>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I learn so much about what I believe when I talk with you. And here I thought I wanted to reform our election system so that corporations could not so easily subvert the democratic process. And here I thought I wanted to reform our economic system so that corporations were held responsible for their actions and not allowed to siphon and hoard societal wealth. Who knew that I was such a fan of the global corporate empire? And who knew that removing all barriers to corporate wealth and power would result in liberty? It sounds so unintuitive and absurd on it's face that I would not have believed it had I not learned it from someone in possession of such formidable mental prowess. Your advanced wisdom is truly indistinguishable from magic. Expecto Patronum Mano Invisablo!

That's twice now you've put words in my mouth or argued I position I didn't make. And you have the gall to pretend I'm misrepresenting you? LOL

Keep ignoring the core of the corruption. And keep supporting Wall Street solutions to Wall Street created problems. It's worked beautifully so far.

>> ^rgnjc:

Health insurance is clearly not the same as college. With higher education you volunteer to pay X amount of dollars to get an education per year that is optional. Considering there are literally thousands of options in this country to choose from, CHOOSE ONE THAT WORKS FOR YOUR BUDGET! Consider buying a car, certainly we all don't go out and buy lamborghini's...instead we buy Toyota Corolla's and Ford Focus's...something that is more fiscally realistic. I wouldn't go buy a lamborghini and have the gall to sit here and complain about the price when there are better options.
Health insurance is different, and I don't care to talk about that, that's not the point of this thread.

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^rgnjc:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TUITION DON'T GO THERE! Find another school that fits your fiscal requirements, moron.

THIS! So succinct!
Hey, while I got ya here... It doesn't look like my medical insurance will pay even a third what they payed the first time, should I relapse. I'm not rich and, admittedly, I'm kind of a moron, so what should I do if that happens? Find another insurance company, or find another disease? Two seemingly impossible solutions... should I desire to live, but I just bet you can help me.



Except at some point, writing your degree on a paper napkin probably carries more weight that the low budget degrees. Or, I have 2 grand, my car options would be something that needs a lot of work and additional money invested or an extreme high mileage vehicle that has a good maintenance record but let's face it after some point on mileage maintenance or not something is going to happen...severity dependant. Or I borrow or otherwise go beyond my means in hopes that it will give me a reliable car that will get me to where I want to go but have no warranty, and then the transmission goes out and the dealership wants nearly what the car is worth to fix it. So I face having no car or going even further beyond my means to hopefully continue to keep my reliable car on track and get my invested money back out of it. I think that more accurately represents the school situation for that guy. You can't just go to another school and hope they transfer every credit 1:1....depending on where you are in your degree you might get boned out of many credits you otherwise would have kept had you not switched schools/programs.

And I'd argue the "optional" portion of a higher education when jobs that SHOULDNT require them, do. It's either tradeschool or college unless you like digging ditches, collecting trash or some other unskilled workforce area. And that's not a bash on those jobs, in fact I think most of those unskilled jobs should pay more than a teachers salary...because a lifetime of those utterly destroys your body. Be lucky if you don't need back surgery by 50 if you do hard manual labor from 18 on up.

Health insurance is clearly not the same as college. With higher education you volunteer to pay X amount of dollars to get an education per year that is optional. Considering there are literally thousands of options in this country to choose from, CHOOSE ONE THAT WORKS FOR YOUR BUDGET! Consider buying a car, certainly we all don't go out and buy lamborghini's...instead we buy Toyota Corolla's and Ford Focus's...something that is more fiscally realistic. I wouldn't go buy a lamborghini and have the gall to sit here and complain about the price when there are better options.

Health insurance is different, and I don't care to talk about that, that's not the point of this thread.


>> ^Fletch:

>> ^rgnjc:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TUITION DON'T GO THERE! Find another school that fits your fiscal requirements, moron.

THIS! So succinct!
Hey, while I got ya here... It doesn't look like my medical insurance will pay even a third what they payed the first time, should I relapse. I'm not rich and, admittedly, I'm kind of a moron, so what should I do if that happens? Find another insurance company, or find another disease? Two seemingly impossible solutions... should I desire to live, but I just bet you can help me.

Better read again, because the articles do discuss equivalent jobs. But – because I anticipate (and compensate) for your laziness in advance…

http://blog.american.com/2011/07/the-value-of-public-sector-job-security/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/group-says-ill-state-workers-paid-more-than-private-sector-peers/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/downloads/2011/09/BRT-Public-Sector-Comp-Study.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-05/news/fl-jscol-pensions-salaries-public-smith-1005-20111005_1_private-sector-government-workers-salaries
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf

I implore that just once you attempt to penetrate the callus of propaganda that buries your free-thought. Public workers are not underpaid. They are – in fact – paid notably more than private sector equivalents.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages

So the public should have to pay for the bad deals made in bad faith by unelected union scalps collaborating with politicians behind closed doors to arrange unrealistic benefits packages in exchange for power, labor dues, and votes? Nope. Not buying it. The public had no say in these deals, and therefore the public has no obligation to pick up the tab when those lousy deals made by crooks go belly up. Public workers should get mad at thier union mafiosos and the lefties that connive with them - not the private-sector citizens who had nothing to do with it.

77 Billion dollars?

That’s just for federal employees. It deals in no way with the many other areas where the Federal government vastly overspends – defense included.

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock

The 77 billion is just one example out of literally thousands of areas where government overspending is indeed bringing the country to its knees. But – I never said that alone was the reason for the federal government’s budget failures. On the federal level the blame lies almost entirely on entitlement spending – of which federal employees are a significant portion but certainly not all. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the primary offenders there. However, you are ignoring the Illinois example. Illinois’ budget woes are almost entirely due to paying its employee burden of wages, benefits, retirement, and health care. They offer gold plated packages, but don’t have two pennies to rub together.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself

Back atcha, Clyde. A real American wouldn't have anything to do with the commie BS crap you are cheerleading. The fault of everything you’re whining about lies at the feet of the liberals who ran these unions and governments into the ground. And you have the temerity, audacity, and gall to complain about grown-ups and other good folks that have to come in and clean up the filthy mess made by your philosophies? Leftists deserve to be pilloried, tarred and feathered, and then run out of the country on a rail for their bullcrap policies because it is leftists that have ruined these people’s lives. It is leftists who end up crushing the ‘little people’ all in the name of big government socialist policies. Leftists do more to squash human dignity and push more people into poverty, ruin, and oppression than any other philosophy in history. For leftists to gripe about conservatives who have to fix stupid liberal screw-ups in order to save the system from collapse is pretty rich. What's your solution? Oh yeah - tax and spend. The same level of stupid that got us here in the first place. The solution is conservatism which means cutting back - and yes that means on stupid contracts made with evil unions that put unrealistic burdens on the private sector.

Ah yes---own property, as opposed to it owning you. I don't believe one can own property, but I believe it can be claimed by someone.

And as goes the example of positive liberty, of course they can impose it with violence. They can also craft multiple ways around the whole argument by policies that hold down black individuals in other ways (Which they have done so a thousand different ways.) So instead of being out in the open, they are now cloak-and-dagger, which still is better than the old days I suppose.

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...

But no, I read it right then.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.
Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.
From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.
Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.
The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.
That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.

I think you're reading it wrong.

Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.

Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.

From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.

Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.

The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.

That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

>> ^juliovega914:

This type of gear is commonly used so that you can have a gear ratio (mechanical advantage) that is a variable as a function of angle of rotation of the gear. Its difficult to tell just from this video if that is happening in this case (as oppose to simply having a z-constrained contact point, not unlike a helical gear). If the contact point moves from left to right in the x direction (perpendicular to the axles, in the direction from gear center to gear center) the leverage changes and so you can have a regularly variable gear ratio, which is useful for certain applications such as periodic motion generators.
One thing I am sure many of you didn't notice is that the gear on the far right is not touching the center drive gear at all, despite it only being slightly more distant from the drive gear. Indeed it is spinning in the opposite direction while still not interfering with the drive gear. It would take an extremely small axial motion for the drive gear to transfer its torque to the right gear and away from the left, and would likely result in extremely minimal galling and gear damage since the gear is pretty much kept in proper shape. In a standard spur gear, this would require the use of huge numbers of extremely tiny teeth, which anyone who knows their solid mechanics would tell you that they are very weak compared to something like this.


I came back just to upvote your comment, I almost forgot

This type of gear is commonly used so that you can have a gear ratio (mechanical advantage) that is a variable as a function of angle of rotation of the gear. Its difficult to tell just from this video if that is happening in this case (as oppose to simply having a z-constrained contact point, not unlike a helical gear). If the contact point moves from left to right in the x direction (perpendicular to the axles, in the direction from gear center to gear center) the leverage changes and so you can have a regularly variable gear ratio, which is useful for certain applications such as periodic motion generators.

One thing I am sure many of you didn't notice is that the gear on the far right is not touching the center drive gear at all, despite it only being slightly more distant from the drive gear. Indeed it is spinning in the opposite direction while still not interfering with the drive gear. It would take an extremely small axial motion for the drive gear to transfer its torque to the right gear and away from the left, and would likely result in extremely minimal galling and gear damage since the gear is pretty much kept in proper shape. In a standard spur gear, this would require the use of huge numbers of extremely tiny teeth, which anyone who knows their solid mechanics would tell you that they are very weak compared to something like this.

Holy shit this is disgusting. What kind of sick mind thinks this, and actually goes through with it and creates a video like this?

Just... just what horrible, spiteful disgusting crap they are peddling.

'Don't believe their 'lies', come and read our lies, ours are much more scary... and are actual lies, compared to the truths those gays are telling you... fucking gays, with their gayness, having the fucking gall to be happy and fulfilled and actually wanting to live, fuck them all. They should be fearing god and spending the rest of their lives forcefully suppressing their feelings so they can be more in keeping with some old shit's view of religion.'

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

I was an agnostic until I was suddenly given special revelation of Gods existence.
I found out later that this means I am elected, in that God already knew before He made anything that He would create me here and now for His purposes
Some Christians think everyone is elected. I don't, personally.

All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated.

What Dan Savage does isn't sex. It's consensual sodomy. Thats part of what evil does is redefine the meanings of things. The love that two gay men have for eachother is not beautiful, it is repulsive. God does not approve of their union, and they should never be married. What they love is sin, and sin is not beautiful. It is an abomination before the Lord.

fornication is just plainly a sin, and for the reason that sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. You are spiritually joined to whomever you have sex with, forever.
maybe you reprobates can't imagine giving up your carnal lusts because its what you're living for, but that lifestyle is meaningless, sad and no better than what animals do.

Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.

If you care to give an argument that isn't based on hyperbole, I might actually engage you. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish, even if the ignoramouses on this site happen to agree with you. Any objective person who has studied this at length would find your conclusions childish at best.

I find it amusing that atheists like to say they are all great happy loving people who actually do more good works than the average Christian does. LOL This must be your non-neckbearded internet dwelling variety. Not at all the bitter, purile, egotists who love to trash believers at any opportunity that I've experienced. I'm sorry but atheists are terrible people. Immoral, selfish and apathetic to a T. Violent and angry too. Atheists are usually the worst kind of people you could imagine.

I'm not surprised by the bias of the sift, nor the childish behavior of its members..I was interested if anyone here had an inherent sense of fairness and could look past their own bias..but I guess not

Christians love atheists..just because we think you're wrong doesn't mean we don't love you. Atheists on the other hand seem to have nothing but hatred and derision for us..

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant.

I really think passive aggressive people are the worst kind of people besides atheists. Put them together and you've got a front seat to the 7th circle of hell. To me, you might as well be banging rocks together if you don't know you have a soul, or there is a God. People like this are mostly automated because they don't really know how anything works, or that God controls everything.

I don't deride anyone who doesn't believe me, I just happen to know anyone who isn't interested has become self-satisfied with the worldly understanding..which is worthless.

you can always look back on the glory days when you were a talking turd on the internet..

if he wants to be civil and converse like real people instead of rabid animals, I'll be here.


How is it that atheists seem to believe they can just go around and treat someone like garbage and talk down to them like children because they think they're right about something..why is this socially acceptable?

Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle.

You'll get to mock God for a little while and do what you want, until His mercy runs out and He takes you off of this world. You'll be found guilty at the judgement and then you'll join the devil and his angels in the lake of fire. Do you think you'll think it was worth it then? I'm betting not.

If you want to have an actual debate on civilized terms, I'll engage you. I've already answered enough of this bullshit. God is sovereign and can adjudicate His creation as He pleases. He destroyed the entire world in a flood, and that's everyone on the planet except for 8 people or so, and I don't think He was wrong.
Personally, if I was God I probably would have blown this fucking planet up a long time ago.
It's not an atrocity to take a life when you were the one who granted it in the first place and the one who sustained it daily.

What is contemptible, vainglorious and infinitely evil is the desire to disobey God and sin without consequence. Anyone who adovocates that deserves their punishment.

Gay rights? Sinners have no rights, they are a slave to sin. America is becoming more like babylon every day, especially in what it deserves as punishment for its actions.

Apparently homosexual atheists are in force these days.

as usual the sift turns off its brain

I am a highly rational and logical person , who has reasoned these things out to a much deeper level than any of you would be willing to give me credit for

You're entitled to your malformed, tumor-swollen opinion. Mine happens to have biblical justification.

In the context of a bunch of googly eyed mouth breathers saying God doesn't exist, where Satans special little helpers file in to preach their faith, not much is going to come out of this which is positive.

Wow, emote much? See what actually happened here is that you posted a bunch of information that wasn't true (while being rude and childish to boot), and I corrected you. Now, you send me a comment filled with personal attacks and call me immature. I'm guessing you're probably..15? Give me a break. Go do your homework and clean your room while you're at it.

I have better things to do than waste my time arguing on the internet for fun, and it's not fun to argue.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.

You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

The devil was once an ArchAngel who was created faultless,
He was in fact just an arrogant, prideful being who wanted all the power for himself.

One day, people will thank me for opening their mind up to how they've been lied to every day of their life and indoctrinated into a world system thats literally trying to drag them straight to hell.

Satan has you.

You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.



Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.



>> ^shinyblurry:

You think you were sent by God? Try again..
And no, being openly degraded and treated as inhuman isn't something I enjoy. I would rather have a civil conversation any day.

the FUCK did those animals all run in the same place at the same time. The effects are actually pretty bad. The gall to actually try to pass this off as authentic in this day in age is unbelievable.
I mean... look at 0:43 when the guy runs into the bear. It's unbelievably poorly done. It's like someone had an accident with the photoshop clone tool. There's a branch and actual sky in front of the bear.

I'm insulted. You must speak English. If you don't, Videosift will simply cease to exist.

And you have the gall not to bring an interpreter!>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^smooman:
while i certainly dont think speaking the "unofficial" language of america should be a requirement for citizenship, it does say something about the individual who has lived in the states for two decades and still cannot speak english conversationally.
similarly it would be foolish of me to move to mexico (or any non english speaking country for that matter), live, work, and commute for 20 years and still not be able to speak enough spanish to have a conversation with a native
if you ask me, theyre both assholes

Возможно, он может говорить по-английски достаточно хорошо, но не очень хорошо и красноречиво достаточно, чтобы выступить перед сенаторами.

If I lived in Korea for any length of time and were given citizenship, I would consider myself Korean by virtue of my citizenship, and if I were giving a deposition to my government there, I would do it in English and bring an interpreter. It wouldn't require any gall to do so because it's not insulting to anyone who doesn't hate foreigners.

Now if I did it in English without an interpreter, that would show some gall.>> ^Pprt:

I'll throw in the same argument as above: if you have lived in Korea for 25 years and failed to learn the language, would you consider yourself Korean? Would you have the gall to go before a government body and provide testimony that you expect more be done for "your people" in English or French?

The man is a Mestizo because Hispanics looks like this: http://videosift.com/video/Carving-the-Mountains

As for messenger: your complacency is precisely why the West is spiralling into a nonentity.

I'll throw in the same argument as above: if you have lived in Korea for 25 years and failed to learn the language, would you consider yourself Korean? Would you have the gall to go before a government body and provide testimony that you expect more be done for "your people" in English or French?

You have a schitzophrenic faith, my friend. I would call you my brother but it doesn't appear that you know our Lord. It appears that in your picture you are ashamed of your Lord. So allow me to enlighten you for your edification:

The six day creation is literal, it is not allegory. You can tell this simply by the grammar and syntax used. The word for day used is "yom", which appears over 400 times in the bible and only ever refers to a day as a 24 hour period. You may recognize this from "Yom Kippur". Do jews celebrate the day of atonement for millions of years?

The literal account of the 6 day creation also is integral to the ten commandments. We have the Sabbath day as a day of rest because God rested on the 7th day. Do we rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? So already you've called God a liar, you've made the commandments to no effect, which undermines the messiah prophecies..and the entire thing is turned on its head.

We have confirmation from Jesus Christ Himself, that the account is literal. He refers to a literal creation, adam as the first man, the flood and many other OT accounts as fact. You reject that and you reject the testimony of our Lord. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation then you should throw your bible in the garbage because that is what the theory of evolution has filled your head with.

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant. You've had to twist your mind into a pretzal to believe what you do. You've fallen into apostacy because of your lack of faith. Evolution is a stumbling block for you, and will remain so until you trust in the Word of God. Here's my Word for you:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."






>> ^burdturgler:
It's only writing God out of your picture, not mine. The bible is a lot of things, but one thing it was not meant to be was a scientific accounting of anything. I am still perfectly able to love and worship God and yet still understand and accept evolution, so .. you're wrong.
I made my post under the assumption that you were capable of rational thought, but you've proven that that's not the case. I never said anything happened without God, I said understanding what DID happen gives me greater appreciation for God.
Well .. that's two posts now, see you in 2013.