This place will pat you on the back when you're damning the Republicans, but turn on you in a second once you speak a single ill word of their beloved "leader".

There will be no votes for this video here. All the Lefties are sitting in a corner, rocking back and forth, fingers in ears yelling "I can't hear you...I can't hear you...".



Oops... I guess this isn't the democratic version of Faux News or anything. Turns out liberals are pro-truth for the most part, not just blindly following their chosen party.

If you don't want it in the fear channel, I don't care. If you'd take a moment to look at my personal videos, you'll see videos of this particular ilk and one's being persuasive by using fear are also placed within the fear channel.

This is still fear politicking whether you agree with the message or not. Even I can be honest with fear politicking when I'm for the message. But, then again, I don't get caught up in the blind following of the winning two partisan teams.

>> ^blankfist:
What. The. Fuck. The currency's value is driven specifically by its supply. Never in history has it not. In any economy! Stop spreading your partisan misinformation, please!

Okay, deep breaths. Reread what I said that followed the portion you quoted. Read (or reread) the article marinara linked.

Back? Awesome. Now, say I can buy a loaf of bread for $1 today. Let's say after the store closes, the Fed "prints" enough money to double the money supply, gives it to banks, and the banks say "just put it on our account and keep it in your vault, we don't wanna lend that out right now". So the Fed just carts it from the printers to their vault.

Will a loaf of bread cost $2 when the store opens the next day?

Bonus question: Will a euro cost me twice as much that next morning, as soon as the exchange hears about what the Fed's done?

Because Austrian economics is just libertarianism? Well, in that case, I'm glad you recognize people like Thomas Jefferson to be Libertarian in nature. Though, I doubt you could consider Andrew Jackson, the racist father of your Democratic party, to be Libertarian. Obviously neither studied Austrian Economics, but both were adamantly against a centralized bank system. What does that do for your bullshit hypothesis that Austrian Economics is thinly veiled Libertarianism? Probably nothing good, right? Yeah, what I figured.

Okay, let me walk through your reasoning here. You're saying Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are neither libertarians, nor Austrians, but were anti-central bank. This disproves my theory that Austrians based their theories on axioms designed to support libertarian ideology how?

Here's how you'd go about proving me wrong: name one government policy that Austrian Economic theory recommends that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists would disagree with.

Actually, being against an elitist, big money, powerful central bank is not an idea solely indicative of Austrian Economics. It's a universal idea most agree with... except those who tow their Democratic party lines so blindly and carefully.

There are plenty of people who might disagree with something the Fed's done, or give a negative job rating for the Fed at any given time, but that's different (as in the difference between saying "I hate what Obama's doing" and "I want to eliminate the Presidency entirely"). I think a far more accurate statement would be that most people have no clue what the Federal Reserve is or does -- I'd be shocked if even 20% could accurately tie it to money supply or interest rates.

I want to see some polling backing up your overtly partisan claims. I'd say the number of people who actively want the Fed abolished utterly is pretty small, and tightly linked to the number of people who're blind followers of fans of Ron Paul.

But the problem is you ARE powerless to affect your government. Getting "your guy" into the presidency is not demonstrating your power.

If you aren't powerless, then why is the bill for murder and torture still being paid by us? Why then is there still a system that is nationalizing labor and industry if you stand so strongly against it? Why are we paying for a system that is mortgaging the future citizens (not even born, their parents may not even be born yet) of this country to pay for our temporary economic comfort? Why do you continue to support a system that is spending your money to maintain hegemony throughout the world by violent means?

You will feel different when the "other party's guy" gets in office. Remember when Bush was running up the deficit and he was extending the power of the Executive Branch (wiretapping comes to mind)? Remember how outraged you were? Now that your guy is in office, he's continuing Bush's policies (wiretapping comes to mind) and increasing the deficit, but you are somehow okay with it because you voted for him therefore you exercised your "power" to change government.

We're an empire. I would guess you're okay with that.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Well, let me start by saying to you, with deadly seriousness, that I am opposed to:

• Jingoism
  
• Nationalization of labor and industry
  
• Government taking care of you from cradle to grave (depending on the definition of "take care of" and "you")
  
• Blindly following law without questioning it
  
• Lack of accountability for anyone
  
• Torture
  
• Murder, mass or otherwise
  

In your hypothetical situation, I would mostly be concerned that the man stood trial for the murder, robbing me would be a secondary concern. I might forgive it if the initial plan was to save two children, but then someone killed a member of his family, and he used the second half of the money for revenge instead. Probably not though.

The problem with the analogy is that you're anthropomorphizing government as a single person, who makes unilateral decisions, and whose actions and mindset I have no control over.

Perhaps to you that's an accurate description of government, but to me it's not. Maybe I'll feel differently the next time a party that's antithetical to me comes to power, but I suspect I'll never feel powerless to affect my government again.

Well, let me start by saying to you, with deadly seriousness, that I am opposed to:

• Jingoism
  
• Nationalization of labor and industry
  
• Government taking care of you from cradle to grave (depending on the definition of "take care of" and "you")
  
• Blindly following law without questioning it
  
• Lack of accountability for anyone
  
• Torture
  
• Murder, mass or otherwise
  

In your hypothetical situation, I would mostly be concerned that the man stood trial for the murder, robbing me would be a secondary concern. I might forgive it if the initial plan was to save two children, but then someone killed a member of his family, and he used the second half of the money for revenge instead. Probably not though.

The problem with the analogy is that you're anthropomorphizing government as a single person, who makes unilateral decisions, and whose actions and mindset I have no control over.

Perhaps to you that's an accurate description of government, but to me it's not. Maybe I'll feel differently the next time a party that's antithetical to me comes to power, but I suspect I'll never feel powerless to affect my government again.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Obviously I jest when I compare you or any Democrat/Republican to Nazis. There's a distinct line between the two, but there are also some similarities that are scary. Jingoism is one. Nationalization of labor and industry is another. The idea of compulsory duty or debt to a government that will take care of you from cradle to grave is yet another.

But the worst is this blind affectation of righteousness toward following what is the law without questioning it. When someone cries out against an atrocity perpetrated by the government, the answer from most statists and bureaucrats is typically "but it's the law", as if to imply that the mere existence of the law is justification within itself for any atrocity it reaps. Or, that because it's the law (of the collective) the statist or bureaucrat has no individual accountability for their actions.

As if to say... "I'm just doing my job." Or "I took the Jews from the train to the showers, because it was my job. I wasn't the one who ordered them murdered, so I am not accountable."

In that regard, yes, there are dangerous similarities. For instance, our Federal income tax (extorted money) goes to fund torture and murder of innocent people in the Middle East, but you defend this system that steals our money (our labor, our time, our energy) to pay for this.

If I stole a hundred dollars from you at gun point, used fifty of it to pay for a drug to save a sick child's life, but spent the other fifty to have a man murdered, would you not still want me to pay for my crime of stealing the money? Let alone the crime of murder? Wouldn't you want to ensure that I was never able to steal your money again? And that even though I did save a child's life, it doesn't justify the means? Would you not agree?

>> ^MaxWilder:
"Work it out for yourself. You are all individuals. Don't let anyone tell you what to do!"
That is attacking faith in the most direct and effective manner that I've ever seen, and I say kudos!

>> ^spoco2:
It's not attacking 'faith', they aren't saying don't have some faith that there is a higher power etc. It's saying don't blindly follow some book. Look into it yourself, think about it, study, come to your own conclusions. If you end up then believing that there is a God, yeay for you. But to base your life on someone just telling you something is that way without questioning... That's what they're attacking, and it's very, very worth attacking.


You seem to misunderstand the word "faith". In the context of religion, it is believing in something without evidence. It is believing something because somebody in a position of authority told you something is true, and you fail to question it. If you work it out for yourself, you will see right through "faith" and see that right behind it is "lie".

>> ^MaxWilder:
"Work it out for yourself. You are all individuals. Don't let anyone tell you what to do!"
That is attacking faith in the most direct and effective manner that I've ever seen, and I say kudos!


It's not attacking 'faith', they aren't saying don't have some faith that there is a higher power etc. It's saying don't blindly follow some book. Look into it yourself, think about it, study, come to your own conclusions. If you end up then believing that there is a God, yeay for you. But to base your life on someone just telling you something is that way without questioning... That's what they're attacking, and it's very, very worth attacking.

Back in the 50's they thought there would only be one big computer - "SuperVac" you would ask it a question and it would give you an answer. Data, Research, Calculations = BORING.

Also - this reeks of the same early 90's hype over Ask Jeeves Intelligent Parsing all over again.
When has an answers service ever changed the world?

This ignores what makes 'surfing the web' interesting.

I don't need a 'single definitive page' i can blindly follow. I want a range of information i can judge for myself.

Yeah, the KoGi truck has been around up for for a while now. People will wait for over two hours to get some. Little do they know, they're just blindly following a stupid fad, because lots of Korean restaurants in LA serve bulgogi tacos.

They only recently started using Twitter, but their lines have always been that long.

KoGi is very good, but definitely not worth the wait.

>> ^AceOfKidneys:
no, that's wrong. Swimming 5 hours a day is MUCH healthier then smoking weed, AT ANY POINT, IN ANY POOL, in comparison TO ANY WEED.
I've been a toker for about 5 or 6 years, everyday, excessively and I've had to stop recently because I became a pathetic, lazy, non-contributing member of society, not to mention socially awkward, and often paranoid, and I doubt I could say the say if I spent all that time exercising.
I'm not going to say that chlorine isn't bad for you, but you can't say marijuana's better for you than TAP WATER, when you have no scientific reasoning to back it up, sounds a little religulous doesn't it?


By the way, I agree for Phelps not saying anything about this, lets remember, he himself did not apologize, his publicists did, and besides that, I don't think Phelps should become a marijuana advocate, because he doesn't know any god damn thing about it. I agree with the legalization of ALL drugs, but I am a even stronger supported of EDUCATING people about drugs, like Bill maher.
PS, please don't say I don't know what I am talking about, a couple of months ago, I would be shouting at the comments I just made, but we can't just blindly follow lifestyles because someone else is telling us not to, we can keep being dogs.


Nobody is here saying you should sit on your ass all day and toke up for years. Pot, like anything else, yes even swimming 5 hours a day, can have detrimental effects from over-use. And yes even swimming will have negative side-effects long term. Nobody is saying that swimming for 5 hours is worse then smoking pot for 5 hours. But over long term their is a plethora of scientific research that shows that it can, particularly with Chlorine. Obviously a glass of water isn't going to hurt you, but consuming gallons of chlorine over years is VERY bad for your health as Chlorine is one of the most dangerous carcinogens that we consume, most of us multiple times daily.

Mahr is a major advocate for legalization, I'm sure he knows a great deal about the subject. Again I agree with you that Education is very important, though personally I would be against voting for all drugs personally. But there is zero sense in the criminalization of personal use of pot. In moderation of course.

Shit when Phelps got in a car accident after drinking and driving 4 or 5 years ago there was less of an outcry and he got into less trouble over it. He didn't even loose a sponsor. But a picture of him smoking a bong some years ago.. thats the worst damn crime he could have committed apparently.

no, that's wrong. Swimming 5 hours a day is MUCH healthier then smoking weed, AT ANY POINT, IN ANY POOL, in comparison TO ANY WEED.

I've been a toker for about 5 or 6 years, everyday, excessively and I've had to stop recently because I became a pathetic, lazy, non-contributing member of society, not to mention socially awkward, and often paranoid, and I doubt I could say the say if I spent all that time exercising.

I'm not going to say that chlorine isn't bad for you, but you can't say marijuana's better for you than TAP WATER, when you have no scientific reasoning to back it up, sounds a little religulous doesn't it?


By the way, I agree for Phelps not saying anything about this, lets remember, he himself did not apologize, his publicists did, and besides that, I don't think Phelps should become a marijuana advocate, because he doesn't know any god damn thing about it. I agree with the legalization of ALL drugs, but I am a even stronger supported of EDUCATING people about drugs, like Bill maher.

PS, please don't say I don't know what I am talking about, a couple of months ago, I would be shouting at the comments I just made, but we can't just blindly follow lifestyles because someone else is telling us not to, we can keep being dogs.

^ I still think you're overly generalizing about people based on the fact that they like certain things about Obama.

I "like" Obama. I like the fact that he is well-spoken and intelligent. I like that he does not show special favoritism to religion and that he focuses more on bringing people to his side rather than insulting those with opposing views. And yes, I still like how he handled himself in the video above. He is diplomatic, and that is important whether he is speaking to foreign leaders or the american public.

However, I do not agree with Obama's fiscal ideas. He is in favor of printing large sums of money to "save" the economy, which has the very real possibility of screwing things up further through forced inflation. You're right in that there are very few true fiscal conservatives in Washington currently, and that bothers me.

There have been plenty of videos posted here of people who are completely opposite of Obama on fiscal policy (Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, etc). A lot of the people who align more with fiscal conservatism still like the fact that Obama isn't an ass about everything, and I don't see a problem with that. If people blindly follow every policy Obama puts out there because they like the way he speaks then yes, that is a problem... but I think there is less of that going on than you assume.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I am loyal to no party. I consider all politicians 'the enemy' - persons to be viewed with distrust, suspicion, and wariness. I go in assuming that whatever they're up to is bad, and needs to be stonewalled, limited, or outright rejected at face value. I'm consistent. That's how I know I'm NOT a zombie.

I applaud that you are loyal to no party, and while I am not as pessimistic about politicians as you, I can understand your perspective. Though I think you should cut everyone on the sift some slack. I've seen a lot of stereotyping on the sift, where people try to categorize a person as democrat (liberal, lefty, etc) or as republican (conservative, right-wing, etc) based on a single comment to one video. But I've also debated with individuals who have seemed very diametrically opposed to me in one political thread, and then agree with them completely in another political thread.

I think there are more people like you here than you think. People who agree with what they think is right, as opposed to blindly following their favorite party's propaganda.

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.

I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as
fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Let me rephrase, because I want this to be crystal clear: the
atheist, by default, has declared him or herself to be the
sole judge of what is right and what is wrong, and no other
standards other than their whims or how they're feeling at any
given moment defines morality, goodness, evil, etc.

Even if they do not do so, atheists still must believe that
they are free to pick and choose which laws to obey, the
same exact way those hypocritical religious people pick and
choose which parts of their religion they will follow.

Atheists' highest authority is...themselves.



Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow
the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think
"Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I
actually hating them?".

Who is to say you're not blindly following the people
declaring that, 'Christians all hate gays?'

Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are
open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking
about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to
suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit,
emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact
moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your
emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel
love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible
says so.

The Bible has many passages about slavery, yet it was the
political movements of religious people the world over that
freed the slaves. To blanket-condemn the Bible or even the Quran seems a tad harsher even than the false assertion that all Christians must hate gays.

I understand atheists' contempt for the blind obedience of
fundamentalists, but if you're declaring all religion as evil
because of one segment of an infinite human endeavor, I'd
suggest you're being a tad closed-minded.



I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with
certainty that, "There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of
saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY
THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest
there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something
that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're
happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY
would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that
there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god,
but those with an open mind are happy to accept further
evidence on the matter.

I understand what you're saying, yet the definition of an
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no God" and
"Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I
could be wrong, but you have stated in other words that
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no
God...until proven otherwise."


Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA,
usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you
may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off
google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny
minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look
at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort
of number is fraught with problems in classification, self
identification etc.

I agree it's hard to quantify atheists. You could've just
said, "China makes up one-quarter of the world's people and
they're atheist."

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to
eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case
of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT
when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the
populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law
based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is
all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no
way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be
religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the
religious folk who are making those without religion feel
fearful because of the way they are being treated.

You bring up many issues here, most of them political. The
ACLU is trying their damnedest to remove all traces of
religious expression from public life. Not all atheists are in
the ACLU, but there are zero I know of protesting the ACLU's
bullying either. Government schools are screwed from all
sides. Not to make light of your plight, but everyone claims
to be persecuted these days.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad
consequences except when discovered by others.

This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious
people are only good because they fear for the repercussions
of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do
bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so
why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's
FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of
repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

But what happens when you meet an atheist who thinks what's FAIR isn't what YOU think is FAIR. There's no ultimate authority, even something as open-ended as the golden rule may not apply.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

Um... yep. I see no issue here.

Then why be "good?" Why punish evildoers at all?

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than
anyone else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass
"conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil
governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier
either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are
necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of
lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being
religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like
their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I
don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

And how many of those lovely religious people would be upset
by your approval/endorsement of this obnoxious video? Some might get "the joke" but then others may not...

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have
converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell
does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that
unless you want to defend the crusades and violent
missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't
even go there, that's just nuts...

Communism makes the state the highest authority, therefore any
and all religious belief and expression was banned in those countries by human monsters, inflicted a nightmare on their own people. These dictators were atheist NOT because they wanted to usher in an Age of Reason but to
maintain their power.

The Crusades were an anomaly compared to the 100 million murdered worldwide by communism.

And no, I'm not saying all atheists are commies, but when one form of "control" like religion dies, another fills the void. Maybe we should all just honor each others' delusions instead.

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.


I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think "Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I actually hating them?". Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit, emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible says so.



I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god, but those with an open mind are happy to accept further evidence on the matter.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort of number is fraught with problems in classification, self identification etc.

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the religious folk who are making those without religion feel fearful because of the way they are being treated.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.
This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious people are only good because they fear for the repercussions of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.
Um... yep. I see no issue here.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.
Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that unless you want to defend the crusades and violent missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't even go there, that's just nuts...