I'm pretty sure dag was both drunk crying when he wrote this. I can just envision his tear stained keyboard and Aussie accent. That's so lame... I love you guys too. You guys not might know this but I tend to think of myself as a one man wolf pack...

Dang it, now I'm crying.

Just hook us all up into the matrix why don't ya!!

Schmidt, chief CEO of the wonderful entity envisions Big Google Brother's future....

".....At the Techonomy conference in 2010, Eric Schmidt predicted that "true transparency and no anonymity" is the way forward for the internet: "In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it." He also said that "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"

What threats, motherfucker?? Thanks anyway INGSOC, I can handle alleged threats myself.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@Stormsinger whatever system you're envisioning seems to me like a common fantasy of underestimating the complexities of society. I invite you to rethink your idea of a society with economic freedom, because it's definitely not Somalia, an uncivilized society ruled by criminals has no freedoms.

No state regulation doesn't mean less regulation. Instead of coming from above in the form of laws, regulation would come from the people and however they decide to organize themselves to deal with anything they perceive as abuses in the economy, without resorting to force. State only comes in to enforce contracts and respect for private property.

Yes, there would be failure, bankruptcy, loss, but that's what makes a system alive, adaptable and capable of evolving, as opposed to the static oligarchic power structures we have now. If you think people are stupid and don't care past the end of their noses, wait until they have to pay dearly for their bad decisions. Which doesn't mean I want to live in a cruel and abusive world, I want a society that can learn and react faster and more appropriately to whatever complex problems that may come up. Leaving that job to regulators and central economic planners is painfully inefficient, not to mention anti-capitalistic.

You know why you talk about a system where regulators, which would still have power, would be held responsible for their actions? Because you like responsability, and I like it too. No one should have power and not be held accountable for their actions.

So here's a thought: take the power away from regulators, let people have the power and the responsability: if they use it wisely, they succeed and profit, otherwise they crash and burn. No, I don't like to see people failing either, but forcibly removing failure from society is what leads society itself to fail.

>> ^quantumushroom:

That would be one barrel of oil per illegal PER DIEM.
You libs are experts at crying racism and demanding higher taxes. National defense, stable prosperous economies, job creation, crime control, etc., not so much.
Everylib: "Someone else will pay for undocumented workers' crime and welfare drain."

P.S. 'Someone else' is YOU, Doltholomew!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Shit Michael Savage is dumb. That program would literally last all of two days.
The United States consumes 7 millions barrel per day.
There are only about 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico at last count, 18 million tops.
Hah, And those were pre-economic collapse numbers.
Not to mention the mass exodus that took place after all the new Arizona SB 1070 type laws were enacted in multiple states.
How to be Conservative Radio Host 101: Say the most incendiary, convoluted scenario that comes to mind.
Make bank on all the Pinheads like QM that crave ignorance and hate.
>> ^quantumushroom:
"I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."
SAVAGE.




Mexican workers are costing the US taxpayer half a trillion dollars a year??!!!
At $100/ barrel / worker / day it's about that annually..
For that money we could invade them and take ALL their oil!
Quick give QM a badge!!

That would be one barrel of oil per illegal PER DIEM.

You libs are experts at crying racism and demanding higher taxes. National defense, stable prosperous economies, job creation, crime control, etc., not so much.

Everylib: "Someone else* will pay for undocumented workers' crime and welfare drain."


* P.S. 'Someone else' is YOU, Doltholomew!


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Shit Michael Savage is dumb. That program would literally last all of two days.
The United States consumes 7 millions barrel per day.
There are only about 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico at last count, 18 million tops.
Hah, And those were pre-economic collapse numbers.
Not to mention the mass exodus that took place after all the new Arizona SB 1070 type laws were enacted in multiple states.
How to be Conservative Radio Host 101: Say the most incendiary, convoluted scenario that comes to mind.
Make bank on all the Pinheads like QM that crave ignorance and hate.
>> ^quantumushroom:
"I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."
SAVAGE.

Shit Michael Savage is dumb. That program would literally last all of two days.

The United States consumes 7 millions barrel per day.
There are only about 12 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico at last count, 18 million tops.

Hah, And those were pre-economic collapse numbers.
Not to mention the mass exodus that took place after all the new Arizona SB 1070 type laws were enacted in multiple states.

How to be Conservative Radio Host 101: Say the most incendiary, convoluted scenario that comes to mind.

Make bank on all the Pinheads like QM that crave ignorance and hate.
>> ^quantumushroom:

"I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."
SAVAGE.

"I envision an Oil for Illegals program. . .The president should demand one barrel of oil from Mexico for every illegal alien that sneaks into our country."

SAVAGE.

and regardless of whether White Supremecists like to piggy back on states rights issues, the fact remains that the initial balance of power between federal and states (not too mention between the 3 branches of fed gov) as vaguely envisioned by the framers, has been rather seriously fucked.

and

@aurens

indeed, our constitution is incapable of handling complex modern issues never contemplated by the framers. This is all too clear in the recent SOPA issue.
It is thus prone to the best "interpretation" money can buy.

@ghark, at least there is permeability of the soil. Better than concrete everywhere....

Although sad to know that no one will sit as envisioned by the architects.

Chilaxe, sometimes you scare me. Sometimes I think you would favor a "final solution". Maybe I'm not creative enough to envision how you solve these problems you outline with useless eaters without extermination.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

It's there. You just have to photoshop out the italian subtitles that cover the english subtitles.... yeah.

Anyone else think that when they animate a distinct Sunday Comics character, the result never seems to sound like you envision it should?

Shenanigans are certainly a problem when they crop up. In 2000 it seemed all of it had to do with attempts to not count ballots by valid voters, and none of it to do with people voting under false names, so voter ID wouldn't protect us from that.

But I don't understand your claim that the electoral college lessens the problem of shenanigans, it actually amplifies it. Because a truly massive scale of fraud is required to sway an election by popular vote when there are 100 million voters, but a much smaller scale is needed when it comes down to a few counties in a single swing state.

Honestly, the absolute biggest problem with the electoral college is the fact that entire states are forced to vote as a block. Even if we were to keep the electoral college in place, complete with enhanced voting power for small states, we could still improve it tremendously by just having each state distribute it's electoral votes by the proportion that went to each candidate. Then you still wouldn't see legal battles that could sway entire states, but you would see third party candidates like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader actually pick up some votes.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Anyone that thinks the popular vote is a better system than the electoral college needs to have a serious re-think. Did you like the 2000 election? Hope so, because if you nuke the EC then that's what you'll have EVERY election. There is so much fraud, inaccuracy, abuse, and shenanigans that happen with the popular vote that it is quite impossible - just from simple logistics - to have a clean popular vote. Unless you set up a voter ID system that require photo ID and several other methods to ensure there isn't ballot shenanigans, then it would be a complete fiasco.
The brass tacks are that the federal government has become too powerful. It was never meant to be as big, as expensive, and as influential as it currently is. The primary governance was supposed to be at the state and local level. The electoral college is only important now because the federal government has exploded into a monster that the FFs never envisioned. If you want to fix all this, then cut the federal government across the board by 50%. Butcher it like a hog and return power to the states. Then you can vote in your state and local elections and make a difference, and just elect some pathetic loser to the federal office and ignore them because they have little or no power to do anything.

Anyone that thinks the popular vote is a better system than the electoral college needs to have a serious re-think. Did you like the 2000 election? Hope so, because if you nuke the EC then that's what you'll have EVERY election. There is so much fraud, inaccuracy, abuse, and shenanigans that happen with the popular vote that it is quite impossible - just from simple logistics - to have a clean popular vote. Unless you set up a voter ID system that require photo ID and several other methods to ensure there isn't ballot shenanigans, then it would be a complete fiasco.

The brass tacks are that the federal government has become too powerful. It was never meant to be as big, as expensive, and as influential as it currently is. The primary governance was supposed to be at the state and local level. The electoral college is only important now because the federal government has exploded into a monster that the FFs never envisioned. If you want to fix all this, then cut the federal government across the board by 50%. Butcher it like a hog and return power to the states. Then you can vote in your state and local elections and make a difference, and just elect some pathetic loser to the federal office and ignore them because they have little or no power to do anything.

Dude, look, part of why this country is where it is quite frankly is people blanket refuse to actually think about the issues. I know that's been the case for a lot of people, but it's getting to the point that every political "discussion" turns into a shouting match of "YOU'RE A COMMIE LIBERAL!" and "YOU'RE A FASCIST CONSERVATIVE!"

I got called a flaming liberal because I dared to say the current economic crisis is not Obama's fault. I got called a right-winger the very same day because I said Obama has lacked clear leadership, and has failed in making fundamental change when we desperately needed it.

How can we ever get anywhere if everyone is shouting at each other? This kind of crap doesn't help!

I totally understand why the Democrats would release this kind of ad. It makes sense for them. But we as Americans in general should be smart enough to know it's BS and dismiss it, but we don't.

Here's a slam dunk of the BS in that ad. Romney's vision for the US is a decimated middle class?! WTFBBQ is that?! Look, I understand you believe his policies would result in that, but he believes his policies would have the opposite effect. I even agree with you that I think his policies would do more to hurt the middle class than help. BUT... he doesn't envision a decimated middle class. He doesn't want a decimated middle class. It's just ridiculous.