"[Protesters] are the ones who are truly looking out for us, for our children and for future generations."

G20 protesting hasn't actually accomplished anything, has it?

The costs, on the other hand, are pretty large. Tens of billions of dollars? That could have saved millions of lives in poor countries, or could have been invested in next-generation solar power research.

Beakman's World and Bill Nye the Science Guy were both quite good, but I tended to prefer Bill Nye for presenting the information a bit more straight than Beakman typically. But in either case, excellent shows that would be great to see analogs of for future generations.

I think this thread is proof that the Lady Gaga et al. brainwashing is working. Someone is using pop culture to brainwash society into thinking girls are just meant for sex, at any age. The idea that anyone would allow young girls to dress "up like strippers and having them perform pelvic thrusts at each other," let alone DEFEND others for doing it, blows my mind. You can choreograph a real nice professional dance without lingerie and hip thrusts.

THIS IS SEXUALIZING CHILDREN.

Whatever, I'm not having children. Do whatever you want to future generations.

I generally have no problem with people saying... well, anything that isn't slander or libel. When words turn to illegal actions, that is where law should step in. Verbal provocation should not be equated to physical action. People have the right to listen or not listen and to judge what they hear for themselves. Trying to legislate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say is not only a nightmare for law enforcement, but is far more authoritarian than people initially perceive it to be. You may emotionally agree with one enforcement now, but the situation may be turned around on you before you realize it.

I've never liked the term "slippery slope." I think it's cliche and hyperbolic. In a case like this, no one is slipping down any slope. However, the directions we choose to take influence the directions future generations will take. If we begin life with the right to say anything and end life with the right to say "most" things, than the next generation begins life at "most"...

The question really is:
Do you want to head toward authoritarianism or libertarianism?

I'm not sure if I'd agree with the basic premise that borrowing money is actually cheaper than paying for everything up front. We are a very rich nation, paying for everything the government currently does would not be a problem, if we were willing. The reason we don't pay for the cost of government services up front is because politicians are generally weasels, and it's much easier to give a great deal to your constituents, while charging future generations who obviously have no say in it.

Even if the increase in our GDP actually outstrips the interest rate on our loans, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to borrow as much as possible. That would only be true if our increasing GDP is CAUSED by the investments we make with all that borrowed money. If not, then we're just screwing ourselves out of a lot of the benefit of our work since so much of it is going to make the minimum monthly payment on our China credit card.

But I could be wrong.

Thy connection with the universe, all beings, all matter, all non-matter is a fact. Everything is part of one thing-The whole-As all addicted to science should become more fully aware of as the next 20-50 years begin to re-write the history of a symbol-addicted world of infants. GOD, as most twits still fumble about with the concept, is a symbol for this mystery that only now, quantum physics is beginning to unravel. Two things to log into the data base forfuture reference are
A. The technology to construct much of what we have not seen as civilians (the applications being highly classified), is a mixed bag that may or may not be of our own design.
B. The dark aspects of our government would like nothing more than for people to be as predictableas insects,and pooh-pooh the facts before them, as bullshit.

According to some on the inside (and like enoch says correctly,many many people from the intelligence community, high ranking military officials,civilians employed with security clearances in the N2K/above top realm, and others of note and with a background that can't be denied), the sightings many have seen have been terrestrial applications whose technology came from off-planet.

We have free-energy, it has been witheld from humanity. Period. The political and corporate structure of the prison the pouppeteers have create3d for humanity is apalling. Sickens me to the core that still, with the data available to so many, that so-called and self-labled, intelligent people continue to play the game created by a pathetic,dying few. The pardigm is in retrograde and the next will scare the shit outof those sop ill-prepared to face the truth. Weaklings,mental, spiritual,self deluded weaklings.

Future generations will look back on the 20th-21st century with anger nad joy. The fact that most of the people on tis site have their heads so firmly planted in their asses regrding the true nature of the world around them is testimony to such a future sentiment and to our current dilemma-

I suggest you catch up with the world around you,and get your heads out of the televison,and out of the box-Here's a good start

hahahahhaha, GOOD STUFF. I thought that was a fitting way to handle the moment. it did get assimilated

In reply to this comment by Norsuelefantti:
Just preserving this for future generations

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
so how about them nicks ??


all comments will go to shit anyway so I can sayyyyyyyyyyyy whateeever I want..

One time at band camp, me and my counseler where on the dock and it was a sweaty hot humid summers night, we both took our shirts off. one thing led to another, next thing I new we where in the canoe and

>> ^rougy:
Our government is corrupt and ineffectual. Our military is bloated and not really ours as a nation but "ours" in the multi-national corporate sense. If you have no money, you have no justice. A fraction of a percentage of people are allowed to get rich, and everybody else has to fight it out and claw their way through life just to stay alive. Financiers like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan make a living out of figuring out ever better ways to fuck people over and get a slap on the wrist when they're caught, if that. We torture people. We murder innocents overseas for the sake of convenience. We overthrow governments that we don't like, that won't march to our tune, and call it spreading democracy.
Worst of all, nobody here knows anything. We have to be some of the dumbest people on earth, especially in regards to what's being done overseas on our name.
And I'm supposed to swear my blind, undying allegiance to that? I'm supposed to point to Mexico and exclaim proudly "Things could be worse!"


You forgot to mention how you continuously vote for people who believe in continuing all of those things, either directly or through policies that enable it. And then you spend the rest of your time trying to convince everyone that the problem is we're not all registered Democrats. The real problem is that we allow people to vote on things they shouldn't. The constitution sealed its fate with the general welfare clause.

When America defaults on its debt, it will be because the constitution failed to prevent idiots from trying to steal from each other or borrow money that they would benefit from, but that future generations would have to pay. Because it failed to ban the public sector from voting in elections. Because it failed to prevent a central bank from price fixing interest rates and monopolizing the money supply with unbacked paper they can print for themselves while we work to obtain it and watch it's scarcity/value siphoned. It is so much easier to just print more money and redirect its value than appropriate the money itself. Whatever you think you got out of this is crumbs compared to government employees and politically connected companies.

People like you are constantly fooled into enabling what you despise. Government destroys free market self-regulation and then claims lack of regulation is the problem. They loan banks money well below realistic interest rates. They insure every bank's deposits so banks don't have to compete on the safety of those deposits. GSEs like FM&FM implicitly backed subprime and so everyone thought that was a riskless bet as well. The tax code encouraged flipping property over real investment by making certain home sales completely exempt from capital gains. You may as well dump candy into a busy intersection and blame people for getting hit by passing cars. And instead of stopping the candy dumpage, your solution is to borrow even more money from China at interest to hire 10,000 full-time crossing guards. That is how insane the socialist rhetoric has gotten. When their social engineering fails, the problem isn't something they did, but something else they didn't do. Well, it's only going to last until China realizes that dollars are no asset, no product placeholder, when you're accumulating them in perpetuity.

Corporations fund the think tanks that tell you what to think. Are you a fan of Cato or Reason magazine? They are funded by the likes of Koch and Mellon Scaife, the same folks who fund all the hard right and neo-con think tanks. I take you at your word that your belief system is different from the corporatists, and I respect that, but regardless, you are still being led down a path by people who don't give a shit about these ideals; people who build up your ego by telling you that you are different, that you are special, that you have wisely risen above the two party nattering, but only on the condition that you obediently do as they say. What do you think will happen once you get your tiny government and deregulated markets? Utopia?

Conflating 'free market' capitalism with liberty is naive. The two are unrelated.

>> ^BansheeX:

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/2
GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.

Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk
It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.

>> ^BansheeX:

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/2
GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.
Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk
It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.


ya know.
you made some great points too bad they got buried under your presumption and seeming bitterness.
word of advice:
if you wish people to take you seriously and consider any points you may make try to avoid calling people names before you begin your rant.
so you read the federalist papers,what do you want? a cookie?a pat on the back? a young polynesian prostitute?
so you are a libertarian and evidenced by your post you feel you have enough credible information to back up why.
are you going for the cookie again?
have you even considered that political ideology may..just MAY..be a very diverse substrate and that many with differing views can ALSO back up why they feel the way they do and can do it just as succinctly and competently as YOU did?
come on man!
you act like you are the only one who ever read a book,watched a lecture and came to a conclusion,everybody else is just retarded.
we have pretty simple rules here on the sift:
DON'T BE A WANKER.

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/

GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.



Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk

It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.

oh...i get ya now Lann-

whiz, my comment sprang forth from an on-going analysis on psychological cues from the written word, and here, since it's the first time I have been able to put a face with the comments. Some assert that between 60 and 70 percent of all meaning is derived from nonverbal behavior.

I observe myself in this manner continuously, correct or adjust according to desire or necessity, oh and by the way....bacon. I simply adore bacon and was shitfaced this morning, after a night of similar observations, at a local meat-market posing as a nightclub.-If what I witnessed last night is an example of those who may shape the course of the planet for future generations, we're all doomed.

^Always have been against Iraq. Both seem to be futile efforts. Change in these countries needs to come from within, so that each step is thought out, felt and understood - Like the old proverb about the merits of teaching someone how to fish vs. giving them a fish. Beyond that, it seems crazy to keep spending money abroad when people are hurting so badly at home. We are making drastic cuts in education that will have long term effects on future generations. You think education sucks now, wait until massive teacher layoffs send class size skyrocketing. I can't help but wonder how many schools you could build for the price of a stealth bomber or how many books you could buy, or how many teachers you could hire.

I've never heard a clear goal as to what constitutes 'Mission Accomplished' in either of these countries. I don't really understand why we are still in either place. Futile.

longde said; "It is obvious that Mr Condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message."

I see no "hate", I see someone with concern for future generations. He is not "hiding " behind free speech, he is using it whilst he still has the ability to do so. As for his "toxic" message, I hear no poison in his oratory, just frighteningly real concerns. If anyone truly believes that it is wrong to be defending our way of life, our increasingly limited freedoms, and our right to object to the way our culture is being bulldozed into submission, then Pat Condell is speaking directly to you when he says you don't deserve your freedom. And by the way, he does "stand to be physically harmed" for voicing his opinion. If more people, me included, had his courage to speak out, then maybe we would'nt be living under the threat of our whole way of life being systematically dismantled. He is also defending YOUR right to say; "Yada yada yada......" so carry on and voice your incisive "opinions" whilst the likes of Pat Condell fight for your right to be able to do so.

Nordlich: Proper dog breeders try to eliminate the health problems (like hip displasia) from the future generations. Not all dog breeding is for looks-and-looks-alone. Selective breeding doesn't always mean you're breeding closely-related dogs together and creating Deliverance Retrievers. Genetic diversity does not always result in super-animals.

Quoth Wikipedia: "Heterosis is the opposite of inbreeding depression, which occurs with increasing homozygosity. The term often causes controversy, particularly in terms of the selective breeding of domestic animals, because it is sometimes believed that all crossbred plants or animals are genetically superior to their parents; this is true only in certain circumstances: when a hybrid is seen to be superior to its parents, this is known as hybrid vigor."

I've only ever had mutts for pets, and I think puppy mills and pet stores are terrible, but the act of breeding dogs is not the evil thing. Breeding them irresponsibly is.