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

which leads us further into the rabbit hole of governments role.
which by your response it appears i need to describe a tad further.

so lets change the question from:
"what is governments role?"
to
"what,if at all,is the FEDERAL governments role"?

which of course we can refer to the federalist papers or the articles of confederacy.
one is a great argument in regards to what federal powers should be the other was an absolute failure and needed to be discarded.(too much anarchy lol)

that argument is still going on today.
well,between people like you and i,not from the political class.

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

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

you need to understand i point to both.
hence my "plutocracy" argument.
so while you are correct that a corporation cannot throw you in jail,they can and DO influence our legislation (in the form of alec,lobbyists,campaign funding) to enact laws which may make anything their competitors do "illegal" or keep them out of the market completely.or make anything they do "legal".both governments and corporations do this for their own survival and self-interest.

the war on drugs and the private prison system come to mind.since weed is becoming more and more acceptable "illegal" immigrants will become the new fodder for the prison.

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

now how we get there is the REAL discussion (like you and i are having right now).

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

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

for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced apathetic coma and participate and become informed.

no easy task.
in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
but worthy..so very very worthy.

active citizenship basically.

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

which all have served,wittingly or unwittingly, to create the corporate totalatarian surveillance state we now find ourselves living in.
there can be ONLY one recourse:

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

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

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

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

the institutions that existed 50 years ago to put pressure on the levers of power are gone,destroyed and crushed or outright abandoned.

when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people.those rights and privileges were hard fought for by social movements.
in fact,america had the longest and bloodiest of labor movements on the planet.
the woman sufferagists.
the liberty party in its stance against slavery.
the civil rights movement.

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

we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political class.

we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it.

power is petrified of peoples movements.

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

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

this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns into a burning flame.

i am a radical.
a dissident.
but radical times call for radical thinking.

you and i both want fairness,justice and truth.
everybody does.
some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other.
this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political class and propaganda corporate tv.

the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me.
that does not serve their interests.
fear and division serve their interests.
hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.

i aim to disappoint them.

now go watch that video i posted for ya.
when ya got time of course lol.

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

anyways.
loving this conversation.
i am in 3 other debates with highly educated people.
nowhere near as polite and awesome as you.
then again..i am kicking the crap out of them.
arrogance really annoys me,makes me vulgar and beligerent.
peace brother man.

I think it does come down to basic psychology. Many were walking along the boardwalk with their family - seemingly minding their own business, taking in the fresh sea air, calm and relaxed, in a very safe area- when all of a sudden this guy pops up and is confronting them.

They do not want to listen, they do not want a conflict:
"I will do anything to get you away from me" All the while they are unable to hear anything but their own internal voice "I have to get away, I don't even care what he is saying it sounds like Peanuts, God this guy is annoying just give me the pen so I can sign and move on".

Sort of the way politics in America works but under the guise "Civic Duty". They all fall prey to it.

I am a father of a certain number of children. Let's just say more than your average. It is very common for people to approach me and ask how many children I plan on having. When the question is returned to them (if they have a child/children) they nearly always respond with, "Oh, I'm DONE having children! I'm not going to have ANY MORE. No way!" They say that with their own children standing right there. Whether they realize it or not, they are telling their existing children that they do not want to have to deal with any more people like THEM. It's a great insult and devalues, whether consciously or subconsciously, the child's existence.

But that's all negative thinking, like you said. Here's the positive: Children are AWESOME (when you love them)! Have more! :-D

Does anyone fail to see how exploitable this could be? Hack the sign (whether digital or not, you can find methods for changing the message) to give bad advice to only children (and hobbits).

We cannot set precedents for ad agencies to send divergent messages like this. Change 1 number in the message and then you have a potential abuser that isn't the parent gaining telephone access to YOUR CHILD.

How about instead, we Implant a chip in infants and have it feed whatever messages we do or do not want parents to see. And then change the message when they become adults to decrease the likelihood of abuse. AND NOT TELL ANYONE. I mean, if we're going to mask messages, why not just go all the way.

Protect at any cost. Well, how about kill all humans to protect the planet? Or send messages in the form of muscle stimulating agents to only animals and have them rise up!

Oh I know what needs to be done. We need to create a tentative peace and then force our children to fight to the death for our honor. Awesome idea. You had it all backwards. Abuse creates good warriors.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

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

Add "baseball sewer" to the list of jobs I do not want.

How do you KNOW?

Physics is something that is only beginning to be understood. The Laws of Physics are subjective to change. We will probably find out soon whether the speed of light is a constant it may be that the speed of light is not a constant.

My point is, is that we have barely even tipped our toes into the way everything works, while I trust science much more than any religion I am not arrogant enough to think that there are fundamental aspects of reality that we simply do not understand on any level.

Another point is, if you ever take DMT. Most people have no words to describe what they see. As stupid monkey humans we have defined vague terms to mean something. Even if someone thinks a DMT experience is spiritual, so what? Because it is chemicals in the brain? What basis do you have to say that having a spiritual experience is not considering it is based upon the science of the Universe? Spiritual, God, dark matter, death, even consciousness are terms that ill defined with monkey brains.

I think you believe that "spiritual" must mean dogmatic religion. Science in itself can be "spiritual", contemplating the Universe can be "spiritual". I repeat that term because at this point in our culture-less society that term is taboo. I know some people consider FUCKING to be "spiritual". I am not implying that I believe in any religion, I do not, at all. DMT is like experiencing the Universe in your own head. It is the one and only experience that is convincing enough to say that we know very little, it is the most humbling and powerful experience there is. And if there is one using endogenous chemicals, more powerful, I do not want to even know about it, myself.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to debate? That there is no science behind DMT? That there is nothing to DMT? That "spiritual" does not exist? What is your point of this continued conversation? That you are scared of psychedelics? Why do you think such an experience would have been programmed into our head, the most powerful experience a person can have? How do you think DNA evolved over so many years, you ever read Francis Cricks, who helped found DNA, what his theory for DNA was? Panspermia. Yeah. The Universe is a lot trickier than just our basic Science.

One thing is clear, you are never going to know what I am talking about until you have that experience. Why not? It has never killed anyone... you will think you have died because what you are witnessing is alien and defies explanation. It will be so awesome, that you will not even care that you died or think you have died. People should do it, even if it is just to be in awe of what your own vessel is capable of doing.

I understand, man. The only way to see that is to do it yourself, obviously if you do not want a spiritual experience, then you are well aware to stay clear.

Here is another article on the science behind how it works: http://www.neurophys.wisc.edu/~cozzi/Indolethylamine%20N-methyltransferase%20expression%20in%20primate%20nervous%20tissue.pdf

Enoch, you are right everyone has the right to their opinion. But, what is pseudoscience? That phrase in the same category as this is a slight.A negative dashing of one of the most visionary and powerful experiences a human could have. Just the fact that TEDX is not encouraging this issue after having posted this up is fact enough that whatever it is and no one knows, not even people who have actually done it, should be enough for people to unfurl their brow and know that there IS something to this. This is not a popularity contest, I know for some reason this culture has supported cynicism, it dislikes spirituality beyond our favored religions, many people do not want to know that there is for some reason a gateway into something unspeakable right under our feet. They do not want to believe. Rightfully so. I think it is terrifying as well but I also have always wanted the truth and science is doing a great job but it moves too slooooowly.

In my opinion it is not a drug. It is a state. A natural state that humankind has long forgotten through indoctrination, power and control. The doubter will receive enlightenment.

The majority of brits do not feel like the video makes out. The majority of brits do not want any more guns in the country. It really was very selective about what it showed.

Regarding Tony Martin, the general feeling in the UK was that someone should be allowed to defend themselves in their own home, but that he crossed the line. There are all sorts of tall tales in the UK about how the law is massively bias toward the perpetrator, but I've personally found exactly the opposite, and funnily enough anyone who spouts off that the police are against the victims hasn't had that experience themselves, they've just heard that it's the case.

Obviously I can only speak for my circle of acquaintances but the overwhelming feeling is that Americans are gun crazy and that's a bad thing. It's not a 60/40 split, but more like a 99/1 or greater split. We don't want more guns, we want fewer guns. Simple.

Reminder to self -- don't be in a warehouse or a hardware store during an earthquake.

HARDware. Spikyware, Pointyheavyrigidware. Do NOT want to be someplace where HARDware is flying around!

1. Lower taxation, these things cost money (initial outlay and ongoing costs) to keep an eye on a populace that, by and large, aren't doing anything wrong. Most of us don't want em, don't need em and don't want to pay for them.

2. Changing rules aka slippery slope. The people who agree to big brother on the first day might become victims of it later down the track. Once you establish a state where the citizens are constantly under surveillance and have accepted that onus, you can implement worse measures. Look at post 911 USA... Land of the free? As long as you don't mind the government setting up camp in your rectum 24/7.

3. There is no such thing as "safe". CCTV doesn't deter crime, it just catches the idiots too stupid to take it in to account (ie. people who cut down poles sans facial coverings for example...). Much like any other precaution, criminals find ways around CCTV. That is not an argument for more surveillance, it's an argument about the futility of it in the first place.

4. Sometimes the rules should be broken. How many things were illegal 100 years ago that are perfectly legal now? Worse, think of the things that were legal 100 years ago that are outlawed now (*hint: most of them are self harm crimes such as drug use etc) How often have nanny states tried to decree what you can and can't do only to find that people do not want to live under that rule? The camera is the start, if they can see what you are doing constantly, they can stop you. Why do you think organisations like Anonymous exist? To quote a memorable cutscene from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri, "We must dissent...".

Send 10 bucks to the charity of your choice.

Leaving a tie tied to loosen it, but then re-wear it tightens the knot. It stretches the fabric shrinks the knot size. It is not a very classy move. Buy a clip-on if you do not want to show some culture or pride. Also, you shouldn't wash or dry clean a tie. Ties are a one hit wonder.

I bartend. I have to display an illusion of a lie, but carry class during my steps of work.

Do it right or leave it at home.

One thing not mention (though hinted at toward the end of the video), is that the vast majority of Texan's do not want to secede and probably a large group of them would rather leave Texas than leave the US. The 'former' state would be a shadow of itself.

And QM, chill out. Your side lost, it's not like it never happened before. And if you are an indication of it's base.. it'll only continue to lose.

I can understand that some people will be upset because there will be a limit of how many promotes one can fire up. But, with the new promotes, is that really that much of a factor?

I do love having a video of my being promoted, but when it happened, it was like 'OMG! Thank you! Somebody really liked that video!' I felt like It didn't happen because my video didn't sift and went to pq. It didn't happen in return of me promoting somebody else's video. It didn't happen because I am a nice person.

I know people like to work together and get all this promoting and working together - thing going on. I know lots of nice people deserve to have success in VS. I know I tend to vote on some people's videos because they vote on mine. But that's still fine. I come online in the morning, look for certain submissions and vote on them, unless they are too weird for me, submit a buch of stuff and go on my merry way. I rarely promote (and I do not want to tell howe many power points I still have). You might think I am am b**ch for not promoting and upvoting enough. But as nice as VS is, I do not want it to take over my life. I already had EQ, WOW and almost SWTOR do that.. Changes might seem bad, but they happen.

Maybe I am the b**ch queen of VS, but I am a loner. I appreciate every vote, quality and promote, and I never seem to return the favor enough. And I take the downvotes personally. But I have gotten here without asking for help. I appreciate it, but am not asking for it. There are times when I just get teary eyed because someboidy promoted a vidoe, or made a nice comment..

Again, thanks for all the votes. I will try to do better at returning the favor, at some point. When I am better and less depressed and happier. I still love VS.