Recent Comments by hPOD subscribe to this feed

"So this is America?" Fascist hypocrites in power

hPOD says...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

@dystopianfuturetoday @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom
Anyone else can feel free to jump on this question, too, of course.
Why ally yourselves with any party?
I have come to believe that political parties stifle ideas the same way monopolies stifle innovation and competition.
Labeling yourself means a large number of people automatically dismiss anything you have to say. It's why media personalities are so anxious to label people. If someone is a Marxist, a Nazi, a Communist, or a Fascist, there's no need to spend any time arguing against them because very few people will even hear them out, let alone consider what they say. Being labeled Democrat or Republican is not as dramatic, but has a similar effect on some people.
Politicians should be supported on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis and under no circumstances should you ever show loyalty to them. They are our servants, not our kings. They should be loyal to us.


This.

Labeling yourself either side makes you an lemming idiot, and therefore dismissible. There is NO possible way that a sane, thinking person, be it man or woman, could agree with everything one side or the other side says or does. It's simply NOT possible. Therefore, labeling yourself either says you're fooling yourself, and thus are a fool.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Liberals are idiots, as are far right Neocons. They're the bastardization of what our democracy was meant to be, where there can be no in-between.

And so long as you agree with everything they say, they'll consider you open minded...when there isn't a open mind amongst them.

"So this is America?" Fascist hypocrites in power

hPOD says...

>> ^shagen454:

Interesting dialogue between QM and DFT. Interesting in that QM speaks with clarity - a rarity.
Scoreboard:
QM - 2
DFT - 1,993,392,076


In your opinion, you mean. Last I checked, you aren't the official anything around here...

WL: US bullies Europe on behalf of Monsanto

hPOD says...

>> ^criticalthud:

it's just so arrogant to think that "we" (scientists) are smarter than 4 billion years of evolution, and that we can make better plants. fuckballs. we know so little about this planet.
this seems to be a case of profit vs. common sense


I know what you mean...I think. Getting rid of polio, smallpox, and other such illnesses/diseases...damned stupid scientists. The world was a better place when children caught polio and died from it...right?

I know it's not directly linked to genetic manipulation of crops...but maybe these scientists aren't all "fuckballs", and some of the things they do, including certain genetic manipulations for food, help us more than then harm us.

After all...at the current population growth of the world, without genetic crops, even more of them would be starving to death...

I know...I know...people starving to death rules.

dystopianfuturetoday (Member Profile)

hPOD says...

It's hard to take an obviously biased [and somewhat insane] Bill Maher seriously. Maher hasn't been watchable for about 4 years now, and he's getting worse and worse. I understand the point you're trying to make, but as a person who truly stands in the middle, I see the extremes in both sides all the time, and that includes Olbermann. Unlike most, I actually DO watch Olbermann AND O'Riley. Well, not Olbermann anymore, but you get the point. I know you want to believe that everything Olbermann touches on is fact based, and everything O'Riley opines on is propaganda based, but that's not reality. There are times both make solid points, and there are times you can tell their <insert right/left> leaning opinions shine on their biased tendencies.

My voting record stands by the fact I call things as I see them, down the middle. In the last 5 Presidential elections, I've voted for 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and 1 Independent.

A lot of people love to say they're down the middle, and they can see/hear both sides, but their slanted voting records show otherwise. I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates, whether those votes end up being mistakes in the long run there is little I can do about, but the fact is, I'm one of the very few that actually does ride the fence. Quite a few of my friends, for example, claim the same...but their voting records show pure republican or pure democratic bias.

Maher has let his anti-religious lunacy get the better of him, and this is coming from an avid Hitchen's fan, who is also anti-religious. Hitchen's said it best when he mocked Maher's crowd for believing anything he says and laughing at any Bush joke he used. If I cared enough, going back to the beginning of the United States, I'd venture to say that I could find good things and bad things every single President has done, including Bush Jr and Obama.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
0:50 is relevant to our conversation:

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Maher-Critiques-Stewart-Colbert-Rally

dystopianfuturetoday (Member Profile)

hPOD says...

Well, it's hard for me to disagree with you on this specific point. While there are those that I disagree with politically, I don't mind disagreeing with them so long as they at least make solid points, whether I agree with them or not. While it's pretty arrogant for me to 'guess', when it comes to online forums such as VideoSift, Digg, Reddit, I'd say 95% of those posting/responding know very little [or are void of self-opinion] and are merely repeating what they've heard/read from others. And that goes for those on the far left and those on the far right.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't mean it as an insult, they are literally lacking in political knowledge. If you'd like me to use a more respectful term for ignorance, I'd be happy to oblige. Knowledge impaired? Intellectually disabled? I'll go with whatever you like best...

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.


I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

hPOD says...

I understand them perfectly...you simply don't know how to use them.

And oh no...I've been ignored by you.

What's wrong, can't accept that differing opinions exist? People like you are typical...I bet you consider yourself open minded, and in you're own little reality, you are...so long as everyone thinks exactly like you do.

You've failed.

Do not pass go, do not collect 200$, go directly to fail.

Next time, keep things in context and maybe your big word wielding self won't get owned.

>> ^jwray:

If you look up those big words, you'll find I used them correctly. I'm sorry you don't understand them. Welcome to my ignore list.

I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

hPOD says...

Out of context.

Overuse of big words in inappropriate situations. You're the type that tries to throw around big words so the uneducated or undereducated assume you're right, when in this case you are completely wrong.

Stay in context.

People can and do live within their means, such as myself. Needing loans or other people to raise you in order to do so has NOTHING to do with the fact that people CAN live within their means.

You've lost, so stop digging your hole deeper with big words you have no idea how to use.

Listen to your own sentence, "Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding", on an uneducated fool, phrases such as this sound intelligent...to the educated of us, you sound like a fool, because with all of those big words, you said exactly nothing.

And for the record, I never once mentioned self-sufficiency, as I think this is completely and utterly impossible in every way in the modern world. Stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to make your pointless statements valid. You're the ONLY one here that mentioned self-sufficiency, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand -- and that remains fiscal responsibility. Though I do commend you on your attempt to completely change the applied subject matter, you failed to do so. Again, the subject at hand is if fiscal responsibility is reality, and it is. It does not mean you have to be liquid, nor does it mean you didn't need other people to get where you are, these are unrelated to the discussion. My original response was in response to a person that said on the subject of fiscal responsibility, and I quote, "it's a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan". That's the context in which I replied too, and it's the only context in which you are allowed to apply my statement too.

Being self-sufficient has nothing to do with being fiscally responsible.

Stay in the context of the discussion next time. We are discussing fiscal responsibility, NOT self-sufficiency, not Ayn Rand, and not people such as yourself that feel the overuse of big words make you sound intelligent.

>> ^jwray:

Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:
I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.
That precludes important investments, such as going to college.
You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.

I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

hPOD says...

It hurt so badly, too. Only it didn't.

He doesn't know me, yet he believes everything I said to him comes from Ayn Rand, someone I've never read. That shows his complete arrogance and ignorance, and it's why I try to ignore his subsequent -- and once again amazingly ignorant -- post.

He refuses to listen to logic/reason, so he keeps on rambling in an attempt to associate anything I say to whatever he feels like associating it with, in this case Ayn Rand. Call this a weak swing and a miss on his/her part, as they have no understanding of who they're even speaking with, meanwhile, they're taking my post completely out of context.

Note how he takes everything I said about fiscal responsibility and living within your means out of context and applies it to an interdependent society, which is off subject. He turned a discussion into an argument, lost that argument, and therefore begins to remove context and add new context to the discussion in an attempt to make his invalid point more valid.

Point remains, people can and do live within their means (fiscal responsibility), which was the original context of my point/of this discussion. I never spoke on the fact that we are interdependent as a society and rely on others, or the fact that we were raised by others who assisted us to get where we are, as it had nothing to do with the point of fiscal responsibility being a real thing.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^jwray:
Your profound ignorance of rhetorical devices is astounding, but somewhat less so in light of your poor choice of words to describe your beliefs:
I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect.
That precludes important investments, such as going to college.
You seem like the kind of guy who got a major hard-on for self-sufficiecy from reading Ayn Rand, without much thought about the interconnectedness of all things and how self-sufficiency is only illusory. That is what I was getting at with references to childhood. Everybody has relied on spending other people's money for the food, clothing, & education of their childhood. You weren't the one bringing home the bacon when you were two. Is it too much of a stretch from that to letting the government provide some services, which taken together are just as important, by spending other people's money? All they have to do to balance the budget is stop bailing out wall street, stop the wars, and raise taxes on people who make >$1 million/year by a few percent.


Oh snap, he just Ayn Randed you ass.

I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

hPOD says...

Talk about a loaded response of nothing.

First, if you want to have a discussion, start by talking to me, not at me [or others] as if I'm some uneducated schlub.

Second, and most importantly, think before you type. If you even though about what you posted you'd know it would be impossible to have not been born, raised, fed, clothed, educated, etc. This entire point is completely pointless, since it's goes against the grain of reality, physics, bio-science, etc. Had those things not occurred, I wouldn't be here, now would I? The idea that you thought you had to ask if I was ever born, raised, clothed, etc...is just so amazingly ignorant.

Now then, to answer the valid parts of your post:

Yes, I've bought a car, on a loan.

Yes, I've made investments, on loans, such as my house/mortgage (which I pointed out earlier and you conveniently ignored, by the way).

Yes, I've had loans of other sorts, too.

None of those things contribute to a person being fiscally responsible.

I repeat. Having affordable loans do NOT contribute to fiscal irresponsibility. You don't have to be completely liquid in order to live within your means, and I never claimed that you did. What you CANNOT do, however, is eat expensive dinners every night when you cannot afford them. You cannot buy a 50,000$ car when all you can afford (even on a loan) is a 17,000$ car. You cannot buy new televisions when you're still paying off the one you own now. This should be common sense, and in that common sense, you should have understood that was my point to begin with.

Being fiscally responsible does NOT mean you have to be liquid. It merely means you should be able to afford the loans you do have, without drowning beneath them. If you cannot pay off your current loans without going further into debt, then don't get new loans.

It's a simple concept.

>> ^jwray:

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?
Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.
Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.
>> ^hPOD:
Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.



I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

hPOD says...

I don't believe any "party" is serious about cutting spending or balancing budgets. I do, however, believe there are a few individuals in every party that want to do so, but I think the overwhelming majority of them don't really care.

When the Republicans were in office, they spent, now that they're out office they claim they will stop spending. The Democrats are no different, they talk about slashing budgets and cutting spending all the while it's being raised across the board, while promising these cuts/savings will happen in the future with NO real accountability if it never happens. Both parties love to play pretend, and the majority of the people love to pretend along with them, and that's the problem. It's highlighted in this thread perfectly. The republican posters say X, the democratic posters say Y, and both pretend X and Y are right with no in-between.

The few of us who see both can be right at times and wrong at times...we are so outnumbered it doesn't matter what we think. You'll see this highlighted in responses to my posts.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

If the tea party were serious about balancing the budget, they'd have my vote. Unfortunately the entire plan is to cut "needless government waste" (defined as a handful of programs they don't like, totaling well below $50 billion annually), while pushing through tax cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars per year. None of them are willing to tell voters that the price for fiscal discipline is a lower standard of living than we had under the debt fueled orgy of the last 30 years.
Let me go on the record and say I will not vote for any politician who promises to cut my taxes while we're running a deficit. Such people are either too dishonest or too mathematically incompetent to govern.

I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

hPOD says...

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.

Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

The rent is too damn high...

Rand Paul's Co. Coordinator Stomps On MoveOn Member's Head

hPOD says...

I never meant to level any sort of personal attack on you, and if I did, it was never my intention. I just disagree with modern need to sensationalize. Again, if you felt my words were personal or went over the line, I apologize.

I think we agree on one thing, what happened was reprehensible. I think we can just meet in the middle at that. We just disagree, vehemently, on what a stomp is.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^hPOD:
Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Like direpickle asked, what exactly are you seeing in this video? There's a woman with her head on the ground, a guy moves his foot rapidly down, and strikes her head.
I even hear a crunch when it makes contact, though that could easily be something else.
>> ^hPOD:
In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized?

Uh, no. I'm mad that the main thing you felt was important to say was to essentially level a personal attack at me, saying I'm making something up to trying to make it look worse than it really is.
Have you considered that perhaps using the word stomp is accurate, and not an attempt to sensationalize?
It certainly wasn't my intention to, and I've asked a couple times for what, exactly, a non-sensational title for something innately sensational like this would be. I've given my reasons for why I think stomp is a pretty accurate and objective description of what happened, including by reminding you of what the definition of the word stomp is.
All you've done is said "What's happening in that video is NOT someone getting their head stomped on, once again, stop trying to make it something it's not" and added more and more personal attacks.
I knew this post would ruffle feathers, and I suspected it would result in personal attacks on me, but I more expected "you're evil for trying to make this look like it's only on one side", not "you're a liar for saying his foot made contact with her head".

Rand Paul's Co. Coordinator Stomps On MoveOn Member's Head



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon