like your child abuse analogy, then he believes there SHOULD be consequences and laws. If your heroin junkie breaks into someone's home to steal money, then he should go to jail for burglary, not being an addict. If he holds a knife to your kid's throat to get their lunch money, he should be jailed for assault with deadly weapon, not because he has a used needle in his back pocket.


How is polling the audience supporting that argument? He was making two arguments (at least), one of which was the "reasonable person" argument which I think is baloney. You could apply the same argument to a horrible crime like child abuse.

His _other_ argument which you highlight -- the right to personal freedom -- is much more persuasive. I agree it is THE fundamental argument on this topic, and nobody should believe that it's a slam dunk argument either way.

I think entr0py's argument is compelling. Drugs like heroin are an overly tempting way to ruin your life. It's not a matter of intelligence or education -- one of the most interesting anti-smoking studies found that teenagers actually OVERestimate the danger of smoking. But they still do it, anyway. Virtually everyone who smokes started as a teenager. People simply do stupid things which are against their self interests and society's interest. So I don't want to see heroin regulated the way cigarettes are. That's not sufficient. Anyway, this is the "should government protect you from yourself" argument which some people find repugnant. I take it you are one of them. You don't care if 15% of every high school class dies from heroin abuse because on their 18th birthday they get access to plentiful, cheap heroin. I'm not saying that would be the case, I'm just saying that a strict believer in personal freedom would be fine with this.

Also I think we should worry about preventing crime, not punishing it. Yes, we could offer a young mother lots of heroin and wait until her child neglect becomes actionable by the state, but why let a family be ruined? You're right, her actions would snowball to the point of being illegal without making the drug itself illegal. That doesn't really reassure me much.

Maybe such problems wouldn't be widespread if all drugs were legalized. But they're already fairly common, and I don't see how legalizing everything would make them rarer.

Are you really OK with living next door to a house full of heroin addicts? having them offer your children heroin? Watching them spiral in to filth while they lose self control? Seeing their children show up at the bus stop unwashed and starving? And having the police tell you "Well, they haven't done anything illegal yet. Clearly this situation will crash and burn shortly, but we should definitely stand at the sidelines and watch. We wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms". Or maybe child services is more on the ball and the children end up in state custody sooner rather than later, so it's a happy ending? So maybe children and parents aren't allowed to use these drugs but other people can? And maybe nobody who operates heavy machinery? And certainly not schoolteachers.

It just seems like a useless exercise to me to try to give people the freedom to use a drug like heroin when it will only cause terrible repercussions.

All of us that think the rider in the video was going too fast should really stop talking to the people arguing how it was safe. You will NEVER get one of THOSE people to admit what they do is in any way dangerous. It's not in their mindset. They bought their crotch rocket to compensate for what is lacking down there (They have the extra room you see).

There are two types of former "Super Bike" riders, ones that crash and burn severely enough to stop them ever physically riding a bike again (eg. dismemberment, death), and ones that grow up.

Anyone saying that his speed was fine because he didn't explode in a firey ball of gasoline and body parts kinda misses the fact if he WASN'T going that fast he wouldn't have hit the deer in the first place, if for the only reason that he wouldn't have been there yet.

they put that train-wreck back on rails just to watch it crash and burn again..pretty cruel.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Wishful thinking. The promised "drubbing" of A.C. never arrived.
Is the argument that Bush really attempted "nation-building" in Afghanistan? There were 30K troops in Afghanistan when he left office.
At that time, Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Leader, said: “I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan.” So according to Reid, 30K troops wasn't/isn't enough.
Obama's curious decision to keep the Afghan war going just doesn't make sense. I was surprised he betrayed his fanbase's wishes to leave.
It's obvious His Earness has no intention of winning over there, and has either gone along with or even developed all the bull$hit "rules" that make it impossible to win. You don't set timelines when you're fighting a war; you win it.
There's a very good case for getting the hell out of Afghanistan. Probably public opinion will end it along with the removal of His Earness in 2012.


Sooo you think Iraq was the better war to keep going....or are you actually antiwar?

[redacted]

No EIA tag? Or do you only get EIA if you crash and burn

you can almost see him thinking profit > lives. That said, idiots should turn their fucking car off before they crash and burn.

Oh dear god. It's like watching someone cock a gun and put it up to a puppy's head, slowly pulling on the trigger, only to have the video end just before the bang. Only difference is, we're gonna hear the bang all over the internet in a week or two.

Anyone reminded of that scene from Hackers where Crash and Burn are trying to ruin the commissioner's life? Only... this might just actually ruin the kid's life. And continue to do so.

^ I think your comment derailed and crashed and burned somewhere in the bushes...