This is in Las Vegas, Nevada, specifically, Caesars Forum Shops Northern Entrance. There are a lot of out-of-work people that create various costumes and prance around the sidewalks for tips, some offer dance shows (street dancing) while some just stand there as still as possible, 2 of my favorites are: Freddy Kruger and the iconic man from Monopoly (supposedly in pewter).

>> ^Trancecoach:

exactly -- that NEVER happens in Disney World.. This must be EuroDisney or some shit.>> ^Shepppard:
Where is this that the mickey mouse is allowed to just take his head off and sit there?

>> ^kceaton1:

How utterly ridiculous this is... I can't wait when an independent panel (who apparently has to be run by a, "Person of Interest"--some elite hidden issues force, that has no way to be undercut by corruption--hahahahahaha) is created who will be using advanced PET scanning technology to select all police officers for active for duty, they'll find out all the good ol'boys are KKK members or sociopaths/psychopaths. Either it will help out a bit or more than likely become corrupted and allow them to pick EXACTLY who they want--which is even more terrifying. They already use the stupid lie detector for certain areas, so I expect to see this soon on the federal level (hell, if not already).
Is there ANY way they can take this to the federal level if there are signs of corruption? I know there isn't most likely, but when a potential crime like this is so utterly swiped clean off the slate what the hell are you supposed to do. I've personally known someone in a small town that had all their life's possessions, everything they had ever bought, owned, or saved taken away from them and not ONE person lifted a finger (I'll have to find the exact city name again, but it was in Nevada--through a business that was protected by the local police and city officials, including defending city attorneys as well--higher level police through Las Vegas said he was SOL and it was out of their jurisdiction, who TF do they think they are kidding...) This is CRAZY! Who is Zimmerman exactly to have the police put their ass on the line like this, what are we missing?
Zimmerman will get assassinated if he sees no trial mark my words.


Yeah these are the situations that cause riots when you have blatant injustice such as this. I'm just surprised this isn't getting more attention. I've only heard about it on the internet.

How utterly ridiculous this is... I can't wait when an independent panel (who apparently has to be run by a, "Person of Interest"--some elite hidden issues force, that has no way to be undercut by corruption--hahahahahaha) is created who will be using advanced PET scanning technology to select all police officers for active for duty, they'll find out all the good ol'boys are KKK members or sociopaths/psychopaths. Either it will help out a bit or more than likely become corrupted and allow them to pick EXACTLY who they want--which is even more terrifying. They already use the stupid lie detector for certain areas, so I expect to see this soon on the federal level (hell, if not already).

Is there ANY way they can take this to the federal level if there are signs of corruption? I know there isn't most likely, but when a potential crime like this is so utterly swiped clean off the slate what the hell are you supposed to do. I've personally known someone in a small town that had all their life's possessions, everything they had ever bought, owned, or saved taken away from them and not ONE person lifted a finger (I'll have to find the exact city name again, but it was in Nevada--through a business that was protected by the local police and city officials, including defending city attorneys as well--higher level police through Las Vegas said he was SOL and it was out of their jurisdiction, who TF do they think they are kidding...) This is CRAZY! Who is Zimmerman exactly to have the police put their ass on the line like this, what are we missing?

Zimmerman will get assassinated if he sees no trial mark my words.

As I think it's relevant to the discussion and it was left as a little quasi threat on my profile.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Disagree with what ? your intent or interpretation of the events in the video are completely void because of this statement " Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera. ?

Is clearly is in violation of the posted rules. I'd make a big stink about it if it was 2 pm and not 2 am. I'll do it in the morning


Please do make a big stink, this site has a lot of rules that don't get enforced until someone gets a bug up their ass about it. And without enforcement whose to know what videos are allowed or not when my video CLOSELY resembles some of the videos I've linked below. And I'll say right now that you putting extra tags on my video was in poor taste and mocks the events of the video. I don't think you are the right person to be making judgements on my videos when you can mock the video with those tags.


These are the videos I found in the first 20 pages of the "death" channel.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Rare-amateur-video-of-Challenger-disaster-25-years-later - Has a short intro screen and a exit screen. No news coverage, no documentary claims. It would fall under your rule, yet it's been voted very high up there and no one complained.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Destroyed-In-Seconds - This video was taken down by youtube because it showed a guy dieing in it. The comments on THIS SITE even reflect it. No one ever questioned it.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Marines-Urinate-on-Dead-Afghans - I can't confirm those men on the ground are dieing or dead. It shows corpses, wounds and all being defiled for ENTERTAINMENT of the troops. I'd classify this as snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Footage-of-Perm-Nightclub-Fire - Shows a building where 100+ people died.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Indy-500-winner-killed-in-15-car-accident - Shows the tv footage of a car crash where the driver died. No informative news network or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Deadly-plane-crash-at-Reno-Nevada-air-show - Shows a plane crash, no news or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Molten-metal-seen-dripping-moments-before-WTC2-collapses - Shows footage of WTC where we know people were dieing inside. We can't see them dieing, but that rule still applies. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Lucky-Montana-Cop-Escapes-Death - Police office shoots a man to death. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Main-Stage-collapses-at-Indiana-State-Fair Stage collapses people die. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Sigh-police-beat-a-man-dead - Police kill a guy on film. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Craziest-and-most-awesome-animal-compilations-of-the-web - I didn't watch this one all the way through. Video Submitter claims death occurs in it. Could be animal, could be people. You watch it and decide if it's snuff...I saw some animals attacking people but never saw the outcome to tell if they were dead or not.

Well then your idiot grandson will never be president.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Would you invest in a weapons manufacturer? I wouldn't. Sure it's legal, but doesn't mean it's ok.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I meant within the law. Some practices should clearly be outlawed if we're going to have a civil society, and I think the government has some leeway to set policy there. However, if you are following the law, why should you be restricted as to where you are going to invest?
>> ^EMPIRE:
Because some investment are fraudulent, and some investments were created to cause harm on purpose to enrich others. How about that? That seems like a VERY GOOD reason not to let people invest in anything they want.
>> ^shinyblurry:
He pays the same tax rate, but there are fewer restrictions as to what he can do with the money. To which I say, so what? The taboo of off-shore accounts came from the fact that people were hiding money there, not that they weren't allowed to invest money there. Why can't people invest their money where they want to, where it is smartest to invest? Why do you think so many celebrities and business owners incorporate in Nevada? What right do you think the government has to tell people where they can or can't invest their money?
>> ^EMPIRE:
shinyblurry...
the people who created the legality of sending money into off-shore accounts are also some of the people who profit from the law being created. So, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it.
"he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states." and "Yes, it gives certain tax advantages"
Well... what is it then? is it the same thing as having the money invested in the US or in an american bank or are there advantages? It can't be the two at the same time.

Would you invest in a weapons manufacturer? I wouldn't. Sure it's legal, but doesn't mean it's ok.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I meant within the law. Some practices should clearly be outlawed if we're going to have a civil society, and I think the government has some leeway to set policy there. However, if you are following the law, why should you be restricted as to where you are going to invest?
>> ^EMPIRE:
Because some investment are fraudulent, and some investments were created to cause harm on purpose to enrich others. How about that? That seems like a VERY GOOD reason not to let people invest in anything they want.
>> ^shinyblurry:
He pays the same tax rate, but there are fewer restrictions as to what he can do with the money. To which I say, so what? The taboo of off-shore accounts came from the fact that people were hiding money there, not that they weren't allowed to invest money there. Why can't people invest their money where they want to, where it is smartest to invest? Why do you think so many celebrities and business owners incorporate in Nevada? What right do you think the government has to tell people where they can or can't invest their money?
>> ^EMPIRE:
shinyblurry...
the people who created the legality of sending money into off-shore accounts are also some of the people who profit from the law being created. So, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it.
"he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states." and "Yes, it gives certain tax advantages"
Well... what is it then? is it the same thing as having the money invested in the US or in an american bank or are there advantages? It can't be the two at the same time.

I meant within the law. Some practices should clearly be outlawed if we're going to have a civil society, and I think the government has some leeway to set policy there. However, if you are following the law, why should you be restricted as to where you are going to invest?

>> ^EMPIRE:
Because some investment are fraudulent, and some investments were created to cause harm on purpose to enrich others. How about that? That seems like a VERY GOOD reason not to let people invest in anything they want.
>> ^shinyblurry:
He pays the same tax rate, but there are fewer restrictions as to what he can do with the money. To which I say, so what? The taboo of off-shore accounts came from the fact that people were hiding money there, not that they weren't allowed to invest money there. Why can't people invest their money where they want to, where it is smartest to invest? Why do you think so many celebrities and business owners incorporate in Nevada? What right do you think the government has to tell people where they can or can't invest their money?
>> ^EMPIRE:
shinyblurry...
the people who created the legality of sending money into off-shore accounts are also some of the people who profit from the law being created. So, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it.
"he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states." and "Yes, it gives certain tax advantages"
Well... what is it then? is it the same thing as having the money invested in the US or in an american bank or are there advantages? It can't be the two at the same time.

Because some investment are fraudulent, and some investments were created to cause harm on purpose to enrich others. How about that? That seems like a VERY GOOD reason not to let people invest in anything they want.

>> ^shinyblurry:

He pays the same tax rate, but there are fewer restrictions as to what he can do with the money. To which I say, so what? The taboo of off-shore accounts came from the fact that people were hiding money there, not that they weren't allowed to invest money there. Why can't people invest their money where they want to, where it is smartest to invest? Why do you think so many celebrities and business owners incorporate in Nevada? What right do you think the government has to tell people where they can or can't invest their money?

>> ^EMPIRE:
shinyblurry...
the people who created the legality of sending money into off-shore accounts are also some of the people who profit from the law being created. So, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it.
"he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states." and "Yes, it gives certain tax advantages"
Well... what is it then? is it the same thing as having the money invested in the US or in an american bank or are there advantages? It can't be the two at the same time.

He pays the same tax rate, but there are fewer restrictions as to what he can do with the money. To which I say, so what? The taboo of off-shore accounts came from the fact that people were hiding money there, not that they weren't allowed to invest money there. Why can't people invest their money where they want to, where it is smartest to invest? Why do you think so many celebrities and business owners incorporate in Nevada? What right do you think the government has to tell people where they can or can't invest their money?



>> ^EMPIRE:
shinyblurry...
the people who created the legality of sending money into off-shore accounts are also some of the people who profit from the law being created. So, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean you should do it.
"he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states." and "Yes, it gives certain tax advantages"
Well... what is it then? is it the same thing as having the money invested in the US or in an american bank or are there advantages? It can't be the two at the same time.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'burning man, black rock, arizona, Larry Harvey, eric3579' to 'burning man, black rock, Nevada, Larry Harvey, eric3579' - edited by eric3579

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

>> ^Hastur:

>> ^Asmo:
I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...
Here's our disagreement in a nutshell:
You claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of voters. I claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of people. If your aim is a more pure democracy, which is more desirable?
And your last paragraph simply isn't supported. In a direct election, a candidate must appeal to exactly 50.1% of the electorate, and there is no compulsion to distribute that appeal either demographically or geographically. The college at least forces the candidates to broaden their reach. Look at some of the swing states fought over in the past election: Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Nevada. There's a lot of diversity represented there, both geographically and demographically. IMO that's the way it should be in a union of states.


Incorrect, I agree with the assertion that the purest form of democracy represents the majority of the people. But how do you resolve an election where the majority refuses to vote? Either you poll again and again and again, or make the vote compulsory (there goes freedom), or just don't have a head of state.

But your point re: majority of the people undermines EC voting as much as it does direct elections. A state doesn't lose EC votes because people abstain, each state get's it's full quota no matter how many people stay at home.

And how does your statement not support my assertion in the second paragraph? Appealing to swing states with an uneven balance of EC votes is not diversifying, it's focusing their efforts (as demonstrated in the video). Candidates wouldn't waste time on safe seats typically. They certainly wouldn't waste time on safe seats (or alternately seats that are locked down by the opposition) that are severely underrepresented in the EC. The college forces candidates to narrow their focus, not broaden it, in the demographic that actually counts. EC votes to be gained. Demographic and geographic broadening is accidental. If those states were all jammed together in one corner of the country and had similar demographics, would you complain that candidates were narrowing their focus, or just admit they are chasing states that will yield the greatest electoral advantage to them?

The "way it should be" in a union of states is that all men (and women) are equal, not that some states get special attention because of a flawed system set up by people who didn't trust the every day person to make the 'right' choice.

edit: rephrased a sentence for clarity.

>> ^Asmo:

I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...

Here's our disagreement in a nutshell:

You claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of voters. I claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of people. If your aim is a more pure democracy, which is more desirable?

And your last paragraph simply isn't supported. In a direct election, a candidate must appeal to exactly 50.1% of the electorate, and there is no compulsion to distribute that appeal either demographically or geographically. The college at least forces the candidates to broaden their reach. Look at some of the swing states fought over in the past election: Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Nevada. There's a lot of diversity represented there, both geographically and demographically. IMO that's the way it should be in a union of states.

Wellllllp,

The airplane is a p-51 Mustang from the WW2 era, apparently equipped with multiple modern recording devices. While mid-flight a piece from the tail end of the aircraft (edit: the piece is the elevator trim tab) broke off, affecting the planes ability to maneuver effectively, causing catastrophic failure and the pilot lost all control on a turn. The plane then pitched up and took a sharp turn downwards as it nose dives into a luxury box-seat area killing dozens and wounding 70 or so.

While the tragedy in this story is obvious, the physics are not. Notice the lack of explosion upon impact or shortly there after. Usually there is a massive fireball that proceeds a crash like this and it has baffled scientists and engineers alike.

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
I would REALLY like some backstory on this.

What was going on? Was it a race, or an air show? what the hell was the pilot doing in the first place, the angle of that descent means he either did the most boneheaded loop ever, or something went catastrophically wrong.

I'm not even happy having watched this. It's not exactly snuff, because we don't explicitly see anybody die (I mean, obviously the pilot, but we only see an after explosion) but even still, I'm uncomfortable watching it. However, just because I'm uncomfortable watching it, doesn't automatically make it snuff.

ehh.. one way or the other, I see controversy brewing with this video.

Lazy, entitled, liberal kids no doubt. What they need to do is pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get a damn job and trust in the market. I'm tired of the hard earned four percent of income taxes I actually pay (after all my deductions and the bankruptcy of my Nevada paper corporation) going to literal "free lunches" at schools.

You know what we need to do to help these kids? Cut pay to social services workers.