>> ^MonkeySpank:

When the law was enacted back in '05; I remember people complaining that crap like this would happen, and so it did. A life was lost, and the right thing to do, race aside, is to honor that life by doing due diligence. The president has feelings, but as a public figure, he cannot express his personal opinion. I know how he feels and I agree with him, but I also agree with the fact that he should let the proper authorities comment on it. He's the president, not a TV talking head. This is a local matter that should not have been asked to a president in the first place - this is troll journalism at best.

>> ^HenningKO:
Sucks he can't say what he feels. He looks in pain. The one real thing he said... the title of this post... speaks volumes tho.



And everybody knows that any side he takes will be the wrong side and Fox et al. will open up on him with both barrels.

If he's against Trayvon, then he's soft on crime.

If he's down on the investigation, then he hates cops.

That is the GOP framing in a nutshell.

In a nutshell, this is why the rich sent as many jobs abroad as possible. If you treat an Indian person badly in India, it's alright; if you do it in the USA, however, someone might get arrested, if only for show.

Yes, I guess my point is, while i agree with most of what someone named jesus christ supposedly said, calling me a "Christian" wouldn't be terribly accurate, and would have a tendency to associate me with something more than just ideas.

and Karl Marx wasn't the first, present, or last person to think rationally.

perhaps Marx should sue for copyright infringement. ?



>> ^NetRunner:

The main premise of the movie was the alienation inherent in capitalist societies.
The quote isn't "we are not our labels", it's:

You are not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

That's Marxism in a nutshell.
I'm always confused by the people who worry about "labels." They seem to think that if any label applies to them accurately, it's something bad. Well, being smart, kind, human, attractive, etc. are all labels too. For that matter, every aspect of who you are that could be conveyed in spoken or written language is by definition a label.
But fair enough, I'm mostly just trying to be provocative. People demonize "Marxism" in America so much it's silly. Nobody even knows what it is, because it's a taboo topic. Technically you aren't a "Marxist" unless you buy into the Marxian alternatives to capitalism (I don't), but it leaves you with some understanding that Karl Marx wasn't the anti-Christ, either.
After all, the philosophy of Tyler Durden is almost entirely based on Marxist critiques of capitalist society, and a lotta people dig Tyler Durden.
>> ^criticalthud:
So if we agree with a main premise of the movie that "we are not our labels" then we are necessarily labeled marxists?

The main premise of the movie was the alienation inherent in capitalist societies.

The quote isn't "we are not our labels", it's:

You are not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

That's Marxism in a nutshell.

I'm always confused by the people who worry about "labels." They seem to think that if any label applies to them accurately, it's something bad. Well, being smart, kind, human, attractive, etc. are all labels too. For that matter, every aspect of who you are that could be conveyed in spoken or written language is by definition a label.

But fair enough, I'm mostly just trying to be provocative. People demonize "Marxism" in America so much it's silly. Nobody even knows what it is, because it's a taboo topic. Technically you aren't a "Marxist" unless you buy into the Marxian alternatives to capitalism (I don't), but it leaves you with some understanding that Karl Marx wasn't the anti-Christ, either.

After all, the philosophy of Tyler Durden is almost entirely based on Marxist critiques of capitalist society, and a lotta people dig Tyler Durden.

>> ^criticalthud:

So if we agree with a main premise of the movie that "we are not our labels" then we are necessarily labeled marxists?

>> ^CheshireSmile:

no mention of Space Jam? shenanigans!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117705/

Or his baseball carrier in 1994

THIS IS IT IN A NUTSHELL.

Buffett Blames Congress for Romney's 15% Rate


Warren Buffett, the billionaire calling for more taxes on the rich, said Mitt Romney's U.S. tax rate of about 15 percent reflects poor laws rather than failings by the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

"It's the wrong policy to have," Buffett told Bloomberg Television's Betty Liu in an interview today. "He's not going to pay more than the law requires, and I don't fault him for that in the least. But I do fault a law that allows him and me earning enormous sums to pay overall federal taxes at a rate that's about half what the average person in my office pays."

Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) , supports Democratic President Barack Obama and said Congress needs to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to close the budget deficit. Romney has agreed to release his 2010 tax return tomorrow, under pressure from Republican opponents, after saying he pays about 15 percent. Romney co- founded Boston-based private-equity firm Bain Capital LLC.

"He makes his money the same way I make my money," Buffett said. "He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money."

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Kraut at dkraut2@bloomberg.net

>> ^SeesThruYou:

Once again, another fan-made Minecraft video that only further reinforces the blatant fact that fan-made Minecraft videos are the worst... the absolute BOTTOM of the fucking internet video pile. I play Minecraft, but I don't understand ANYTHING portrayed in this video. WTF?? No creativity, no originality, no humor... 100% pointless drivel. I lost IQ points watching this bullshit.
Remember Magibon? The asian-looking girl who did nothing but sit in front of a webcam for 2 minutes, blinking her eyes and then citing some random Japanese phrases?
Yeah, she's a cinematic GENIUS, worthy of winning a Nobel Prize, compared to the morons who make Minecraft videos like this one.


I have more in the unsifted list, waiting for your precious IQ points. Only if you're interested.

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

>> ^hpqp:

Frankie Boyle presents: Freud in a nutshell.


Assuming he has a bit of cocaine in his trouser pocket you're probably bang on. I find the Oedipus complex kind of disturbing to think about actually, but it's an interesting perspective.

@Grimm, I think the right legislation to focus on is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which appears to be the genesis of federal funding for education.

Now, I confess I have no direct knowledge of the Department of Education beyond what I can google, but according to their website, their mandate is:

• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
  
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
  
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
  
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.
  

Now I'm not sure how many of those things Ron Paul is really against, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend he's only opposed to that first bullet.

But why is he opposed to that? I'm guessing the whole idea here is the money comes with strings attached. Well, that's fine, if states want to forgo that funding and ignore those strings, they can. What's his objection?

If he doesn't want the money to have strings attached, I'm open to that idea, but I would like him to put a little effort into explaining what "strings" are currently being attached, and why he thinks they're so onerous.

If he's just opposed to some specific policy the Department of Education has put in place, then he should just say that. But then it's not the Department of Education that's the problem, it's that policy that's the problem -- the Department of Education as an institution is fine, he just wants it to be run differently.

But just outright discarding the Department of Education means getting rid of popular, reasonable things like federal funding for education, collecting statistics about educational outcomes, enforcement of federal anti-discrimination law, or even basic curriculum standards (like you can't teach religious doctrine as science).

And this in a nutshell is why I never really have anything nice to say about Ron Paul anymore. Either he's a fucking clueless idiot who doesn't know anything about what the Department he supposedly wants to eliminate is responsible for, or he does know all the things the Department he wants to eliminate is responsible for, and he's just hoping normal people don't realize that eliminating it would mean cutting education funding and decriminalizing racial segregation of schools until it's too late.

One can certainly complain about the policies the Department of Education is setting -- and I see liberals doing so all the time, BTW -- but this call for the abolition of the Department in its entire is mindless, heartless insanity, and it's gotta fucking stop.

@soulmonarch (and of interest to @Payback too)

So, in a nutshell, as far as current science is concerned, the HUP is as valid as any other principle/theory/law, in that it's technically possible that some day, the future being what it is, it may be proven wrong. If that's the case, then I think saying it's merely a technological limitation in answer to Payback's query is misleading. The current scientific theory is indeed that it's impossible to measure both velocity and position, not, "We just don't have the right gear yet."

>> ^Hastur:

>> ^Asmo:
I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...
Here's our disagreement in a nutshell:
You claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of voters. I claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of people. If your aim is a more pure democracy, which is more desirable?
And your last paragraph simply isn't supported. In a direct election, a candidate must appeal to exactly 50.1% of the electorate, and there is no compulsion to distribute that appeal either demographically or geographically. The college at least forces the candidates to broaden their reach. Look at some of the swing states fought over in the past election: Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Nevada. There's a lot of diversity represented there, both geographically and demographically. IMO that's the way it should be in a union of states.


Incorrect, I agree with the assertion that the purest form of democracy represents the majority of the people. But how do you resolve an election where the majority refuses to vote? Either you poll again and again and again, or make the vote compulsory (there goes freedom), or just don't have a head of state.

But your point re: majority of the people undermines EC voting as much as it does direct elections. A state doesn't lose EC votes because people abstain, each state get's it's full quota no matter how many people stay at home.

And how does your statement not support my assertion in the second paragraph? Appealing to swing states with an uneven balance of EC votes is not diversifying, it's focusing their efforts (as demonstrated in the video). Candidates wouldn't waste time on safe seats typically. They certainly wouldn't waste time on safe seats (or alternately seats that are locked down by the opposition) that are severely underrepresented in the EC. The college forces candidates to narrow their focus, not broaden it, in the demographic that actually counts. EC votes to be gained. Demographic and geographic broadening is accidental. If those states were all jammed together in one corner of the country and had similar demographics, would you complain that candidates were narrowing their focus, or just admit they are chasing states that will yield the greatest electoral advantage to them?

The "way it should be" in a union of states is that all men (and women) are equal, not that some states get special attention because of a flawed system set up by people who didn't trust the every day person to make the 'right' choice.

edit: rephrased a sentence for clarity.

>> ^Asmo:

I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...

Here's our disagreement in a nutshell:

You claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of voters. I claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of people. If your aim is a more pure democracy, which is more desirable?

And your last paragraph simply isn't supported. In a direct election, a candidate must appeal to exactly 50.1% of the electorate, and there is no compulsion to distribute that appeal either demographically or geographically. The college at least forces the candidates to broaden their reach. Look at some of the swing states fought over in the past election: Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Nevada. There's a lot of diversity represented there, both geographically and demographically. IMO that's the way it should be in a union of states.