edit: I'm an idiot. See @eric3579's comment.

How so? First up, a passenger car wouldn't be travelling nearly as fast (or at least, you'd hope not).

Second, many modern passenger cars have side impact beams and curtain airbags.

You'd probably get injured, but I think you'd have to be pretty unlucky to be "maimed or killed".

And that guardrail is functioning exactly as designed. The connections to the ground are designed to break, but the rail itself acts like a giant rubber band. *engineering

In a passenger car that drop would probably have maimed or killed the occupants. In a race car they probably would have been alright.

To codriver must have had bad notes. Definitely a second gear turn, not a fourth gear.

They claim to have caught the guy who bombed the bus of Borussia Dortmund last Tuesday. Apparently, the fucker placed put options on the stock of Borussia Dortmund and intended to crash the stock value by killing or maiming as many players as possible.

Ever heard anything like it? I didn't...

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

@Mordhaus, yeah, good points. Thanks for the clarification of what lies behind the soundbite (nobody has time to explain what they really mean these days, do they?)

However (isn't there always a "however"), I don't agree with "valid to question the integrity of the second vet." Integrity? Pretty loaded word.

It presumes that someone can be gungho about something in the abstract but when confronted with the reality, can't learn something about the world and themselves they didn't know before.

You're right that he didn't know he was CO before. He learned he was.

It isn't integrity to turn away from a learning situation. To me, it is the utmost in integrity.
There are different types of bravery. The bravery to go into battle. And the bravery to decide in the closeknit world of "band of brothers" that you can't be in that particular band anymore.

Maybe it was cowardice in the face of death or maiming that he learned and he ran away. I would say, in this particular case, he honestly came to a new understanding. Otherwise he wouldn't be speaking up, right? He'd be hiding at home? Knowing what soldiers who stayed are saying about him?

War is hell. So many casualties, both physical and mental.

If I were a hockey player, and another player took a swing at me and broke my nose, could I have them charged with assault? I don't see why not.

I'm sure there's a never-mentioned clause in their contracts that tries to prevent that, but that certainly wouldn't stand up in court. Of course, the player would be blackballed for it. There will come a day, though, when in the NHL one of the enforcers will forget to adequately pull his punches and the other player will be seriously maimed. If I were that player, I'd at least go for a civil suit against the league. Maybe contracts mean more in that case, but it would be the most likely way to see an end to the suits encouraging fights.

I mean, look, here I am watching a video of a fight in a league I've never really heard of before, and I haven't even watched an NHL game in 10 years, and hockey was my primary sport growing up.

@Trancecoach
dude,its a TV show..relax.

i agree that a political argument dressed as scientific debate is a bait and switch that most people miss and buy into the bullshit.take the politics and monied interest out?

well,not much arguing going on.

now the discussions in regards to solutions are in the political realm and that my friend,scares the bejesus out of me.its like asking a crack whore to watch your kids.

how sad and shameful that the most progressive and creative solutions are coming from third world nations.these people crap outside for fucks sake!

but here in the states? too busy texting and facebooking and searching for that next new shiny,because our self worth is wrapped in what we own,what we do for a job,what we drive.we demand respect from everyone yet give none,convinced of our own superiority based on the most thinnest of veneers and baseless of subjective criteria.

we are the assholes of the world.

lets be real for a second.
this video is based on a show.entertainment.
and it plays it way over the top,but its entertaining.
its just a tv show.

i have seen some climate models that predict as early as 2050 shit is going to hit the fan,while others play it around 2100 (that was the IPCC one).all predicting some really nasty global stuff.

we aint gonna make it to 2100.
hell,i would be surprised if we made it to 2050.
because there is something far worse that will affect our societies than climate and thats peak oil.

how come nobody is talking about that?
far worse implications in regards to:food,clothes,jobs,economies did i mention FOOD?
oh,and war..lots and LOTS of war.killings,maimings and murders..oh my.
no arguing the science on that one,thats been in since the late 70's.

where is the debate on a subject that has real and immediate ramifications?

such a failed species.......

Was the hawk injured? Those drone rotors turn pretty fast, and I've read about people getting cuts from accidentally touching them. I wouldn't be surprised if that hawk was maimed.

That IS part of the argument for bans on child porn, but it is the flimsiest part of the argument too. You really can't argue that a child suffers every time child porn of her is viewed in a literal sense. Instead we argue that allowing it would encourage (more of) it to happen. Yet you could argue the same thing about pictures of dead children.

Newtboy also brings in another aspect of society and Hollywood that is lopsided. Sex and violence in movies. Children getting shot or maimed and dieing in movies? no problem! But you imply the natural act of procreation between adults? R rating for you!

I think we can do better.

Has a underlying "taxes are theft" theme hidden inside. It also totally sidesteps a lot of important steps needed when large number of people live inside finite space, infrastructure, order, sustenance. It all needs to be managed, otherwise we are back to tribes instead of nations. We are free but responsible, if nothing else than to our fellow humanbeings. Being totally free also means freedom to kill, maim, destroy. And we are all a bit evil, selfish, enough so that taxes are not voluntary.. It is so easy to say that taxes enslave us when you don't give out any alternatives that would work.. Anarchy does not work, it's the power of the strongest, anarcho-capitalism is a horrible idea. It is about as equally terrifying as Ayn Rands ideas.

>> So if it was a friend who was down on his luck and desperate to get some quick cash, you wouldn't give a shit that he got run over because he acted impulsively and did something stupid?

That's correct. Things not specific to that but along those lines have happened in my life, and that was my reaction.


>> Or how about if you saw this happen on the street. You wouldn't call an ambulance because the guy got was coming to him?

There you go again mixing up not feeling sorry for someone with thinking he deserves it. Of course I would call an ambulance. I would very likely even rush over to try and help. I wouldn't *want* the guy to get maimed or killed. But if he did that to himself I'd just feel it's his own fault.


>> I call that basic human compassion.

That's where we differ. I don't.

A few days ago a team of heavily armed gunmen robbed a bank. Afterward they were involved in a chase and gunfight with police. One of the three robbers was shot dead and the others were injured.

Do you feel sympathy for the robbers? I'm sure you must. Do I? No, I don't, not even a little bit.

Not every negative event (that results in pain/suffering) in every single person's life is precious, nor does it warrant or deserve compassion when they intentionally caused it themselves and it could have been completely avoided.


Let's just call it a difference in philosophy.

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man

"I would have preferred no deaths." Agreed.

"I would have preferred no slavery in the first place." Even better.

"But if 620000 deaths is the cost for millions of people and over 100 million of their ancestors to live in freedom"

It need not have been this way. But it happened. That's not the moral bankruptcy.
Preferring the maiming and death of 620,000+ people (the overwhelming majority of whom were not even slaveowners), over freeing the slaves through payment (simply because you don't like the idea of it!), yes, that's morally bankrupt.

You may say, "well paying for them" was not an option. But the objection was that you find paying for liberation more repugnant than the slaughter of 620,000.. which is what I call morally bankrupt..

(Somehow, I doubt that you could be so morally bankrupt and believe such things -- and still function as a human being -- so it seems that you may just be trolling, simply to disagree with me, in which case, this non-debate is beneath me.).

" I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here."

Where did you quote me? I missed that.

I am not "attacking" the "comedians." I quoted/"plagiarised" Thomas DiLorenzo who pointed out "[Jon Stewart's] "hit" was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century did: namely, peacefully. . . . " and that Stewart (in his inimitable wisdom as an historical scholar) was wrong in his assertion that war was the way to go.

And, whatever Lincoln's reasons were for going to war, of course there are always options other than imperialism (despite what manifest destiny might have you believe). Same as Truman having options other than nuking Japan. Or Bush the second having options other than invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever Lincoln's "reasons" were for going to war and thereby leading to the slaughter of 620,000 people and the maiming/disfigurement of over 800,000+ others, these reasons are not the same as what his options were, and the white washing of history does not change this very basic fact.

Your ethics are noted.

Personally, I find the idea of 620,000 killed in war and more than 800,000 disfigured or maimed for life, far more repugnant than paying to free slaves.

But we each have our preferences.

Get it?
Do you really?
How about this "cherry picked quote?"

"“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of … making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

Get it?