^GenjiKilpatrick:

Number One:
Our government is in debt. How do you cure debt?
Cut spending? Sure. Tho less spending doesn't remove debt you've already accumulated.
To pay off 14 trillion in Debt. You need 14 trillion in Income
Taxes = Income.
Number Two:
No one who MAKES 1 million dollars a year EARNS 1 million dollars a year.
Earning implies you did work.
No single person can physically work to create one million dollars in equivalent value per year. Physically impossible.
The average American only EARNS about 2.4 mill in LIFETIME earnings.
Which means, anyone who MAKES a Million+ a year STOLE the money EARNED by the VALUE of other people's hard WORK in order to write themselves such fat paychecks.
That or they speculated. Which is more luck than work.



The only thing you seem to understand is that for as far as you binge, that's how equally austere you have to become to reverse it. We can't just break even in terms of producing and consuming, we have to start producing MORE than we consume. Which is virtually impossible for any generation to vote at this point, so you are going to see a destruction of the currency almost certainly (informal default).

Government is a burden we have to bear. You may want to have a world empire, but that Soldier stationed in Japan is consuming a lot of stuff without producing. Citizens must sacrifice so that he may exist. The same goes for most of government and a huge percentage of the population works for the government now, and they retain their voting rights despite that conflict of interest.

The main thing that you're missing is that tax revenue from production goes up when production goes up, and taxes affect the incentive to produce. How does a state collect a 100% tax on someone's income when that income flees the state or just throws in the towel as a result of that tax increase? You could have had more tax revenue at a lower percentage, no? Clearly, there is a point at which the rate negatively affects the revenue since "rich" people can just sit on their money for lack of incentive in trying to produce more, a portion of which would have been paid to people helping produce it.

>> ^siftbot:

Duplicate video nomination cannot be seconded by the submitter of the original video - ignoring isdupe request by Seric.


Dyawww.....damn conflict of interest *mumble mumble*

I'm not real impressed by "support" for Obama basically coming in the form of ideological self-congratulation. People shouldn't be so hard on Obama because people never should have expected anything from government in the first place, is pretty weak tea.

Not to mention, if we sold off rights to the ocean the way we do with land, the oil companies would own it all, not the fisheries. The fisheries would lease the right to fish in the oil company's waters, and they'd probably have some pre-negotiated cap on liability for damages caused by oil spills that'd be tiny, since they're in a much weaker negotiating stance.

But really, the key element of this is the ending. The real story here is that Ron Paul admits to having conflicts of interest, but justifies it by saying the government is too big for him to not have conflicts of interest...but it's certainly possible to divest your investment in bank stock when you're on the House Banking Committee!

I'm inclined to believe the citizen. Why? Because police investigating themselves cannot be trusted.

It is a clear conflict of interests. That interest is to CYA. Cover your own ass.

The Owner should have never opened the door enough that the dog could get out. They have to have probable cause to enter the premise. They can come back with a warrant. Just because they were told that someone ran to that house is not enough for probable cause. They have to have corroborating evidence. Perhaps if multiple people told them, then yea probable cause.

Here's some advice, remember I'm not a lawyer. If cops come to your door, open it a crack only. Or open it and step outside, and close the door behind you. Never invite an officer into your home, ever.

If you are outside and a cop of any kind is approaching, go back into the house, and do the same as the paragraph above.

Remember to be polite, but you don't have to bend over and take it up the ass either.

I guess I need a Union to get Due Process. I guess I really didn't need that 14th ammendment anyway.

This isn't an argument about the misuse of government property this is an argument of abuse of power, granted to him via the people. It's an argument of unlawful activity, crime. The whole idea that police actually police themselves is suspect, given that they are the police. I sometimes question the whole idea of Internal Affairs given that they are police themselves; hardly independent how can they be trusted to do what is Just? This is most often called Conflict of Interests.

Fuck the officers Union. They're cooperative lies rarely tell the whole story.



When I wrote the statement above I meant that a police union is hardly an unbiased organization from which uncorrupted truth can be found. It's a cop-out to accept either perspectives in this video as truth. More often then not the truth is much more complicated. I was never decrying the use of a Union to protect the working officer's wages or hours; things as such. But they cannot, and should not protect them from the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_%28law_enforcement%29

>> ^dag

"Relying on doctors to hand down their wisdom to us is completely the wrong strategy. Question doctors, suspect doctors - trust them as much as you would your mechanic. Sorry, but I don't see why doctors must be put on to a noble pedestal any more than other professions.
They do lots of great work. So do teachers - so do computer programmers. I get pissed when people bow to their unswerving knowledge. Respect science, get medical advice - but make your own decisions.
"



If you are not caught up on the current research, how are you supposed to make an accurate informed decision regarding your health? That's why people defer to doctors, just like they will to any professional. Allowing the patient to make their own decisions is the cornerstone of any patient doctor relationship, but ignore advice at your own peril. View your doctor as a mechanic only if you value your life as much as you value your car.

"I respect science- but the medical profession has a culture that is distinct and separate to pure science. For one, it's a client based industry that deals directly with people to provide a service- like your mechanic. For another- I don't trust the medical-big pharma culture that is way too self-serving, incestuous and profit driven."



This is where you are completely wrong. First of all, clinical medicine is evidence based. Science is the hand that guides patient care. Many clinicians are also researchers. Secondly, there's been a huge amount of effort to separate medicine from industry. Big pharm are completely forbidden to advertise to medical students, and unlike for pharmacists, "kick-backs" and other perks to influence doctors' prescribing habits are illegal. Any industry ties for researchers must be clearly documented and reported, and conflicts of interests are strictly monitored.


"I was just reading over on Reddit that as of 2002, prescription drug deaths outnumber drug deaths from heroin and cocaine. Who is responsible for pushing that 30th prescription refill of Vicodin®? - why yes- it's those pillars of society - the all knowing oracles of the human body - Doctors.
We definitely can't have people smoking a bit of weed to chill the hell out - but keep coming in for those Valium® refills people. Those new golf clubs aren't cheap."



Lets see just how many things are wrong with this post.

1. Prescription drug deaths outnumber drug deaths

First of all, you even quoted the article wrong. The article says: "as of 2002, prescription drug overdoses have started outnumbering deaths from heroin and cocaine." Obviously overdoses does not equal death. The article does not provide a source for this statistic, and even if this is true, all it means is that prescription drugs are a lot safer than street drugs, considering the number of people on prescription medication far outnumber the hardcore heroin abusers. It also doesn't take into account just how many of those people on prescription medication have serious health issues - a 80 year old with heart failure and multiple co morbidities doesn't have a good prognosis in the first place.



2. Doctors pushing unnecessary Vicodin.

This is incredibly unlikely, since the doctor gets nothing from the drug company in return. In fact, a frustrating portion of any doctor's practice is filtering out drug seeking behaviour. Ask any doctor and they can tell you the ridiculous excuses they've heard.

Also, the article you linked is about celebrities. You can't judge the medical profession based on a small subset based in LA. Seriously, you think Michael Jackson will say "you're right doc, I shouldn't be using all these prescription meds to help me perform" or "Screw you doc. I can find someone else who will give me what I want"?

3. Blaming the medical profession for marijuana laws:

Right, lets ignore the complicated political issues re: America's war on drugs, and blame it on doctors instead. Let's just say that medicinal marijuana is one of the few ways that you CAN smoke pot legally.

It's pretty clear that you are heavily biased in your view of the medical profession. You use phrases like "self-serving, incestuous and profit driven", sarcastically referr to doctors as "oracles" or "pillars of society", and insinuate that doctors would compromise your health for a set of new golf clubs. I don't know what horrible experiences you've had in your past that has made you feel this way, but this is as far from the truth as possible.

Your distrust of the profession is bathed in ignorance, and your blind accusations, including your previous rant against obstetricians, is incredibly condescending and insulting.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This video was put together by a friend of @jiyanibi - I'm posting it to avoid any conflict of interest. Looks like a cool game, I may have to get this.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Remove government policy, and the market will regulate itself.


Click your heels three times and say 'there's no place like home' and the market will regulate itself.

You regurgitate these absurd inanities with out the slightest smidgen of skepticism, a true believer with out a shred of evidence to support this corporate fairy tale. If you took half a second to pull back the curtain on the people who've taught you what to think, you might be surprised by what you find.

Let's see, corporations have taught you to believe that if you give them unlimited power, that the heavens will open up and the bright light of liberty will shine forth on the world in utopian glory. Do you not see some possible ulterior motives here? Any conflicts of interest? Anything at all?

You are being manipulated.

In reply to this comment by jan:
Yes, absolutely.

The picture as I understand it involves not only the farms but the financial profits reap from them.
There has been some conflict of interest reported as government officials have investments in these farms.

The logging of BC forests also impacts the accessibility up creeks and rivers to spawning beds.
Forest companys have guidelines, but some get broken.

Some farmed fish are fed fish pellets that have been produced from other countries fish stock. So they take fish stock from sometimes poor countries to feed fish in farms.
Last year I heard a biology student talking about feeding the farmed fish canola pellets, imagine carnivorous fish eating canola pellets.

Other issues involve the antibiotics they have to give the fish in order to help them survive in the pen. Too many fish locked in one space.
The larger than normal amounts of sea lice is do to the fish being confined. The fry swim past these farms and pick up the lice in lethal amounts.

I could go on.

You're welcome. I just think this is important information.

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
Thanks for the quality on the Glenn Beck gold vid.

In reply to this comment by KnivesOut:
*quality

>> ^Doc_M:
Forgive my ignorance but this seems like good advice. Gold seems like the investment of choice to keep your dollars worth something in the years to come. I normally hold Glen Beck in the realm of right wing craziness and don't normally support anything that he says but I don't know much about investing in commodities and he's giving a tip on how to do so with reliability. It's not like using the company he recommends will raise the price of gold to his advantage. Using ANY gold investment will do so. Though he is an asshat when it comes to generally everything, investment in gold seems like good advice and information on who is reliable over others is not in my opinion "bad advice". Gold vendors are notorious for being greedy douches when it comes to investing. Glen is a capitalist in the most extreme way and therefore, I see this as the best bet for that investment.



Except that he stated himself on his own show (via the Jon Stewart clip) that gold jumped $30 during his last show.
Plus, gold is an extremely bad investment over the past few centuries. It's rate of growth is below almost always under the rate of inflation, meaning it'd be better to invest in the underside of your mattress than in gold. The only exception has been the past few years.
I've been tempted before to invest in gold, but after talking to multiple financial advisers, they steered me clear of a classic pitfall that this guy is selling.
There's a reason the commercials for gold seem like infomercials played late at night to sap gullible suckers out of their money - because they are.

Yes, absolutely.

The picture as I understand it involves not only the farms but the financial profits reap from them.
There has been some conflict of interest reported as government officials have investments in these farms.

The logging of BC forests also impacts the accessibility up creeks and rivers to spawning beds.
Forest companys have guidelines, but some get broken.

Some farmed fish are fed fish pellets that have been produced from other countries fish stock. So they take fish stock from sometimes poor countries to feed fish in farms.
Last year I heard a biology student talking about feeding the farmed fish canola pellets, imagine carnivorous fish eating canola pellets.

Other issues involve the antibiotics they have to give the fish in order to help them survive in the pen. Too many fish locked in one space.
The larger than normal amounts of sea lice is do to the fish being confined. The fry swim past these farms and pick up the lice in lethal amounts.

I could go on. I'm looking for anther vid.

1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
What do they actually propose here? Isn't the UNITED states already a union? Or do they want to change something?

2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
Seems reasonable, but this is not really something that can be settled internally in the US, the "other nations" would have to agree as well. Internally, of course, anyone should be allowed to trade internationally as they please, not some people favored.

3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Either this is a painfully obvious point, or something more sinister is behind it. "We will grow stuff and farm it", well sure, knock yourselves out. "We will clear nature preserves and such to increase our use of the land" Less good. "We will only use what land is necessary to support the people." Better. A matter of interpretation.

4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
A job at all costs? Jobs can't just be created out of thin air - there has to be a reason for them. Welfare is better than a job that has no value.

5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
Well, duh.

6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Yes and no. I agree that the first duty of a citizen should be to work, but this is indirectly determined by the fact that if you don't work--> you don't earn--> you die. Whether or not something "clashes with general interest" is harder to define, because plenty of work has not been in the gneral interest, but have been useful in the end anyway. Say, stem-cell research. No matter how many people want to ban it should not matter, because it is indeed useful to the survival of the human race.

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
End welfare? Sure, but then you'll have to make up dummy-jobs, which in the end is welfare anyway. I can see the value in getting cheap labor this way, but I think this is worse than just plain welfare until a real job comes around.

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
End wars. Sounds noble enough. Confiscating war profits sounds an awful lot like theft though. What needs to be done, is make sure that there is fair dealings in companies that provide services for war - the corruption that makes sure that companies like blackwater and halliburton gets all the deals must be quelled. A company exists in part to create profit for its people - if no profit should be made on war, then the state should make its own stuff. It is the one "company" that shouldn't make a profit.

9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Uhm, what!? I think this is a bad idea. Oversight, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest are all stuff I can see arising for this. If something has gotten big, it's because people have bought their product. We shouldn't penalize a good company just because it's big.

10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Again, what the hell is this? "Oh poor apple, I see you haven't made as much profits as us.. here, have some money." - microsoft. That's just stupid.

11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
Fair. Pension should be maintained for those who need it.

12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I don't like the concept of classes - mostly because I don't think it's all that applicable anymore. People should get payed for their abilities + supply/demand of the job. And again they want to take the "evil big stores" and turn them into nice little stores. It's a dream world, Neo. They are not big because they are evil, they are big because they sell a good product. If you want to "level the playing field", then give incentives to make jobs locally and penalize foreign jobs (like sweatshops and such).

13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
"Expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation".. get the fuck out of here. This land is my land, that land is your land♫ let's keep it that way. If there is a dire communal need for some of MY land, then you can well enough buy it from me, so I can move somewhere better.

14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Education must be reformed, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. "Practical life"? There are plenty of things that ought to be taught that have nothing to do with practical life, biology, chemistry, mathematics (beyond the basics), history - we can't all go to knitting and shop-class. And in the higher educations the subjects become even more esoteric. What's "practical life" for some, is not at all for others. Hell, specialization is the cornerstone of education.

15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Mandatory fat camps! Heh, I do think that gymnastics and sports should be mandatory in school, but that's it. English is mandatory too, why not some for of physical activity? I don't think that adults should be compelled to do sports directly though - that's their choice. I would rather that incentives were made to be healthy, or maybe certain penalties for being grossly unhealthy.

16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
Of course. There should only be one army. If you want to make "Bob's army" you can go off and make "Bob's Country" and do it.

17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.

This seems to be against what's been said earlier. Now they want to MAKE corporations? Confusing. Don't they trust the states to carry out the legislation?

I seem to have a problem with the people making denials on these comments , they keep blaming corporate interests for promoting global warming . Over ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial ) and over (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/27/climate-change-deniers-sceptics ) it has been shown the denial is funded by giant moneyed multinationals with huge conflicts of interest . If your not into reason that's fine, just don't claim that you are without expecting rebuttal .
Also , unless your getting paid for it why not go somewhere that your point of view would be appreciated, actual debate is always welcome, but your not debating , your just yelling.

I second this notion.

(no conflicts of interest reported)