Government's spend money to get into space for one reason only, the military advantage it provides. It means the capability to hit a target anywhere on the planet, and it's the entire reason that the cold war states ever started the space race. The race to the moon was just an extension of that. The important technology being the ability to get the heaviest object possible into orbit, again with major military implications as even just a hunk of rock in orbit is a serious weapon.

The lag of space exploration and advances has been the same. The military advantages are tapped out and there's no good reason to go much further, so funding is short.

i would like to see the heaviest pole dancer that wins competions (no seriously, i would).

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.
If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.
The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have costs cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?
Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).
Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.





>> ^messenger:
There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.





You are aware that deregulation of the market is what cussed the current economic climet ?

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.

That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.

Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.

But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.

Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.

If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.

The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have cost cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?

Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).

Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.











>> ^messenger:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.

Lots of atheists are spiritual; they simply do not believe in God, or the common concept of a singular, all powerful, all knowing super being.

Yes, I have read a good percentage of atheists pray. So who or what are they praying to and what do they expect as a response? Also, where does a spirit come from if not from God?

No. A person only has to say "show me your god" and if you can't do that, then they can rationally deduce that your god does not exist.

Whether you consider it reasonable or rational to reject a persons claim about God because they cannot provide photographs isn't the point. The point is, to categorically state there is no God is a faith based claim because you would need to be omniscient to say that definitively.

Don't hang the Holocaust on the atheists. That's a real cheap shot. Atheists had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Holocaust was perpetrated by people who believed in God, and believed that He justified their actions for the "greater good."

I wasn't attempting to hang it on anyone, but if you want to argue about it, Hitler wasn't religious:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Your claim of an "absolute morality" is itself a relative concept in the sense that it is your definition of an absolute morality versus somebody else's.

Unless it is enforced by an authority, it will always be relative.

The Golden Rule is a form of morality that has nothing to do with a belief in God.

Doing the right thing should always take into account "the greater good" for all mankind and our world; that does not require a belief in God.

What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.

What a fucknut.

On a serious note, how is this happening? I can't believe she doesn't know the damage she's doing to herself. It seems the goal of getting the heaviest person record is her way of rationalising it. Her justification of her eating.

I think she has a mental issue and should be being helped to stop this.

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

I think this is really well put. I like the idea of a mutebox.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Clearly, we're all opinionated mofos and are going to butt heads.
So yeah, to slow VideoSift's inevitable slide into a niche version of youtube - comments and all - Civility is important.
Since Dag and Lucky probably have more important things to do than babysit, and VideoSift was founded on the principles of self-correcting stewardship or whatnot..
We should find a solution to maintain civility that satisfies both.
All that said, the two best method for returning civility to VideoSift have been suggested by @rottenseed & @lucky760:
      1. Anonymous "flag inappropriate" is a must.
[Tit for tat has been the name of the game on this site for a while, myself included. BoneRemake is just that infuriating sometimes, hah.]
      2. Muting malicious users for a few days is sensible.
[Ten flags by Gold Stars gets you 3 days in the mutebox? Maybe even a new badge to track frequency? Increasing mutebox timeouts of 3,7,11,15 days?]
      3. Crown Stars could be our own CSI!
[Crown users could browse the list of users in the Mutebox in order to help mediate.
We all trust our Crown star members to be honest and somewhat impartial investigators, right? ...right?]
      4. Receiving enough "inappropriate" flags or MuteBox Badge levels summons the heaviest of hitters - @dag & @lucky760
[This insures only the douchey-est of douches are singled out for bannination.
If you don't get the hint to be more civil after 30 or 40 members repeatedly tell you to cut it out, it's clear you didn't join the sift to be a productive part of our community.]
Anywho, that was my 1/5th of a dime.
Peace, bitches trolls and douche bags. = P

Clearly, we're all opinionated mofos and are going to butt heads.

So yeah, to slow VideoSift's inevitable slide into a niche version of youtube - comments and all - Civility is important.

Since Dag and Lucky probably have more important things to do than babysit, and VideoSift was founded on the principles of self-correcting stewardship or whatnot..

We should find a solution to maintain civility that satisfies both.

All that said, the two best method for returning civility to VideoSift have been suggested by @rottenseed & @lucky760:

      1. Anonymous "flag inappropriate" is a must.

[Tit for tat has been the name of the game on this site for a while, myself included. BoneRemake is just that infuriating sometimes, hah.]

      2. Muting malicious users for a few days is sensible.

[Ten flags by Gold Stars gets you 3 days in the mutebox? Maybe even a new badge to track frequency? Increasing mutebox timeouts of 3,7,11,15 days?]

      3. Crown Stars could be our own CSI!

[Crown users could browse the list of users in the Mutebox in order to help mediate.

We all trust our Crown star members to be honest and somewhat impartial investigators, right? ...right?]

      4. Receiving enough "inappropriate" flags or MuteBox Badge levels summons the heaviest of hitters - @dag & @lucky760

[This insures only the douchey-est of douches are singled out for bannination.

If you don't get the hint to be more civil after 30 or 40 members repeatedly tell you to cut it out, it's clear you didn't join the sift to be a productive part of our community.]

Anywho, that was my 1/5th of a dime.

Peace, bitches trolls and douche bags. = P

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Snopes.com

You should add it to speed-dial and also make a bookmark. You seem to always be contrary on any political subject.

Which causes me to believe you're nothing, but a reincarnated troll from Videosift past. If you're trying not to troll, bring up some factual evidence and not semantics. Your quote does NOTHING for this issue other than showing us that you are most likely: a birther, tea-partier, and Donald Trump lover (in just three weeks; you haven't even heard his bad stuff yet--he'll make everyone at the Republican debate look like a saint by comparison, by the time they finish with him)...

He thinks a TV show helps him. Who is he Sarah Palin? Even the hairpiece has a comb-over (forward). Atleast someone like Bruce Willis isn't paranoid about it; he took it in stride and made it a part of him, a strength.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Those who suspect Obama isn't a naturally born citizen by a mile. There's overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Providing a birth certificate won't easily end all speculation. If birthers won't accept the overwhelming facts that prove he was already out there, another piece of paper won't make one ounce of difference. Bill freakin' O'Reilly even dismisses birthers' claims. If this one simple fact can't be accepted by someone, how could you ever have a meaningful debate with them about anything?!

Look, we can debate economic theory all day, but the fact that Trump and other birthers get traction with this crap is absolute idiocy, and points to the acidic partisanship in this country. I used to joke that I bet that if a person from either the left or right said 1+1=2, the other would swear it didn't. I thought I was being humorously hyperbolic. It's not a joke anymore. That's what exactly is happening here. It's pathetic.

And your platitudes about tax policy don't help either. You're indicting progressive taxation and a basic social safety net. Both have been in place at a basic level since the New Deal, and you're claiming that can't work?! It most certainly can if done right. The US has been the most economically successful nation on earth for the majority of that time. It's basic historical fact you're arguing against to make an ideological point.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Oh yeah. America's economy is in the toilet because half of it is composed of worthless, parasitic bottom feeders 'slurping up entitlements'.

It couldn't be because the biggest corporations are paying less than zero income tax while they outsource jobs overseas, or that Wall Street scammed millions of people out of their retirement funds and homes, or that the Republican party has been puppets of the oil and military industrial complex for decades and has squandered billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to 'make the world a more democratic (read pro-American business) place'.

No, it's definitely the fault of the poor.

Who is crazier:

Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,

or

those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.

I agree with the intent of this video.

Like everyone, I don't want my food prices to go up BUT if they go up, I see the difference and adjust my grocery accordingly. Most people would never notice the package size difference, especially if the package shape is designed to actually look bigger. The fact is, they don't want the consumer to notice so they hide/disguise the idea of the package decrease. Completely dishonest in my opinion. If the commodity price goes up, reflect the price in the product so the consumer can be aware and make purposeful decisions on their product shopping.

I have been very aware of this lately. Here are some examples:

1). Chocolate bars - The new trend is to offer "Slim" chocolate bars (you know, for people who want a more controlled portion size). These chocolate bars sell at the same price as a normal bar but is half the bar.

2). Chocolate Bars again - The other day, I went out to buy a 4-pack of bars (4 family members) at Wal-mart, they were $2.50 for a bag/package. but when I looked at the weights. some brands of bars drastically less. Snickers won the heaviest at about 4.2 while some packs weighed as little as 1.8 - Less product, same price. http://videosift.com/video/Mars-Bar-11-6-Downsize AND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30wsqtiBrVw

3) Restaurants - The Big Mac is roughly half the size it used to be, McDonalds has taken it's "BIG" burger and transformed it into the Lil' Mac - http://videosift.com/video/I-Want-My-BIG-MAC-Back-Super-Shrink-Me

4). Have you been for a Banana Split lately at Dairy Queen? What used to be the headliner treat and the biggest Sunday around has become a joke! The banana split still has three blobs of ice-cream ice-milk with a banana but the toppings have been drastically reduced to a table-spoon of topping on each blob, not even enough to cover the Ice cream.Slightly enemic on the toppings - if you ask for a little extra, be prepared to ad a couple more dollars to the already to high of a price $4.50

Of course, this is in every product - since I do the shopping for my family, I always look at size and weight. Normally, the "Brand Name" always has the smaller package/higher price, while generic and store brands almost always end up the better deal.

While service providers, especially cable, satellite, cell..whether it be voice/data/text/whatever, are posting profits in the billion or more range they do not need to increase their rates. This "it will only affect a small portion of the customers, the heaviest users" argument is great until it doesn't or their definition of "heavy user" changes....or more people become "heavy users" because their definition of "heavy" is 5 years old and everything increases in quality/size/consumption. Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.

As long as they post those profits and don't build out their networks to offer faster, cheaper, better services, they should be regulated even more heavily. Because there is some sort of collusion going on where all the big guys seem to agree that it's in their best interests to not expand but meter their existing services and raise their rates consistently.....to presumably pay for "network improvements" you never see.

And this is ignoring past facts of these guys taking millions and billions of dollars from the tax payers to improve their infrastructure and never doing so, pocketing the money. And now they "can't keep up with the demand" and need more money on top of those previously huge profits to deal with the increased load. But they never say it'll be used to actually make it possible for them to handle the increased load....it's more of a stepping stone to make it so they can continue to use the same old lines, with a much smaller workforce (cheaper!), and make more money.

This is akin to someone having an old wood cabin from the early 1900s, outhouse and all...never updated just maintained as is. And charging you rent equivalent to a up to code modern house might be. And you might say move if you're not happy!....except when you go to look for another place to live..everyone seems to be offering old wood cabins with lower introductory rates but after the first 6 months it's just as expensive to live there. And the modern places are now for "business clients" and corporate/government entities.

Regulate them, require % of profits to be put into replacing the network with better infrastructure, guarantee outages and problems are addressed within 24 hours, resolved within 48 unless extreme conditions apply, rate hikes are fixed and must be justified (if it's increased inflation, make it actually be the rate of inflation, not just some made up amount to increase profits), unbundle offerings (I don't watch many of the channels they bundle...if I don't watch any of the channels they buy in a bundle then don't make me pay for that bundle. If there's one channel I like in a bundle, then let me choose whether or not I buy that particular bundle or not.)

And if they don't want to be regulated, make it possible for people to actually compete against them. The way it's setup now is just ripe for them to rape their customer base. They won't be forced to change until their network is so bad people get more speed out of alternatives.

One time I went bowling with a socially awkward friend who didn't go out much. He's a big guy, so to prove he's a big guy he took the heaviest ball he could find. His third frame he took an enormous "backswing" and accidentally let go of the ball @ 45 degrees angled back. The ball flew straight back, missing a woman's head by about six inches and hit the steps behind the lane denting the metal stair runner and knocking the carpet loose. He didn't even look behind him as it happened.

He then calmly walked to the middle of the lane, took a ball belonging to someone else, and rolled a strike.

I never took him bowling again.