Remy: What Are the Chances (An IRS Love Song) - LIVE

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Remy: What Are the Chances (An IRS Love Song) - LIVE

HD Video Download

Remy performs his IRS email scandal themed ballad live at FreedomFest, July 2014.

"What Are the Chances (An IRS Love Song)" was written and performed by Remy. Camera by Meredith Bragg, Nick Gillespie, and Zach Weissmueller. Edited by Bragg.

Click here to watch the original video for this song.

Held each July in Las Vegas, FreedomFest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians.

Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live and follow Reason on Twitter at @reason. Follow Remy on Twitter at @goremy and on YouTube here.

To see more Remy/Reason TV videos, go here.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

Forgetting the lyrics. So unprofessional.

[Scarecrow Repair]

I take it the other way -- imperfections make it better. That song is just begging for additional verses, and maybe he's done it live often enough and differently enough that going back to some specific version was not so easy.

Regardless, Remy rules!

[CatoTheElder]

For everybody who was actually there, it was a great performance.

The Fist is just being a jerk.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Like always?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OK, it's Saturday - time for the *fun* issues!

"How would like to be labeled "a hard case?" What if your class of people were systematically targeted for extinction within legislation? What if political candidates felt quite comfortable with stating their position that you and your kind aren't worth protecting and better off dead?...

"One woman ? a nurse ? came up to us and showed us a photo of a baby who was conceived in rape. She explained that the pro-life activists at the hospital have been familiar with my story since it's been translated into Italian, among many other languages. So any time they have a patient who is pregnant by rape, they share my story on my website with the pregnant rape victim. This nurse credited my story with having saved the baby in the photo."

(from Lifesite News)

http://bit.ly/1uDS9Ww

[Solomon Grundy]

No fun. It distracts us from our hate and rage.

[Sevo]

OK, how about this?

DAMMIT:
"Sen. Barbara Boxer knocks down resignation rumors"
[...]
"the 73-year-old California Democrat quickly dismissed recent rumors that she planned to resign from the Senate seat she first won in 1992."
http://www.sfgate.com/politics.....736758.php

[See Double You]

Looks like death is the only way she'll leave.

*hears loud knocking at the door, finds self face down on the ground with a FBI agent shouting at him*

[Francisco d'Anconia]

How would like to be labeled "a hard case?"

I don't know Eddie. Is it a lump of cells or a person?

Get back to me when there is some way to legitimately answer that question.

[John]

Sure. Its spelled DNA. If it has human DNA and is its own organism, menaing it is not a cheek swab, its a human being. If it is not, then we judge what is human by capabilities not essence. And if cababilities are the standard, then a lot of things, people in comas, disabled people to name two, are not humans either.

The only honest pro abortion thinker is Peter Singer. He is pretty loathsome but he is not a liar. He says that since a fetus isn't a life, neither is a newborn and therefore infanticide up to at least a few months should be acceptable. I don't agree with him but I respect him more than the "magical mystery trip down the birth canal" crowd.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The debate is not whether it's a human being, as opposed to say a cancerous growth or a bush baby embryo, but whether it's a person with rights.

A person in a terminal vegetative state is still a human being with unique DNA but reasonable and honest people can and do differ on whether they have rights that trump other interests that might be involved.

Through most human history fetuses were not considered equivalent to born human beings. This doesn't make that view correct, but it suggests you tone down the whole 'oh it's so obvious that fetuses have these rights that only evil people could think otherwise!'

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I didn't call you evil, but I think you're misguided.

"The debate is not whether it's a human being, as opposed to say a cancerous growth or a bush baby embryo, but whether it's a person with rights."

The former was, indeed, the PC line until quite recently - to the extent the choicers have dropped it, it's because the scientific evidence has forced them to concede the obvious. So now they retreat strategically and try to argue that certain living human beings aren't persons with rights - a debate which should be familiar from the days of legalized slavery.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I was referring to Johns comments.

As far back as Roe, where the majority wrote about the language of 'persons born' in the Constitution the pro choice understanding is that the 'humanness' of an early embryo or later fetus is beside the point, that personhood is a different and the relevant concept. As I said, no one would dispute a person in a terminal vegetative state is human with human DNA, but note that many people would find them not persons anymore (just like they would find embryos to not be persons YET).

Your slavery reference is more of the same. Interestingly I bet you think it's a stretch for gay rights and SSM supporters to analogue to blacks, and that it insults blacks, yet you casually equate the denial of rights to grown black men and women to the same for microscopic beings lacking brains altogether...

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I bet you think it's a stretch for gay rights and SSM supporters to analogue to blacks, and that it insults blacks"

Once again, you're letting the voices in your head substitute for simply asking me what my position is.

If someone says their position is comparable to that of blacks under slavery or Jim Crow, I would assume they're perfectly sincere, just as I would assume that Betty Friedan was sincere in referring the housewife's position to that of a "comfortable concentration camp."

Here, I suppose, is the difference between us: I believe that people who differ from me in politics are generally sincere - the mere fact that they disagree doesn't make them disingenous, or whatever epithet you choose to apply to those who have the misfortune to hold different view from yours.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I don't think you're disengenous because you disagree with me on choice but because you frame your disagreement in such cheap and inapt emotional analogies which I don't think you'd allow in a second if used in another similar context. You're waging a propaganda war.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Shorter Bo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtQLIU4ze0g

[CatoTheElder]

The hard science of biology really creates a problem for the pro-choice movement. In the past, they could get away with an argument that a fetus was just a clump of tissue that created a medical condition. It is now clear that the fetus' generic DNA is human and its unique DNA confers to it an individuality that makes it a being; that is, the fetus is a human being.

Still, the fetal human being has no means to assert a claim on the fundamental rights inherent to human existence, and his mother must act on his behalf. If a mother determines that the continued existence of the fetal human being and his subsequent development into a child is inconvenient to her, she has exclusive power of attorney to waive her child's fundamental human rights by terminating her pregnancy. The NARAL crowd don't have to go all the down the Peter Singer road. That does not make them any less callous.

The real question is at what moment does a new human being acquire rights. The statist argues that a new human being acquires rights when the state says it does, and that is defined in various USSC decisions. Libertarians disagree among themselves in this very messy issue. Personally, I think the best solution to the issue is to resolve it democratically at a local level. (In other words, punt.)

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Human has nothing to do with it. My severed finger is human. It's not a person and it doesn't have rights. Nor is a small group of cells that are unaware of their own existence, a person.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"What if your class of people were systematically targeted for extinction within legislation?"

Good grief your question begging veers into disengenous ness. You know full well the main debate is whether we're talking about people at all, and if you had anything other than a fanatics view on this you'd admit that whatever else the answe is, it isn't obvious.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I had the pleasure of hearing Rebecca Kiessling speak. If you have that chance, be sure to tell her she's being disingenuous, and that it should have been perfectly legal to kill her in the womb.

But, alas, she's somewhat fanatical about how she shouldn't be killed for the sins of her father.

Or perhaps you could explain at what point in her development she wasn't really a person, even though she was alive and had the same human DNA she has now.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Since I expressed something about both points already I think you're doubling down on your disengenousness, just as you doubled down on your question begging with the first part of your response.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I'd love to see you take that attitude in front of Rebecca Kiessling, she'd rip you a new one.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

A logical attitude? I guess it might upset her at that.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Go on, have at her!

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Look, telling Bo to go and explain to a woman that she deserves to be dead is retarded, G.K.C.

It isn't what he was saying, or what he meant, and you damn well know it. None of us advocate forced abortions like the chinese. Those of us that are pro-choice (for the most part) just want the option available.

Personally, I think we could just let the mother decide. If the case can be made, as somebody tried to do upthread, that the mother basically has complete power of attorney over the embryo, then an abortion could be viewed legally similar to pulling the plug on a person in a vegetative coma.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Oh, and Bo?

You're fat.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You're an odd one, that's for sure.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"It isn't what he was saying, or what he meant, and you damn well know it."

Look, all I said was Bo should pose his insulting questions to Rebecca Kiessling, who (unlike him) is an attorney who knows how to respond to BS arguments.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

She's also a survivor of the baby holocaust!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Certainly even you Eddie can imagine a couple in a certain situation for advice in whether they should conceive a child or wait for a later date and you advising to wait. If they went ahead and had a child and it grew up and confronted you with 'I guess you wanted me to not exist! How silly would that be? About as silly as what you're harping on here.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Shorter Bo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtQLIU4ze0g

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Given you ran out of points in your first comment it's about time you just started posting videos as replies to them.

[Rich]

On topic: IRS SAYS IT HAS LOST EMAILS FROM 5 MORE EMPLOYEES

[Francisco d'Anconia]

FYTW!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

They've got away with some lawlessness, why not go for broke?

[Paul.]

Duh, fully predicted.

[John]

Two years before Mr. Whitehouse's article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998," wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: "Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more."

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years?depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That's according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/194514/

What a bunch of lying pieces of shit.

[Sevo]

Dunno if you checked the comments. One guy is claiming there is no 'pause', and links a story about Greenland ice loss as proof.
Uh, there are many stories about ice *gain* around now; weak tea.

[jonnybrenlandgad]

my buddy's mom makes $65 /hr on the computer . She has been out of work for eight months but last month her pay was $20928 just working on the computer for a few hours. read more....

???????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Paul.]

my buddy's mom makes $65 /hr on the computer

No doubt. I saw her webcam show. It was hot.