Extra credits rss feed Videos

So i started skating again after almost 10 years out on injuries. These SMS videos have been ESSENTIAL. Trying to fight the way id learned tricks before has been hard...but totally worth it because Aarons advice has had direct impact on my progression..8 mos later and im almost completely solid on all basics and starting to move to the level i used to be at. I know he always says get the video...i just wanna say as a regular skater out here tryna do it...? Hes right. Best $7 ive spent in a while

Sorry Aaron but I have to unsubscribe. I loved your content before all of those ''skate supports'' that are always the same. I like seeing new skaters in the ''clipped videos'' but we want more of you! I'm tired of the ''poser kids'' that cant google ''How to kickflip'' or look at one of the skate supports that is already out with the same problem they are having! Please take no offense, I am not trying to offend you, your subscribes nor trying to offed anyone. I'm just a viewer with an opinion

Honestly, i know where these kids are coming from because i've only been skating for about a year and a half and while i can do all those basic tricks and some extras i understand because when i started skating i wanted to learn tricks before riding around because I didnt wanna feel like a poser, riding around, not being able to do any tricks. I dont know, thats how i felt at least.

god, most of the skaters who need "support" are such posers. Here's a hint to all you posers, if you want to get good, skate all day and be ready to eat shit all the time. You aren't going become good by watching hundreds of support videos all day and learning some "magic technique". Sure, these vids are helpful, but sack up and skate hard until your toes bleed.

It seems that everyone seems to skip Riding Basics, which really bugs me... Skateboarding isn't all about getting good at it and learning a bunch of tricks, it's about having fun! And to me it doesn't seem like most kids have "fun" doing it, they just want to learn all the tricks as fast as possible.. Just skate guys and you will get it down eventually :)

you need more airtime. try bending your knees more in order to get more air. that way you have more time to wait until the board flips over and catch it. the more you bend your knees, the higher you go, and the more momentum you add to your flick. thus, making your kickflip easier. hope this helped!

Yea Beastly he uploads those because you have man more tricks so it's not as important because these guys need help with their order. I do agree that he should make a separate channel. Not because we don't like it, but because some people just don't care and they want to see skating

It looks like it might also be the guy's jumping that could be the problem. He isn't jumping high enough to have the board under his feet and his arms aren't going up to give him momentum... A lot of people ignore the fact that arm movement is important in skating.

I learned everything from the ollie to the heelflip (and when I say learn I mean do the tricks whit speed and land then on average 9/10, except on the heelflip on that i get only 4/10 ) thanks to Aaron ... and everything in just 4 months

top tip learn pop shuvs with decent speed before going to kickflips it helps you to not be scared of landing on the board. and not shitty tiny pop shuvs i mean proper pop shuvs with height, learn to jump above the board with confidence.

I've tried kickflip for almost 7 months and i cant do them, i've already learned all the basic tricks except heelflip, already learned varial flips, fs 360, nollie, and others but i cant do a fucking kickflip

Why do you even upload these videos of people who are clearly smarter than everyone else, and want to rush kickflips right after they land a first ollie... It's just stupid, but I guess you profit off it?

It's weird because I sent in a skate support that shows me with every trick he says to have down but yet he doesn't post mine but he posts people that don't even know any tricks besides ollie

You sir, are an idiot <3

+Tyler HursonActually you did.  Just now and in other videos you came out against net neutrality.Let me guess, this is where you pretend that there's such a thing as "private net neutrality"?

+Okaro XI'm not interested in debating that anarcho capitalist loon.You're trying to dance around the fact that Net Neutrality was one of the internets founding principles.

+dffykvnWhen arguments end, the insults begin. Internet was founded on principle of symmetric traffic, not on sites that stream video to users at high speed for hours and hours.

+dffykvn I never said I was against net neutrality.

+Tyler Hurson The internet was founded on the principle of net neutrality you ignorant son of a bitch.

The natural outcome will be more “regulatory capture,” in which the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors.

+Tyler Hurson Comparing the US military to God is quite the false equivalence.Those men in fancy uniforms don't have a "magical" ability to move other men around - there is a system of ranks and they issue orders, based on those rank. This entire bureaucracy is very much real. To argue it doesn't is patently absurd.Has it occurred to you that things can exist without actually having material form?In a way, YOU exist in a non-material form. The components of personality - id, ego, super-ego, likes, dislikes, fears, prejudices, memories, you name, your status in human society - these aren't physical things.Your only excuse (for lack of a better word) for not believing in public property is this apparent conceit you have that large groups of people, organizations, and bureaucracies don't exist - and that ideas don't matter.No promise that I'll respond to your reply to this. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. If I don't reply, it won't because I'm giving up on the discussion - I'm giving up on YOU.

+Nicholas Krizov The U.S. military is not just tanks and aircraft carriers. It's an organization. You're right-- what exists in reality is tanks and aircraft carriers-- but the concept of the military itself does not exist in reality, in the same way that Yahweh does not exist in reality.  The U.S. military as it exists in reality is just a bunch of guys in fancy uniforms who have given themselves the magical ability to move around other guys in a fancy uniforms. I never said all matter is owned. I said matter can either be owned or unowned.You could definitely make a case for the park rangers owning portions of the yellowstone park. I see where you are going with that.The government doesn't exist in reality. Again, this is just a concept that is a fiction. What does exist in reality is a minority of people with most of the guns who employ violence against peaceful people. That is what the government is fundamentally, when you remove all the mystical labels. So far you haven't proved that public property does exist. What is your proof?

+Tyler Hurson The US military is not matter? Fuck it is - is an M1 Abrams tank not matter? Is an aircraft carrier not matter? Is a soldier - are over a million soldiers - somehow not matter?Yeah, Yellowstone and the Moon haven't been homesteaded, but guess what? Old Faithful and the Sea of Tranquility are both made of matter, and according to you, all matter is owned by someone (unless I'm wrong, your bullshit sophistry is a bit confusing at times), then who owns them?Also, what about the government employees who maintain Yellowstone, like the park rangers? They don't own it. The government does - but according to you the government doesn't own anything (except for military bases, FBI buildings, Fort Knox, and, y'know GOVERNMENT LAND).And to hell with your claim that these are "facts of reality". You don't think public property exists. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

+Nicholas Krizov I'm saying public property is a fiction. The U.S. military is not matter, thus it cannot be owned. No one owns Yellowstone national park since it has not been homesteaded. No one owns the Moon since it has not been homesteaded.The Native Americans actually did recognize property. They recognized personal property, human property, and structural property-- they just didn't recognize land property.Property is a given. All humans own themselves and the effects of their actions. This is an axiom that cannot be denied. To argue against property is to exercise property. The government cannot own property since it does not have a body. For one to own property one must actually have a physical body by which to own the effects of one's actions.This has nothing to do with Libertarian opinions-- these are facts of reality.

+Tyler Hurson Bull-motherfucking-shit there isn't such thing as public property. You're just making these arbitrary assertions.If there's no such thing as public property, then who owns the US military? Or Yellowstone National Park? Who owns the fucking Moon (the UN declared all of outer space a "province of humanity" as part of the Outer Space Treaty)?Also, what about primitive societies that don't recognize personal property? When Columbus landed on Cuba, he actually had Taino Indians killed for taking some of his stuff - because they had no concept of personal property. Does the fact that they go against your arbitrary notion that only individuals own property mean they magically don't exist?Give me answers to these questions that don't rest on libertarian sophistry, for fuck's sake.

+Nicholas Krizov Again, there's no such thing as "public property." The term is a non-sequitur. Matter only exists in two states: owned by individuals or unowned by individuals. A government cannot own property since the government is a fiction. If you want to say public property exists, you're going to have to prove it. How did it come to be that the government homesteaded the Mississippi River, for example?If someone owns a portion of the Mississippi River and pollutes the water that flows into another portion of the Mississippi River which is owned by someone else, then violence has been committed and there is grounds for restitution.Restitution is a form of retaliatory force. Unethical force is initiated force. Restitution is not unethical for this reason. In the ideal society, restitution would work on an eye-for-an-eye principle-- if someone pollutes someone else's property, then that person has to pay the victim exactly the amount of wealth that he "stole" from the victim by violating his property.

+Tyler HursonSo in your world, if a corporation pollutes public water sources (no single person owns the fucking Mississippi River), then they're in the wrong...but nothing happens because if a regulatory agency fucks their shit up for endangering the lives of other people, then THEY are also in the wrong. So in other words: "yeah, they're wrong, but we're not going to punish them or even stop them, because that would be just as wrong".Oh, but that's right, you DO think there should be some kind of restitution. But what could that possibly be? How could you punish someone for doing bad shit, without using what you would condemn as "unethical force"? Harsh language? A time out? Do we tell the CEO's behind  the pollution "no TV for a month"?

+Nicholas Krizov  First of all, there's no such thing as 'public property.' The government is not capable of owning property since the government is a fictional disembodied concept that does not exist in the real world. Only individuals can own property.If a corporation is dumping industrial waste into someone's property, then the corporation (rather, the owners) has committed violence against that person(s). So yes I agree there should be some form of restitution. But this is not a justification for a regulatory agency; a simple court system is capable of handling acts of violence.You admit that there are evil people in the world. I agree. If I were an evil person in a democracy, do you know what I would do first? Seek a position of power.

+Tyler Hurson So it's not the regulations - but the enforcement? Interesting. So, basically, it IS the regulations?A regulations against, say, corporations pumping industrial waste into public drinking water, are pretty damn useless unless a regulatory agency is able to fuck that corporation's shit up if they violate those regulations. How else are regulations supposed to work? Should we just ostracize people who pollute drinking water? Maybe you'll say "yes", but would you give the same answer if it was YOUR water that said corporation was poisoning?Now, I understand that maybe that was an extreme leap (environmental regulations are not the same as telecom regulations), but I think the point still stands - enforcement is key to regulations. Otherwise, a regulation is just a worthless piece of paper.Do I wish we lived in a society free of coercion? Hell yeah, but we live in a society full of crazy, evil, greedy and sociopathic people - some of whom are even in positions of power. And with these people, we cant rely on everybody playing by the rules - to maintain the social order against these menaces to society, we need to use force. I've heard tons of arguments for coercion-free societies, but they all seem incredibly naïve.

+Shangori I'm saying the FCC is a violent organization, and therefore an unethical organization-- as are all government institutions.

+Tyler HursonOf course not. But I am wondering what you're getting at in this case

+Shangori Are you implying that because something is lawful it is also ethical?

+Nicholas Krizov If they government initiates force against peaceful people, then they are committing violence by definition. As I said, the FCC has the power to shut down any television or radio station they want. They exercise this power all the time. Tens of thousands of potential radio stations are denied licenses every year. The FCC can and will use violence against these stations if they choose to broadcast without a license. For example://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2014/04/boston_radio_station_touch_106.htmlI agree regulations by themselves are not violence. It's the enforcement aspect that makes regulations unethical.

+Nicholas KrizovI'm glad I don't live in america myself, because I'd go mental by the way conservatives put themselves out there. Every single thing they put out is dangerous. I don't think I've seen anything sensible coming from them.

+Shangori"You are right that the indecency crap is complete and utter bullshit. But that's the conservative's fault. They like big government when it comes to penises and breasts."Ah, that's the thing ain't it? Conservatives want government small enough to fit through a keyhole and tell you what you can and can't do in the bedroom.

+Tyler Hurson Are you kidding me?While I agree that "obscenity laws" are bullshit (ooh, wasn't that obscene?), I don't think that you can call government regulations "violence".This all just stinks of sophistry and mental gymnastics.

+Tyler HursonWell, there's your problem; you're comparing the wrong people...See, television companies are like comcast and such. They are the ones that deliver content to the user at home. The content of the tv channels themselves should not in any way influence the delivery of the content to the user.So, indeed, the FCC could shut down comcast for being a bitch. But only if it goes against the rules set up by the FCC, agreed upon by law.You are right that the indecency crap is complete and utter bullshit. But that's the conservative's fault. They like big government when it comes to penises and breasts.

+Nicholas Krizov Violence, or force, is the violation of property. This covers physical force as well since all human bodies are property.The FCC has the power to shut down unlicensed radio or television companies. Since the FCC itself is the issuer of these licenses, the FCC controls all television and radio within the U.S. //www.fcc.gov/guides/public-and-broadcasting-july-2008Also there are hundreds of other regulations the FCC imposes upon radio and television, such as this one://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity(Notice what constitutes "obscene programming" is up to the FCC)

+Tyler Hurson The people who make this argument (mostly libertarians) seem to have an absurdly liberal conception of "violence".Last time I checked, the Webster's definition of "violence" is: "the use of physical force to harm someone, damage property, etc.".So unless the FCC is sending out goon squads to beat up the internet, I don't understand what you're trying to say - or at least, I think you need to use a more logical terminology.

+Shangori The government is an organization that exercises legitimized violence over a particular geographical region. The FCC fits this definition, since it exercises violence against television and radio in the U.S.

+kathy kellyThe FCC is an independent group, overseen by congress, but not run by congress. In other words, no, the government is not the one censoring. And while I agree that the beeping away of 'naughty words' is horrible, they cannot actively deny alternative views from being send over the air.Sorry, you're wrong. End of story

+Shangori This proposed net neutrality would not prohibit gov't censorship at all, where are you getting that from. This proposal would provide more infrastructure and oversight to make censorship easier. The FCC already censors TV and Radio since its in their jurisdiction. Its not needed, its non-existent in most of the developed world, including countries with some of the fastest and most competitive ISP's.

+Nathalie Landree Somalia actually does regulate its economy. It's had a government for 9 years. For example://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somali-national-communications-act-2012-adopted-tfg-cabinet

+kathy kelly its politics falling behind progress. The internet was too new and too 'fast' for government to address it properly. But now it is slowly catching up and a few ideas they have would be horrible.The proposed net neutrality would ensure that government nor business could in effect censor part of it for whatever reason. So yes, it is needed and it would help. And yes, republicans, the voters at least, are once again too stupid to realize the implications of not doing this.

Every government in the world regulates it's markets....except for, say, Somalia.   And we all know what that looks like. 

+Nathalie Landree you explain how we have net neutrality when we don't, we only have proposals that have gotten support. We don't have the enforcement or the type of Net Neutrality you guys want

+kathy kelly , please explain. 

we currently don't have net neutrality, so where is the chaos

Agreed. I'd sooner trust the Umbrella Corporation then I would Comcast.

ikr