Thing about jizm tsunamis is that the people at the bottom get the worst of it.

Also, "nothing" is a hyperbole. They most certainly have more to lose, and they'll feel every loss that much more keenly than the better off.

I think there is more to this than just the disillusioned working class sticking two fingers up to the EU elite and taking a gamble on prosperity - frankly I think that is an ugly characterization - it suggests a rash and vindictive people when really I think (or hope?) the bulk had the best intentions for themselves and this country. Desperate for change perhaps, but I don't think they saw it as a gamble.

As for blame...hmm. Can't say I'm particularly sad to see Cameron go, but you do get a feeling of "better the devil you know" when you see the other contenders. This referendum would have been up for play at the next election regardless too. Boris and Gove were the greater opportunists by far. You want rash and reckless? Look no further - Power at any cost. I think the greatest blame is with the media. Not just the tabloids either, even the BBC gave disproportionate coverage to Farage - its the classic chicken-egg thing of them simultaneously wanting to cover what is popular whilst also having massive influence over what is popular.

Anyway, I do think he is dead right about engaging with the leave crowd. What would Jo Cox do, innit. We must answer the bigotry and xenophobia not in kind, but with kindness and compassion.

That's BS.

With a 5 round maximum capacity you're going to be reloading a lot and there's no reasonable argument why anyone needs more for hunting (and home defence is a red herring).

I think the whole law/culture issue addressed above is actually linked. Take the example of the Autobahn which is very much a parallel. Germans made a law saying you can drive as fast as you want on certain stretches of highway, a culture of high-speed driving developed, people die. The majority in Germany wants to do away with them, but the 10% who want to drive recklessly in their BMWs and Mercedes along with the manufacturers fight new legislation every time.

The law created the culture, and now the culture is preventing the laws from being changed. Just as in the US, the cycle has to break somewhere. Government can't legislate the culture, but they can change the laws and if the US ever gets to a point where guns aren't in the hands of whoever wants one then the argument for needing a 'home security' weapon drops. People feel safer, there are fewer shootings and the whole situation de-escalates.

I'm not saying barring suspected terrorists from owning firearms will accomplish that, but it would be a (very) modest start in the right direction.

Pit maneuver, please.
They were clearly endangering the public, and resisting arrest. Any injury they get from being rammed off their bikes, including death, is not compensable, and is their own fault.
What happens if you use a spike strip on a bike, I wonder.

What fucking reckless douchebags. Every single one of them should have their bike(s), and license taken, and then should be run into by their own bike at the maximum speed they ran from the cops, and then be arrested (if they survive).
They didn't think twice about running red lights at full speed while not even looking forwards sometimes. It's amazing they didn't kill someone in a crosswalk.
If you want to ride dirty, don't expect a whit of sympathy when you get rammed off your bike and end up paralyzed.
I was really glad to see at least one of them take himself out. I hope his bike is totaled, and his legs as well. I only wish it had happened 20 more times. Maybe he'll turn all his buddies in so he doesn't also get reamed by the DA.

While I agree with you, you also have to check local legislation. Around here, if you collide with any emergency vehicle with its lights and sirens on, you are at fault.

And yeah, that ambulance driver was totally reckless.

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.

The reason many in the NRA are so against smart guns is because some places (New Jersey is one I think) have it written into law that when smart guns become technically and commercially viable then all arms dealers must switch to selling only smart guns within something like 3 years. Essentially making the sale of all other guns illegal I guess.
And the gun manufacturers pretty much already have immunity from being sued for how someone uses their products. There is no reasonable way that the makers of a firearm could possibly insure that someone they sell a gun to will not use it in either a criminal or just recklessly.
Personally I think smart guns are a great idea but I think lawmakers didn't consider how their own laws might wind up hindering the adoption of smart guns.
Here's the story I heard on NPR about it a week or two back.
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-develop-a-safer-smart-gun-backfired

Weaving through traffic on a motorcycle is one thing. Dangerous, of course, but for a car to shockingly keep up in pursuit, that requires a hell of a lot more reckless and dangerous driving.

actually, its not at all like that. the planet has food and land in surplus for everyone, but there is huge waste. Some of it is the price of technology and the modern life style, some of it is avoidable, reckless waste, but its not only a matter of "if there were only less people". That wouldnt make trawling the ocean any less destructive, or nuclear waste any less toxic. The planet is going to survive no matter what, the question is in what form, reducing the number of people on the planet only changes the time it takes to ruin the planet if the people that remain are going to continue irresponsibly consuming and contaminating as before.

Shameful. Hopefully he gets suspended or fired for such a gross display of poor judgement.
But it's hard to feel too bad for these d-bags when they take over the roads, impede traffic, drive recklessly/illegally, and go all mob rule when someone honks at them . The least they could do in this scenario is move over when passing a car and/or officer pulled over to the side of the road (if it's not the law as it is here).

Complaint my arse. I hope he's charged with reckless driving and fired.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Florida, tornado, redneck, reckless driving' to 'Florida, tornado, redneck, reckless driving, Ford, Mustang, Mach 1' - edited by blutruth

Bullshit.

The government willfully endangers the economy on a regular basis. You think 2008 happened in a vacuum? They stripped the laws designed to prevent such disasters. Now we've seen the damage that happens when companies take advantage of loose regulation, does the government reinstate any of those laws? Nope!

It's the bottom line of the rich and powerful the government won't endanger. They do tons of reckless shit with the economy and ignore scientifically proven methods of boosting the economy (like, say, taxing the rich more and giving the poor a break, or even forcing the rich to pay the taxes they already owe) if it would hurt their friends in high places.

I feel exactly the same way as you, including the angry way you present it as though you've just been nearly killed by someone on a mobile phone.

These people clearly have a cartoon-like understanding of how a thousand lbs of metal and accelerant behave in a collision. As though you get out of the wreck with a few stars whizzing round your head and you shake your head and feel great again. Stuff like that can cost lives - and if you say that to the guilty party they'll laugh at you as though it's impossible, as though no one has ever negligently killed someone in a car crash. It can cause life-changing medical complications, take away people's livelihoods.

I'm also a defensive driver, and i've still been in many near misses. What i don't understand is why aren't all these reckless distracted drivers in more accidents? Do they have some sort of idiot's immunity?

It only takes one time so second guess a cut, and loose his thumb.
I'd just call this guy incredibly reckless, if not dumb.

And ya, I've seen guys with real knives cut up meat way faster... just sayin'

I think Trump might like this game, after all his reckless use of the name of a country, China, is exactly like the use of the word "nano-machine(s)" in this video...

Even the last part of the word nano-machine sounds like China (or Shina, as Donald tends to call it).