>> ^rottenseed:

I already posted this...somebody dupeof for me SORRY!

http://videosift.com/video/Ghost-Ship-Awesome-Scene-from-a-Shitty-Movie



No way I call eminent domain and claim stakes to this video and all Rottenseeds other posts as well.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

No they didn't. Almost everything you have said here is wrong. For instance, the earliest version of the New Testament that could be considered "canonized" consisted of ten of pauls epistles and a version of the gospel of Luke. It was only around 200 AD that the 27 books of the NT were decided to be the likely candidates for being wholly inspired works, which became agreed upon by the whole church by the middle of the 3rd century. There were 3 other books which were included in 397 as reading material, but they were not thought to be inspired. The catholic church included 11 more books in the 1500s, but no one else considered them inspired, including the jewish people who wrote them. They were finally taken out of bibles around the end of the 1800s, as you said.

These uninspired works were known as the apocrypha, and none of them ever belonged there in the first place. The fact is, the bible today matches what the early church had decided upon as inspired as early as 200 AD. Which brings us to the mormons, who claim that they have a special revelation from Jesus Christ, that He came and visted America and the indians, etc. The problem is, not excepting that there is no evidence for the claims it makes, or any precedent or prophecy that predicts it, that the claims of the book of mormon fundementally alters the truth of the gospels. It preaches a much different Jesus, as does Islam. Paul said this:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Both the mormons and the muslims received their revelations from angels. Scripture also says this:

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Scripture rejects it, and that is why they are considered a cult and not Christian.


>> ^joedirt:
Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website.
from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it. You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT. So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.
If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.

Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country though religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should eb a nation of Chirstians.
>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website. from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it!! You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT.

If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.

So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.


>> ^shinyblurry:

How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.




Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country thought religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should be a nation of Chirstians.

>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

[Genuine reply]
The state has the right to collect taxes, but I agree with you that tax evasion should not be punishable by death or physical violence. I don't think you have anything to worry about, because any politician who suggested the death penalty for tax evasion would probably be recalled immediately. >> ^blankfist:
Here, you've all asked me a number of questions, let me ask all of you one. Do you believe goods and services should be offered by force under the threat of violence or death?



So, is that a no? Or a yes?

Goods and services offered under threat of violence or death. That would mean roads, schools, police, fire, military, continued wars in the middle east, the drug war, corporate subsidies, eminent domain, keeping gays from marrying, etc. You must fund these or else men with guns will show up at your home, they will kidnap you and throw you to a cage. And during this "tax extraction" process they may very well shoot you.

Do you agree with this? Do you think this is an acceptable and moral way to offer services and goods?

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK I don't really see how that's me fighting a losing battle, so much as you declaring surrender to the idea that mankind will inevitably destroy itself.
I think that's eminently preventable. We just need to grow up, and not really by a whole lot. Just enough not to commit genocide on ourselves.


Weapons have only a part to do with genocide...we were killing each other with sticks long before bullets, and will upgrade to ray guns in time. I am not surrendering, I am saying you're fighting a battle that is not on the same battlefield. And preventing what exactly? Death by knife isn't any more humane than death by gun...and shoot, I would take death by nuke over death by knife any day of the week...except Saturday, that's beer day.

I have been around guns for a long time. When you are in the country and you got a rattlesnake or copper head that you need to get rid of, sometimes it's a little too dangerous for the snake pole. You have no right to say that I can't go get my revolver out and dispatch him with the weapon of my choosing, in so much as your rights are violated. Creating criminals for people who only posses things that can be dangerous is just the liberal version of the drug war. Manufacturing moral crimes where no wrong has taken place. You want tuffer punishments on people who commit crimes, fine, let's talk. No need to punish people whom haven't wronged, akin to the pot head buying nachos.

@GeeSussFreeK I don't really see how that's me fighting a losing battle, so much as you declaring surrender to the idea that mankind will inevitably destroy itself.

I think that's eminently preventable. We just need to grow up, and not really by a whole lot. Just enough not to commit genocide on ourselves.

While the yuan is tentatively pegged to the dollar, it's hard to argue anything has changed.

A currency needs years, decades even to gain reserve currency status. With the current debt instability in the Euro area, this has become a very unlikely proposition. The yuan is even less likely, partly because currently it is still essentially pegged to the dollar and partly because it still far, far from being the pre-eminent power with massive income disparity comparing the cities to the countryside, unstable regions, and even purely festering structural issues like water shortage and pollution. What's more likely is it being replaced also in the medium to long term by the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDR), basically an amalgamated currency with proportionate representations by major economic world power currencies.

The thing is though if the US were gradually replaced by other (or combination of) currencies it would be quite beneficial to the US economy.

The main effect would be a depreciation of the US dollar. The US dollar is in excessive demand because it is used in trade internationally, something that hurts US export competitiveness. A currency depreciation would make imports less competitive and exports more competitive. Less incentive to overconsume Chinese manufacturing, more incentive to export products thus improving the US trade balance and foreign debt.

Slight inflationary pressure. Currently deflation is a bigger worry, especially if it becomes entrenched as in Japan.

Public debt? Largely wouldn't be affected because it is predominantly denominated in US currency (Treasury bills) thus currency value does not play into the equation.

Point is, it's largely a good thing.

>> ^blankfist:


Corporations exist because government gives them legitimacy. They also receive corporate welfare, subsidies, regulatory favors, enjoy franchise monopolies, etc. In rare occasions the government has even used eminent domain in their favor, i.e. Walmart.
So you tell me why corporations rule the marketplace and why small business entrepreneurs find it tough to compete.


Ah, absolutely true, but this bias enables those large businesses to stomp small competition out of the market with marketing and buyouts. The problem is the money in the entire system. The politicians and corporations have developed a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" partnership. The politicians funded by these large corporations then turn around and pass legislation favorable to the corporation in question. In this environment the worker class has no control, which is what the majority are rapidly becoming. Since government rules and regulations are still somewhat under our control via the democratic process, we need to join together to take the money out of politics and then elect competent leaders. If we solely vilify government and seek to destroy its power, we'll have no way to limit the government.

We can do this now through the democratic process if we join together before it's too late. While we may hold somewhat different political beliefs, we need to put those aside for now to focus on electing leaders whose sole platform is to take the money out of politics. When our voice is restored to the nation's government we can discuss other topics further in a civil manner.

Mind you, when I say money out of politics I mean we need to vote for controls to ensure money stays out of politics indefinitely. I would propose a smartly worded constitutional amendment.

I do want to encourage innovative business management, but when large corporations can wipe up their worker's conditions and poor customer service with advertising and political bribes, we need to lower the volume to make our voices heard. Internet discussion groups like this are one of our last remaining avenues for civil discussion of this nature. Let's work together to figure out what our priorities are.

>> ^Truckchase:

But yet large corporations rule the market in most established consumer sectors; why?
How do non-successful small business entrepreneurs factor into this?

Corporations exist because government gives them legitimacy. They also receive corporate welfare, subsidies, regulatory favors, enjoy franchise monopolies, etc. In rare occasions the government has even used eminent domain in their favor, i.e. Walmart.

So you tell me why corporations rule the marketplace and why small business entrepreneurs find it tough to compete.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Everyone knows that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all bodies rotate around it. There is only one person in the world that thinks otherwise and he recanted after he was confronted.

However, unlike your historically famous example, the naysayers didn't have mountains of evidence to support their position, merely hearsay and conjecture.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I doubt any of us here are climatologists, but we are people. As people, we can expect people doing science on climate to not be entirely dissimilar to us...


While I'm not a climatologist, I do have my PhD in Ecology and I regularly teach Environmental science. With that being said, I concur with most of the posts here in that climate change is indeed occurring and is largely anthropogenic. I agree with you that science shifts its focus from one foundation to another, but I disagree with you on most of your statements, namely:

a) "Peer review is more of a contest of popularity and not overall truth value."

This is ridiculous. I am both a reviewer of ecological journals and have had papers reviewed by those journals. While some authors may have an easier time getting published based on their namesake, the vast majority rely on their science alone. Most climatology papers are from large groups where most authors are unknown to the overall scientific community (grad students, post-docs, assistant professors and the like).

b) "Where is the data to support that global warming would even be bad?"

Most data revolving around the immediate biological effects of global warming are located not in climatology journals, but in ecological ones, particularly those on elevational gradients. For example, if an organism has a range at a specific altitude on a mountainside and the climate warms, it has no where to go but up - once he runs out of space, extirpation is eminent. Biological diversity will be reduce drastically in this manner in similarly smaller-ranged habitats or ecotones.

c) "We will entwine any evidence into the web of belief . And ostracize anyone that deviates."

The first person who comes up with solid proof that global climate change is not anthropogenic in a peer-reviewed article will have all the prestige granted to him that he could ever desire. That's always good motivation to deviate from the norm. The problem is, nobody can discover any evidence to the contrary. It's not ostracization by will, but by nature itself.

Ahh, but what property do you own, and according to who? You live in California -- land seized from Mexico at gunpoint by the US army, if I recall correctly. Mexico of course took it when they declared independence from Spain, and Spain "colonized" it, which means they took it from a bunch of so-called savages who thought the very idea of humans owning the land was alien and immoral.

As for what happened after the US army took it, it belonged to the US government. What did they do with it? Well, they sold (or granted) deeds of "fee simple" to people. What's a fee simple deed? Well, it's the legal document you get from the government that establishes your ownership of a piece of property...limited by the four government powers of taxation, police power, eminent domain and escheat.

So, again, I fail to see the difference. If the shop owner's deed gives him unlimited authority over the aspects ceded to him by that deed, then the government that owns the true title to the land gets unlimited authority over its property as well.

He's not crazy. He's paid very well to SAY crazy things. IMO the fact that he says things that people pay him millions of dollars for makes him eminently sane. Nasty, self-centred, petty and perhaps somewhat sociopathic, but essentially sane.

A short excerpt from Galton's work on the efficacy of prayer.

"In one statistical study, Galton examined data from a previous study by Guy on longevity. Galton first focused on clergy. He reasoned that clergy should be the longest lived of all since they were the most “prayerful class” of all and among the most prayed for. When Galton compared the longevity of eminent clergy with eminent doctors and lawyers, the clergy were the shortest lived of the three groups. Galton next focused on royalty, who were much prayed for, when compared to other members of the aristocracy. In analyzing the data on royalty, Galton concluded: “Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence.”

I am sure there are genuine feelings in there, but really this is just a publicity stunt, using a dieing man's misfortune for the benefit of a church - made possible by the fact he knows peoples heartstrings will be moved by this breaking news, and that they will be more open to 'suggestion'. The suggestion in this case being that when he says "pray for Christopher" - people will instantly make the assumption that this will help because they are judgmentally impaired.

Why do I say this?
If he were truly speaking as a friend, he wouldn't be standing in front of a sign with the name of his organisation
He wouldn't spend half the video talking about his own beliefs/agenda
He wouldn't need to talk about specific speaking dates his organisation is committed to
The video wouldn't begin with a splash screen and intro music for the foundation (an advert in effect) and also end with a splash screen
He would give his name (that would be reasonable) but he would not introduce himself as the "Executive Director"
The video wouldn't pan out at the start to show all of the Latimer House signage
He wouldn't repeat the name of his foundation and the house multiple times
He wouldn't talk about a debate that he is "scheduled to moderate" (more shameless self promotion)
His facial expressions when he says "wouldn't that be nice" (referring to Christopher debating on the pro-Christian side) are very typical of the salesman "puppy-dog" tactics to try and win empathy from the person you are trying to convince to buy your product (I have the empathy face, you can't help but love me!). He thinks the video's audience is too stupid to realize what he is doing.
He says "we... wish him the very best" - if he was speaking as a friend he would say "I". He cleverly uses "we" so that everyone in his organisation feels as if they are being spoken for and they don't feel like they need to think or speak for themselves.
He wouldn't try to sneak in the "to what extent does Christopher really believe some of the things he says" - this one speaks for itself it is just a really low blow.
His body language and demeanor is shifty as hell, he rarely looks at the camera for more than a few seconds, when he is trying to say something personal he often looks away from the camera.
At the end, it sounds like he says "we hope you'll bury him in mind" - LOL - Freudian slip mayhaps?

Christopher, you never took the blue pill, I think you define a lot of what is right about humanity, you left your mark on a lot of people, you made a difference. I hope your cancer is operational, if not, maybe we will see you as a zombie clown one day.

Allow me to adjust your analogy as you've missed a few crucial points. We've removed government involvement in the market, so Walmart can no longer profit from tax abatements, billions in taxpayer bailouts, protectionist tariffs, eminent domain, state franchise monopoly privileges, subsidized land and other taxpayer funded subsidies. In fact, laws are no longer structured to create better conditions for corporate charters vs. individuals going into business, because there would be no corporate charters.

There will also no longer be costly licensure requirements, regulatory fees, etc. that currently keep less wealthy business owners from competing or even starting a business to begin with. Walmart also takes advantage of China's authoritarian regime which manipulates the market and forces its people to work in bad conditions under the threat of violence. Workers make up to 70% less than they should, which is the only real area you'd have to compete with. But! Being that more local companies could compete with a local Walmart (given the examples above), more companies like yours would open, thus creating more jobs. A little economics 101 here: The more jobs, the higher the wages. The more companies, the higher the competition, thus the lower the cost of goods and services. And given more options and better wages, people wouldn't need to shop at Walmart and probably would choose a store like yours.

Eventually a huge hierarchal company like Walmart would have to reduce themselves to something smaller, because competition would slowly edge them out. The world we live in today would be absolutely transformed. That's your happier picture, and it's 100% plausible.