Net neutrality is not bureacracy?

It is now, at least in the US. The gov't just decided to regulate it, which means we'll soon have a Dept. of the Internet.

I understand that some bureaucracy is inevitable. Again, bureaucracies are made to grow and grow and grow, which is what we now see in the US. It's large centralized power, which was not the intent of the founders.

Also, I don't see much benefit from socialized medicine. It only feeds the debt, which will be unsustainable. This is a concern since Obama has added at least $8 trillion to the debt in his 6 yr reign.

But I know with socialists...debt is just something invisible, or we'll let our great-grandchildren deal with the collapse.

None of your arguments stand because Eric Holder is in charge of the entire US Dept. of Justice. He can't get it done? Ridiculous.

And I agree that police work is not the most dangerous job in America. But the difference is this: police officers die enforcing the laws that you put on the books, they die protecting those who cannot or will not protect themselves. This shows that the police act unselfishly, which makes their actions heroic.
Cops aren't perfect, they lose it on occasion, but over 99% of the time, they act within the law to protect the ungrateful (you).

Furthermore, every use of force is required to be documented by any modern law enforcement agency. Every pursuit is investigated to make sure it stays within departmental policy. Every citizen complaint is investigated to make sure the officer's actions are lawful and within policy.

Police officer's are reprimanded, suspended and fired if the situation determines it. There is nothing in this limp video to illustrate this simple truth.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, that is correct.

I wonder how those cops decide who to pull over, considering they come into contact with hundreds of people driving by, walking by, etc.

But I suspect this video tells the WHOLE story, nothing else to know.

COPS ARE BAD! All cops are bullies!

But you lefties want more gov't, and this, in one sense, is more gov't. Cops are representatives of gov't. Are they perfect? No. But if you want to know what cops do, go down to your local police dept and ask for a ride-along, or attend the citizen academy.

Or you could ask to read the daily 'incident reports' and enjoy all the barking dog complaints, auto accident reports, theft offenses, heroin addicts with needles sticking out of their arms, domestic disputes, child abuses, white collar crime, illegal immigrant hit and runs with no insurance, prisoner transports, summonses served, etc.

Or you could just do what newtboy does...troll for 'bad cop' videos because it confirms your deepest prejudices.

Total fake P.R. campaign for the police dept, made by the police on the clock with public funds (not being snarky, they admitted it today). Also as mentioned, TERRIBLE driving skills displayed; hands off the wheel, not looking at all, etc.
I'm getting tired of these faked 'see, there are good, fun cops' videos that keep turning out to be completely staged by P.R. departments. Sorry, no upvote here.

I don't buy for a minute the idea that Sony alone made the call to cancel the release.

What do you do when you get hit and threatened by what appears to be a rogue state, like happened to Sony? You go to the cops. Probably the FBI in this case. After that, considering your company is now in the middle of an international diplomatic situation involving an unstable nuclear power, you get some considered advice from the US state dept. (probably) on how to proceed.

Judging by the outcome, the decision was it's best to cancel the release to avoid making the situation worse, but to make it Sony's call, because a western government would rather not be seen bending to terror or demanding censorship.

well fuck me running.sift search bar is starting to really piss me off.
my clip is far better quality and the length adds the context.
tom cruise can be quite menacing and this scene reflects that.though he will never beat walken in the menace dept.

ah well...fuck it.
*discard

'You are here because of your actions, don't blame the corrections dept, or the cops, or the judge...'
He intentionally ignores the fact that the corrections dept is the largest lobbying group in Washington and lobbies for more draconian laws and mandatory sentences because that's how they make money. No inmates, no dough.

'You gave up your rights by committing murder....committing rape....'
He intentionally ignores the fact that most convicts are in prison for non-violent drug crimes, not murder, not rape, not violent crime at all.

'This is prison utopia...for the inmates.'
He seems too dense and set in his 'us VS them' mentality to see that it's prison utopia for the guards too, and society in the long run because this prison doesn't create violent criminals, it creates well adjusted citizens.

Imagine that, treating inmates like human beings, because we want them to act like human beings when they're released. And big surprise, it works! Not only less recidivism, but less problems while they're in the system as well.
Thanks to privatization and profitization of prisons and lobbying by prison guard unions, and a mindset by so many that all 'criminals' are sub-humans that don't deserve proper treatment, we'll never see this in the USA.

In america anyway, the government provides clean water,sewers, police, fire depts, schools, safe roads. etc. Corps cant do business without highways,,or healthy consumers and workers. This guy is just a complete moron..the idea that bankers and corporations will self police or that markets self adjust has been proven wrong by history over and over. Who will plow the roads? who will build the damn roads? Who would build hoover dam? who would build sewers? Who would provide disaster relief? The lunacy of this idiots arguements are self evident.

@VoodooV: "Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise."

What perks? Like roads and firemen? You know, it's not like we couldn't have those things without government. And those kinds of services are only a small portion of the federal budget. In fact, from all the excise taxes collected on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol, they'd cover the roads completely, which costs around $60 billion annually. In fact, things like the EPA, Dept. of Trans, NASA, Dept. of Edu, all cost less than the revenue the federal government categorizes as "other." Look it up: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

So what about all the wars and militarism? Is that, too, a perk? And the prison industrial complex that locks up 1% of our population? What are these perks you speak of?

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

I love it when statists bring this up. I personally am not an Objectivist, and find lots of flaws with their ideology, but this is a cheap blow. Obviously it shows the economic illiteracy of most statists. For one, she's forced to pay into social security, so therefore why shouldn't she receive some of it back? And second, if you spend more than a couple seconds reading about U.S. monetary policy, you'd know that the purchasing power of the dollar is reduced over time due to inflation, and hence savings are always impacted. This should alarm you instead of excite you.

The whole thing is infested with logical fallacies: false equivalencies, ad homs, strawmen, and even a no true scotsman thrown in for shits and giggles.

By all means don't take any time to point out which things he said were these things. No, that'd be helpful, and we wouldn't want to cloudy any appeals to emotion with pesky things like fact and well thought out rebuttals.

they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

I think there are plenty who do. It's just that statists don't accept those answers, or any answers that don't emulate the current status quo systems they're accustomed to. I'm not interested in replacing public schools with another bureaucracy.

I have wrestled with a few people (mostly females), tackled a few people who were running from the police, pointed my weapon at a few people, and drive-stunned (taser) one guy who was resisting arrest. That's it for 30 years.

My dept. usually had around 35 officers and I've known two of them since 1975 or so who have shot at anyone. One officer shot a guy who was trying to run him over in a car, that guy was killed. The officer left the dept and found other work.
Another officer-involved shooting was an officer who shot a guy who had committed a homicide and was running away.
One shooting involved a cop who was shot at and returned fire, hitting one guy with a grazing shot.
So that's a hell of a lot of interactions with people (average about 2000 people per year arrested) with very little deadly force involved.

If you want to counsel police officers involved in using force...that's fine with me.

I never fired my weapon at anyone. That is the general experience of the vast majority of police officers. In fact, in 30 years, I can think of about 2 instances of cops on my dept shooting at someone. Any cop who shoots at someone on the job is the exception, not the rule.

Also, pepper spray won't hurt you, it's only an irritation, like being called a fuckface on videosift or trying to have an intelligent conversation with voodoo.

Yeah, that's true, I'm sure the burden of glutenophobics on our medical system and taxpayer dollars is right up there with hangnails and "it hurts when I do this". Tempest in a teacup. If I'm going to get pissed about something chewing up taxpayer dollars that's related to healthcare for stupid people doing stupid things, it sure isn't going to be gluten. How about, oh, I don't know, smoking. For the years 2009–2012, economic cost due to smoking is estimated to be more than $289 billion a year. This cost includes at least $133 billion in direct medical care for adults and more than $156 billion for lost productivity from premature death estimated from 2005 through 2009**.

Any stats out on the gluten hysteria and burden on health care? I think that cumulative is going to take a long time to show up on the graph, and the fad will likely have died before the next leap year.

(**US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014)

It's not being anti-cop, it's being anti-bad-cop...

You probably won't remember the recent video of a great cop that booked a guy tailgating a cyclist. You know, because it doesn't feed in to the narrative that exists between your ears.

Oh yeah, and why should we go tit for tat posting up criminals doing criminal things? They are criminals... We kinda fucking expect them to be the "bad" guys, it's hardly a surprise when they are... It's when the people put in a position of power and trust, public service, abuse that position that it's noteworthy. Sadly, that happens so often now that the most noteworthy points are when an officer performs with distinction, honour and humility, exactly the way he or she should...

http://videosift.com/video/How-a-Good-Cop-Behaves

Or how about this, where one good cop get's crushed because the dept. prefers to support two bad ones? The risk of being an honourable person in the police force isn't just from criminals, it's from coworkers as well.

http://videosift.com/video/Bogota-Police-Officer-Regina-Tasca-Suspended

So climb off your fucking self righteous steed (it must be uncomfortable riding it with your head up your ass). If you served as a police officer as you claim, your postings here give a pretty good indication of the type you were. And if you were a "good cop" in the truest sense of the words, doesn't your stomach turn to see how the entire profession is being dragged down by the criminals in your own ranks?

The trends in policing throughout the country are ominous, thanks to the drug war, the Dept of Homeland Security, and the spillover from America's many foreign wars. The whole world is a U.S. battlefield, and the people of the world, including Americans, are the enemy.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)