^ I'm always careful not to be too quick to listen to advice that incorporates evidence starting with "One study showed that..." because I don't know anything about that study, what their aim was or what the variables measured were. Sure, being sustainable doesn't mean being anti-global, but when I bicycle down the street and buy eggs from the neighbor's free range hens, I doubt their is any Carbon competitive source that would stand up against that.

'S why I pay extra for cage-free, free range eggs. Not cruelty-free by any means, but there's certainly much less cruelty.

I'm with you, Throbbin. It's important to keep in mind the costs of what we eat.

And yes, that does mean cutting back on meat and dairy. But that's something most Americans should do anyway; we eat too much of them, and it's bad for most people's health.

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^Grimm:
I believe they said they were finding "safer shelters" for everyone that lived there so it's not like they just kicked them out to be assholes.

u are an idiot if you think that is what they said.

u are an idiot if you think that is NOT what they said. It's right at the 1:37 mark...doesn't matter if you believe them or not...that is what they said.

>> ^joedirt:
Most homeless do not like to live in those especially in the summer for a lot of reasons. First of all, you must carry ID, secondly, you have to obey all their rules and curfews, and no alcohol and no privacy and no pets and almost no belongings.

Yeah..being homeless sucks...and your point is what?


>> ^joedirt:
It's bullshit about safer shelter, it just means they are locking them out of thsi one, and they have to find somewhere else.


I must have missed the memo that the homeless get free range in our cities to convert what ever place they find into a home. If they don't want to use a public shelter that's their choice...but it also doesn't mean they get to camp whereever they want without getting hassled.

I love the hypocrites in the Republican party. When they have no political power, they speak of the virtues of thrift and freedom. When they get power, they act like socialists. Where the hell was all this stuff when Bush was bailing out companies, giving the Fed free range, running trillion dollar deficits, having war adventures like Vietnam, signing a totally unrealistic 9 trillion dollar prescription drug bill ontop of what was already underfunded by 20 trillion? Why is today in danger of being socialism? Derr, we've been socialist for a long time. No one believes you are sincere anymore in your rhetoric, Republicrat dickweeds. See: government expansion in the last umpteen presidencies.

Free-range cougar!

A hobbling is not a ban, it is a precaution that you do not misuse your privileged powers. I did not ban you and I am not calling for your ban, but that siftquisition was indeed frivolous and my actions were to protect the sift from your potential destruction.

I would rather hobble a thousand men, then to let one go on a discard spree or something similar, so I am overzealous. It's not like it's not reversible. But like I said in the post to you and in the siftqusition post I just locked you down for an admin to make the call. if by my actions I hurt the sift, or your precious feelings, then I'm sure the community and/or admins would admonish me, so far that has not happened.

http://www.videosift.com/poll/Siftquisition-of-Member-peggedbea

Some here post concerns about your hobbling, but the main reason is that you used your powers bad, not that you two had personal attacks with each other. Like EDD writes, if we hobbled for every little personal attack, however mild-mannered, there would be few users left. We have almost completely free range in our comments, but once the site is misused like this, it's another ball game.

I do not harbor any animosity towards you, thinker, but I fear you are burning out like choggie did. But sure, unhobble all you like, it was merely an example that had to be set. (I had by no means intended for it to be permanent.)

upvote for "free range embryos"

>> ^BansheeX:
Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please?

Force of habit, I'm used to bumping heads with Republicans, and rarely do Libertarians preach about the need to restrict the power of corporations to infringe on people's individual rights. Most just talk about the tyranny of regulation, and often go so far as to debate the necessity of OSHA, USDA and even the FTC (which seems to have faded from existence in my lifetime).

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

Not to lean too heavily on an appeal to authority, but are you saying there's something about Austria in the Great Depression that disproves the underpinnings of what 90% of economists believe? Shouldn't someone at Universities around the world be notified?

I'm just reacting to the insistence that there's something fundamentally flawed with liberal philosophy. Usually that "something flawed" is that "socialism doesn't work" or "the free market fixes everything" or some other nonsensical absolute assertion.

For example, you said I don't understand which powers of government are "justified" and which ones aren't. That's not true, we just have a different concept of what's justified.

You also questioned whether or not I'd go along with letting the government have and use a hypothetical mind control device -- and of course I'd be opposed to such a thing. I'm all for protecting individual rights, and limiting government's power over the individual, I just don't think free markets are always the best way to fulfill every need in society, merely most of them.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

I agree on that issue, that there's abuse of the power that needs to stop, but I don't think the solution is to remove government power to ban products.

I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything.

That's easy: show a schedule of payments to potential purchasers, so they know what their obligations will be with regards to the loan.

There's differing opinions out there about who's at fault for the crisis, but part of the problem did start with predatory lending practices, motivated by the hunger for those mortgage backed securities.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money.

Actually, since we're still under the auspices of the Bush administration, it's mostly going to help out banks who leveraged themselves to invest in mortgage backed securities. Regular people who got screwed by predatory lending are having to get by with the scraps the Democrats can attach to the legislation.

I know it's all socialism to you, but to me there's a vast difference in those things.

Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for.

I agree with the assessment of the current situation, it does seem like we're putting off the inevitable. I'm a cynic though, I think they want to make sure the next President gets the big market crash, and they're intentionally delaying things for that purpose, even at the risk of making that crash worse.

And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain [snip]

That's exactly how I see it too, and I couldn't be more happy at the thought of a new FDR-style administration, I just hope we don't have another Great Depression and World War to go with it.

Quite the discussion of economic philosophy, in the comments on a video of Obama talking about Republicans being pridefully ignorant on energy.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please")

No, I define socialism for what it is: any government which controls over 50% of its capital. We are extremely close to that and it's a major problem. Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please? Gimme a break, companies in a truly free market are forced to follow the law and compete in a fair environment or be taken to court. The enablements of inflation, subsidies, and specialized tax breaks erode that fairness. Without that, companies would have only one legitimate way to make money: to convince you to buy their product over their competitor's. And to pay its workers by outbidding its competition and getting you to agree on a price. Oh, the horror! And not even the highest paid lawyers in the world can win cases on outright false advertising and malpractice.


>> ^NetRunner:
^There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

>> ^NetRunner:
^My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.

I don't think that's going to fly, because no one would know if you were voluntarily doing it or somehow coerced or tricked into doing it. But fundamentally, you're right, people own their own bodies, and that means they are free to inflict themselves with drugs, kill themselves, whatever. If our technology comes to a point where the government is capable of manipulating your body into not doing something with some kind of field under the pretense of protecting you, will you allow them this ability? Or are you smart enough to realize that the power will be abused and incur ultimate costs far greater than the benefits?

>> ^NetRunner
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.

Wrong, misrepresentation or not honoring a verbal or contractual agreement is the equivalent of theft. The transaction is not complete until both parties receive what they contractually agreed upon. If some person in Negeria tells you you won a prize and you pay them the collection fee, and they give you no prize, that is an unlawful appropriation of property and an infringement of rights. Not a freely acceptable activity under a libertarian free market, because the federal government has legitimate duties to protect people from infringements of rights and offer a means of recourse through the courts. See, this is the problem. You don't even understand the few government powers that ARE justified, you're so wrapped up in its "regulatory" extensions!

>> ^NetRunner:
^Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.

Ummm, arson is destruction property you don't own. Rights derive from property, if you don't own it, you can't take or break it with impunity in a system that protects from such infringements.

>> ^NetRunnerAfter all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

>> ^NetRunnerThose sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.


I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything. You can't slam your finger in the car door and sue the automaker for not explaining the risks of doors to you. Likewise, if you are speculating on home appreciation and taking a non-standard loan, I have ZERO sympathy for you if you didn't read the paperwork and ask questions beforehand. Many of these people lied about their incomes to get mortgages on homes they knew they couldn't afford, but thought would pay for themselves.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for. Yes, that's a painful process, just like a junkie from a high, but you have to come down from it, not shoot up with more heroin until you kill the dollar.See, that's the market's automatic way of healing itself. BUT IT ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. We're getting more intervention, full of moral hazard from socialized losses and a systemic destruction of natural deterrents (why would I keep saving prudently if I lose and a speculator wins? Why would banks stop being taking risks if the government will always spare them true consequence?).

But tell me, how many politicians are going to win an election saying that pain is necessary? Zero. They're going to play to people's ignorance and gravy train optimism and propose an easy government solution. And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain as well.

And I just want to say thank god that you didn't know any myths about gold, because I'm tired of writing today, but I see jwray made up for that. *sigh*

..and how sustainable is all this? I mean, do they have their own free range ostrich farm and renewable energy sources?

Love those collections.......less clutter, even if you have to go to youtube and watch all of it........Come to whoever'spage at whatube.gov, Free range hens!!

I love living in Portland. The supermarkets I shop at have organic, locally grown, free range, fresh, whole grain, good food and a high turn over rate so fresh things are new that day. Whole Foods and New Seasons are the best, but also most of the stores like Safeway and Fred Meyer have as much as good food as health food stores I have seen in other parts of the country. And remember, low fat is not always good, at least when it says it on the label. Just as the sugar in fresh fruit is good and the sugar in jam or cake is bad, there is good fat and bad fat. Fresh fat, like raw avocado, cold butter and cold pressed oils that have never been heated or cooked with, are part of a healthy diet. And just as there are essential amino acids, there are essential fatty acids. You need about as much good fat as you need protein, it is just harder to find good fat.

I think if you eat meet then you should be propaird to kill it. as long as you eat what u kill then its all good. i think if everyone had to hunt there own meat then there would be alot more vegitareans out there and a lot less fat people. + less creatuers would die and everyhting would be free range

Sweet looking flick. Anime violence is awesome for its no-holds-barred smattering of Aliens, no gravity laws, slow-mo blood effects and overall just free range, not chickens, VIOLENCE!

Small chicks can fall from any height without being injured. Their terminal velocity is really low and they are really bouncy. It does look a little harsh and not like a nice place to be born. But if you don't want that, buy free range chicken products.