Congratulations! Your video, Vermont State Police dives into icy pond to save child, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 267 Badge!

Interesting....isn't he saying that mainly white areas tend to be better? That seems to be a fairly racist position.
Odd that he mentions areas all over the country, but details only from southern states, as if the whole nation is historically racist like the secessionist states.
Let's talk Vermont, who actively encourages non white immigration and those who go tend to report being treated kindly with respect, yet they're still far below average in diversity.
I live in Humboldt county, which is much whiter than average. I can't figure out why more non whites don't move here unless it's a lack of development and services. Those I've known were happy here and saw less racism than they had in major cities.

The laugh track addition is just dumb and inappropriate. Often the shot of the crowd showed them sitting quietly while raucous laughter erupted from the track over nothing funny.

Sadly, it's only after leaving the positions of power that people seem to realize this is true, that you are required to analyze orders and to refuse those that are illegal (and question those that are unreasonable or appear illegal).
In practice, questioning orders is a good way to end up in military prison.
Also, most fear losing their position of power far more than they fear being caught following illegal orders. Few if any have ever been prosecuted.
It's for this reason that we have the crimes exposed by Manning and Snowden, up to and including mass murders, torture, illegal indefinite detention, etc. , that have never been prosecuted, but those who exposed the illegal orders and acts have been prosecuted, whistleblower protection laws be damned.
It's pretty disingenuous for this man to say that Trump's illegal orders would be questioned and ignored when all the illegal orders he received during his tenure were followed without question.

EDIT: Interesting, I just found out he's publicly supported by the KKK, and American National SuperPac, founded by a consortium of white terror groups, but he claims to not know who they are. Reports out of Super Tuesday states Minnesota and Vermont have revealed there are recorded calls telling voters Trump will stop the “gradual genocide against the white race” and to not vote for Marco Rubio because he’s “Cuban.”
Trump has yet to disavow any of these terrorist racial groups, but has accepted money from them. That should certainly disqualify him from holding high public office and really should have him on the terrorist watch list, he's associated with and accepts fudging from well know, active terrorist groups.

I stick to people who believe in America.

Voodoo the fetus that got away from the abortionist.


You can stand with Pedophile Bill and criminal Hillary or an a bum named Bernie who never had a real job till he was 40,


http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-the-bum-who-wants-your-money/


Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money


2016: Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Monday his parents would never have thought their son would end up in the Senate and running for president. No kidding. He was a ne’er-do-well into his late 30s.

“It’s certainly something that I don’t think they ever believed would’ve happened,” the unabashed socialist remarked during CNN’s Democratic town hall forum, as polls show him taking the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.


He explained his family couldn’t imagine his “success,” because “my brother and I and Mom and Dad grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, and we never had a whole lot of money.”

It wasn’t as bad as he says. His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.


“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

Schmawy was a friend I never met. He suggested it when I lived back east – said if we each drove a few hundred kilometres we could meet in the middle, somewhere in Vermont or like that. We never tried that expedition, probably because I didn't try hard enough, and eventually I moved west, and in emails we still sometimes mentioned the possibility of meeting. I thought we had decades in which to meet and that one day, very naturally, we would. No more.

As I wrote elsewhere, I didn't know that I would have a heavy heart over the loss of somebody I never saw in real life. Much as Dag said, I liked knowing the world had Schmawy in it. He was put there, it seemed to me, to balance out a great many who were indecent and unwise and dull – put there as if by a law of nature. You can see why I thought he'd be around for a long time.

I gather Schmawy wasn't much for talk of the afterlife, but he is one of the people I like to think I may see there. If I do, I'm sure we'll ride motorcycles, just as we would have done, could have done. Goodbye my friend. It's hard to believe you're gone.

Where are the statistics that prove that gun control makes you safer? D.C. has very strict gun control and it has the highest crime rate in the country. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun control and it has the lowest crime rate in the country. What this proves (at least in the U.S.) is that gun laws don't necessarily make any meaningful impact on crime rates. Even if guns were outright banned in every state, guns wouldn't magically disappear. Most gun-related crimes involve illegally-obtained guns anyway. If criminals can't obtain guns legally (which is already statistically unlikely), they'll just obtain them illegally.

In order for gun control to be effective, it would need to be rigidly enforced. The government would need to actively search for and confiscate/destroy every gun it could find and make sure that guns aren't smuggled into the country. The war on drugs has shown that such tactics are costly and ineffective.

If you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty. Unlike guns, poverty has a direct and irrefutable correlation with crime. A reduction in poverty is GUARANTEED to result in a reduction of crime.

My friend starting peddling VHS rentals to remote grocery stores in upstate NY and Vermont in the mid-80s. His business was booming, he could barely fit enough videos in his van to meet the demand. By the early 90s it fell way off, it was barely worth driving the routes any more. Of course now it's a distant memory.

Yikes, too much text to respond to specifically so here's an overall rebuttal to modulus:

Guns already exist. There are millions of guns out there. Guns last a long time and can be used repeatedly by many different people. Guns can easily be smuggled and distributed illegally. There will always be a demand for guns (for legal and illegal purposes) because they are very effective at what they do. The person holding the gun will always have power over the person holding nothing. Even if the U.S. banned all guns and the production of guns, gun makers would just continue manufacturing guns in other countries and guns would be smuggled into the country, just like narcotics.

Just as the ban on drugs has proven woefully ineffective, a ban on guns wouldn't accomplish anything either. D.C. has very strict gun laws and the lowest gun ownership (legal ownership, at least) in the country and yet their gun-related crime rate is by far the highest. I'm talking more than double the rate of the next highest state. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun laws and more than ten times the gun ownership of D.C. yet it has the lowest gun crime rate in the country. Wyoming has the highest gun ownership in the country and extremely lax gun laws yet it has among the lowest gun crime rates. In fact, if you look at the states with the lowest crime rates, you'll notice that the vast majority of them have minimal gun control laws.

Finally, you say you've been robbed, mugged and assaulted on numerous occasions. Do you think that would have happened if you were clearly armed? When given a choice between robbing someone who's armed and someone who isn't, do you honestly think criminals would ever choose the armed candidate? When you ban guns, you're just letting criminals know that they can do what they want with minimal risk. Your personal experiences only convince me that guns are a more effective deterrent than being unarmed.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to compare an entire country's uniform gun control laws to minor areas which you can clearly drive in any direction for a short time and circumvent gun laws for that region, then that isn't room for comparison.

If Mass, DC, and Vermont had border control and firearms restrictions like most ports of call and airports, then you'd have something to compare.

Until then I find specific regional statistics in the US laughable at best. If you want something, nearly anything, you can drive to get it, regardless if your home district disallows it. This is not an option in Australia, and not a comparison for valid argument.

Except that's not the truth at all. Massachusetts passed strict gun control laws in 1998 and its crime rates (including gun-related crimes) have increased significantly since then. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country but also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related crime. Conversely, Vermont has the lowest rate (about 59 times lower than D.C.) while also having extremely lax gun control laws.

So no, the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to suggest. There is no consistent correlation between gun control and gun crime rates. Banning something doesn't make it magically disappear and considering the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally, gun control really only affects people who obey the law (i.e. not criminals). Guns already exist. Criminals already have guns. Criminals already sell and distribute guns illegally. Gun control laws are completely irrelevant to these people.

The irony in all this is that the people calling for gun control are often the same ones calling for the legalization of drugs. We all know how effective the ban on drugs has been. Why would you think that a ban on guns would be any different?

What we do know is that guns are a deterrent and an equalizer. It's the reason why 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in schools or other places where people are least likely to be armed. It's the reason why a robber is less likely to rob someone he believes to be armed than someone he believes to be unarmed. Strict gun laws only bolster a criminal's confidence that he can get away unscathed because he's the only one with a gun.

Finally, are people seriously including suicide-by-firearm as a relevant statistic? If somebody wants to commit suicide, there a multiple ways they can go about it. Hanging, slit wrists, drug overdose, jumping out the window, etc. If a gun is unavailable, they'll just use another method.

Your video, California joins Vermont helping overturn Citizens United, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your video, Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 5 Badge!

Your video, Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Vermont and New Hampshire have been on a spree lately. Today I live in Massachusetts, but I am thinking to move there any day now because of their recent legislation.