I'll take two but only two, i really do not want to see Mad Max III: The Tokyo Rift.

That said, cheer up ladies, and look at this as a good thing...because what's really happening here is men that you would NOT want to meet are being nice enough to give you a clear indication that you do NOT want to meet them.
It's like a woman wearing a shirt that says "yes, I'm hot and horny, but I'm also a psycho bitch!" Use it as a warning they willingly give you about their personality, and suddenly it's a good thing (for you).

Australia passed extremely, extremely strict gun control, the sort of which no one even dares suggest in the United States. That is, an almost prohibition on their ownership, including confiscation of guns that were already owned.

The gun control advocates in the United States have to take pains to say, "We do not want to take your guns away!" Whether or not this is true, they have to say the words because the alternative is a complete non-starter.

I'm all for sensible gun control laws, but pretending that what Australia implemented is anywhere close to what most propose in the US is crazy.

To be fair, you do NOT want to know what the Tenor is saying in cow.

More than reading this article, I point you towards the commentary on this article which reads:

"This is good, but the problem with reformers who do not want to totally abolish patent and copyright is that their arguments basically amount to "the law has gone too far" (people like Khanna, Tom Bell, Alex Tabarrok, Jerry Brito, Cory Doctorow, Public Knowledge, the EFF, Lawrence Lessig, and so on). That requires an empirical claim as dubious as those of advocates of the current IP regime. The only principled case for IP reform is one that also makes the case for IP abolition."

This, although not specifically stated, this comment demonstrates a preference for rigor when it comes to justifications for any position on any issue. Rationalism allows you take a consistent position based on unchanging principles. Hermeneutics as well as other modes that deal with all issues as a matter of "preference" or bias can seem rather arbitrary and harder to defend through rational argumentation.

Yes it does, which is why logic dictates in most modern law what is and is not a functioning "human" or "embryo" or what have you.

You seem to really not want to understand... have you made any effort on your own to understand the other position in this fence post argument??

I do not want to offend but it seems so. a collection of cells gather into a certain stage.. at earlier stages it is just that. which is why I brought up the soul issue..

When I get a tumor I do not want, I hope to get it eradicated from my fleshy animate body, and the same thing should go for the other half of the population, however small their brains are and legs wide. derp derp derp.

@BoneRemake et. al.:

I will answer to your comment for a change, Read the following paragraph, which is one of the last paragraphs and the meat of the matter if you want the short answer. For you or any that desire to join in Group Therapy, then continue reading.

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, second, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) or professed reorientation and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.


<Do you honestly have no clue as to what you do ? >
On one hand I might say arguably better than do you...on the other who really does?

<The only thing I personaly respect about what you do with the ban thing is that you adhere the Terms of service ( which everyone reads of course right ??? ).>
What can I say to that...ok.

<The rest of the time you deny possible gems in the rough without any warning.>
Blanket generalizations are inherently ridiculous and unsupportable. Aside from that your statement of observation is highly speculative and the issue of warning is mute besides.

< I mean I do not want to be so in your face, but to see you write that made me mad.>
I was polite and succinct. It is my privilege to exercise to inquire....the rest is a personal problem with which you must deal though I would wish otherwise for you and myself.

<You have denied so many possible peole here without any incling of the genuine purpose of the site,>
I have denied no peole(sic) here, possible or otherwise. As far as my having an incling(sic) this is again arguable to contestable and at best highly speculative on your part. I would submit to you, however, that the purpose of the site is served and supported by the originator(s) of the site and the rules and policies that they deem necessary and relevant. The interpretive perimeters by which they are implemented are set and monitored for compliance by those same individuals. If you have an issue with those policies there is ample avenue for open discussion and elucidation, not with me...not my job by happenstance or inclination.

<you just outright ban people>
I patently do not. I may and do initiate or second a ban and that only. Checks and Balances.

<and we are not stupid>
I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Really...we?...am I included?...how many are you?...whom all?...of course you are not.

<it is so you can garner some form of level up>
Your point? My motivation(s) for participation on any or whatever level I so chose or in what manner I choose is my own and not for you or anyone else to judge but for a quantifiable breach of demeanor and then not solely by but a couple of individuals. Do you not submit videos, comments, polls, etc., and accept comments, votes, badges, etc? If I were someone else here I might comment on the desirability of some number of those submissions as relates to the quality and genuine purpose of this or any site for that matter. But I am not that or any someone else and make no such judgement at this time about your contributions including the relevant comment.

<you got called on a lot of things in the past in that regard>
Really, how many...how many with objective merit or...on down and so what? As far as called on, you might say that is true of both of us and perhaps more so for you and then comes the argument respective to justifiability on grounds.

<SERIOUSLY ? ? you ask her why she explained

that ??>
You got me on that one, Yes, However, I did not pass a value judgement, express any alternate or opposing view or stance. Therefore I might profess some surprise at the timbre of your comments. Love you still.

While much of that which I attempted to cover strained answerability, much or most of the remainder defies it and so the following which is a departure from the set format.

Speaking to what may be trenchant to this matter overall is the following:

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, seconded, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.

All the indulgence outside of this stance which is the sole province of the commenter and not binding...is merely that...indulgence and any and all are free to exercise their proclivity to such.

That was fun, overall, and I too love you enough to respond having done so with no vehemence, unsupportable assertions, profanity, personal aspersions, ear biting, eye gouging, or tongue pulling.

Again, love you Boneremake. Let's do this again sometime....NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo...,

Do you honestly have no clue as to what you do ?

The only thing I personaly respect about what you do with the ban thing is that you adhere the Terms of service ( which everyone reads of course right ??? ).

The rest of the time you deny possible gems in the rough without any warning.

I mean I do not want to be so in your face, but to see you write that made me mad. You have denied so many possible peole here without any incling of the genuine purpose of the site, you just outright ban people and we are not stupid, it is so you can garner some form of level up, you got called on a lot of things in the past in that regard. SERIOUSLY ? ? you ask her why she explained that ??

TELL YOU WHAT , I honestly told people exactly what she did in a pm, while you asked your silly little funnel of a question. What makes people pissed is that you give no quarter, you give no choice ( to most - obviously some are blatent www. whores ) but you have a black and white for the most part.

So do not be impressed or decompressed when someone actually explains something to someone, I have been doing it for years on the opposite behalf of you. Lately I just got tired of it for the past year and couldn't give a shit.

But I am in a talking mood, I love ya enough to write this because it astounded me as to your obliviousness to actually giving someone a chance, not just this video in general, this video was the scratch test and the lattice grew.


WHEWWWWW free therapy !

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

This might be throwing a bit of a lit match into the whole thing, but there has been a lot of discussion about how "the media" failed women, and how some sort of unseen force is trying to keep women down, or even men.

At some point in the production of any music video you care to point a finger at, some women have been quite happy to accept money in exchange for portraying whatever it is that certain people are unhappy about.

I have to insist that the question is asked - does everyone WANT equality? There are a lot of women out there quite happy to make a lot of money based on photoshop'd depictions of how they might look in a make believe world. Or to dance around in their smalls, trying their very best to MAKE men interested in their sexual prowess. Their primary money making skill is sexual.

So before we criticise this invisible and possibly make-believe machine that systematically holds women down, how about we consider the individual decisions of prominent women? The women in the blurred lines video weren't forced at gunpoint to strip off and dance around titillating viewers, they accepted payment for a job and did what they were paid for knowing full well that young girls might be watching and imitating them, or whatever.

I mean, great job insulting the hell out of the producer of the video or the choreographer or the guy who made up the song. But all they did was write out a script or imagine out a vision of something they would consider sexually appealing. How about blaming the vacuous bints that wobbled their tits around without considering the consequences?

Perhaps not everyone WANTS equality. Men or women, but women are the easy example; perhaps some or perhaps even many women WANT to be able to use their bodies to gain interest from men or money. If that is the case - as it is for "sexy" music videos, photo shoots, modelling contracts or anything you care to name that involves a complicit woman representing an apparently undesirable or harmful skill - then it is equally unfair to force "equality" on those who do not want it. I see everyone as a person - all equal. And if someone wants to accept payment for wobbling their bits around then that's their decision until it becomes illegal, and it's ridiculous to turn around and say "oh how terribly oppressive of <someone else> for paying that women to flaunt herself." She accepted the fucking cash and did it. She could have pursued any career she wanted. It isn't like she had no other choice.

Additionally, I'm not going to even enter into any discussion that involves "rape" or terms akin to "rape culture" (what a bullshit term) because i actually believe that it detracts hugely from actual acts of rape and the pursuit of justice and prevention of rape.

Rodman says he hopes this shows that we can co-exist with each other...

How far is he removed from his situation? Kim Jong Un as good as murdered his uncle for power just a few weeks ago. Kim Jong Un is holding as many of his own people in concentration camps as the Nazi's did and with no better conditions. His country is the largest example of slavery existent today.

We DO NOT WANT to co-exist with the monsters that would rule in this way. I do not care if the man is really nice to you personally and to the friends and family loyal to him(at least until they 'betray' him like his uncle). He is at the same time, that nice guy to those he cares about, and cruel slave driver of the North Korean majority at the same time.

I guess I have to respond to this:

First, English is not my 1st language, so I am not 100 % sure what a 'shill' is. According to Wikipedia: 'is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.'

if that's what you mean by NR being a shill, I do not think it is correct. He did what he did because his heart was in the right place, and he believes in what he was saying. You constantly STILL butchering him is somewhat repulsive. If anybody needs a mental health professional, it is not him.

When it comes to me, you have not made amends. You have apologized, several times in public posts, but I do not think any of those are sincere. I have mostly ignored your commenting, I just responded to one post about asking if my family is OK after I went away because my dog was seriously ill. I did appreciate the concern, but I do not consider you a nice, or sane person, and I certainly have not forgotten the things you have done.

I stay away from VS because I was told (not by Choggie) that my comments are condensending towards newbies (which I apologize, I just have trouble getting my throughs through in English), and I am not helpful. Not being helpful is true, since I tend to isolate myself. But it has not been my intention to 'just dominate the sift'. I might have said stupid things like that when I was new here, and I did enjoy the success. It is nice to be good at something, even if it was just sifting tons of videos.

I do not want to start a fight here, and I am not going to comment any further. I might be back one day and I do not want to be disliked any more than this. Just leave my hubby alone when you have no idea what you are talking about.

i completely lost it at "i personally do not want my spiritual life mixed up with my political life..."

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too