>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

5th amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Fixed for you

5th amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Congratulations! Your video, Jeopardy Like a Boss! - Double True Daily Doubles, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 27 Badge!

Your video, Jeopardy Like a Boss! - Double True Daily Doubles, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Like it's never been done before like a BAWSS.>> ^rottenseed:

how to "borrow" from reddit...LIKE A BAWSS

I got both questions correct--but no way I'd have the balls to bet it all--twice.

I'd be sure to pull a Cliff Claven.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm going to argue it in a different way and see if it changes your opinion.

I believe the war is maintained not for our safety, not for other nations safety, not to catch terrorists, not to prevent anything, but to directly funnel money into corporate pockets and in turn the very same people who support the war going on via donations and lobbyists.

Now, these same people are more than willing to cut benefits of teachers, government unions, and also seem to keep bringing up social security/medicare/medicaid. Plus the other myriad of programs they want to cut or eliminate........or PRIVATIZE, which is their word for turning public facilities to private gains that the government still has to pay for but has a company squatting over taking profits off the top of everything.

Now, here's where my other argument comes in. What if the tax rate was high enough on every person in these little "money circle jerks" that they couldn't keep enough of it to make it worthwhile and still bribe/donate to people?

I mean look at the ForaTV top15 video right now where he says in the 50s people making over 200k were taxed at 91 percent, so that would basically mean that making 2 million today would be the cut off for the sub 91 percent rate.

It would mean that people getting bribed and making in excess of a million dollars would need more bribe money to get the same benefit. It would mean people doing the bribing would have less money to bribe with.

I mean let's put it this way:

If you were working a job making 100 grand a year. New tax law comes in and now they want to take 75% of earnings after 100 grand. It would effectively make it so that you earning more money at your job would result in almost no benefit to you, so now money is off the table as an effective bargaining tool to use with you. That leaves other things to take into consideration when the money can't really be factored in anymore, and for politicians the only other things I can imagine as bargaining tools would be giving them houses/cars/etc and offering them jobs after their political career.....where they would be limited by the tax rates on their earnings. It'd make me a lot less willing to be a dirtbag if I could only make 1 million dollars versus the 60 some odd million some of these CEOs are getting without the majority of it being taken in taxes.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^messenger:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.

This is the part I don't understand. Yes, there are services that are useful, but the majority of what they spend their money on are immoral things I disagree with that put our lives in jeopardy over here. Wars and occupation have made us less safe. I don't care that they spend some of the money on things I agree with. They spend the most of it on things I don't.
I voluntarily support the ACLU, but if they started drowning kittens, I'd most likely pull my money from them. This is the ideological discussion we should be having about government right now. They're spending more than we as the people can afford and yet both parties are refusing to cut defense spending.
If we cut a large portion of our defense spending (the portion that puts us in overseas entanglements) we might be able to balance the budget and cut income tax completely. Why aren't we having that discussion instead of being defeatists about what the government will cut? Because people in favor of raising taxes are scared that cutting income tax may lead to less entitlement programs, so they're willing to bomb people over it. That's why.

yes, you could get really creative with the searches. or you could be wasting hella time.
I really dig what google is doing, altho i'm of the same mind when it comes to the IBM Jeopardy computer that did a better job at recovering trivia than the other candidates.
higher intelligence is something else. but i'm stoked nonetheless

>> ^messenger:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

So you understand there's a deficit, and the only way to reduce it is increase income (taxes), and/or reduce spending (cuts). Take a look at where the spending cuts are going to come from, and then decide if you want those cuts to be made. Cronyism, imperialism, war and all those other things we both hate are what the government does for fun. Until a true statesman is elected, they're never going to be cut. So what will get cut instead? Things that actually benefit the people living in the country. I'm not American so I don't know what your federal government provides in that regard, but either you're glad those services exist and are happy to pay for them with your taxes, or you need to include them in the list of things you'd like to have cut.


This is the part I don't understand. Yes, there are services that are useful, but the majority of what they spend their money on are immoral things I disagree with that put our lives in jeopardy over here. Wars and occupation have made us less safe. I don't care that they spend some of the money on things I agree with. They spend the most of it on things I don't.

I voluntarily support the ACLU, but if they started drowning kittens, I'd most likely pull my money from them. This is the ideological discussion we should be having about government right now. They're spending more than we as the people can afford and yet both parties are refusing to cut defense spending.

If we cut a large portion of our defense spending (the portion that puts us in overseas entanglements) we might be able to balance the budget and cut income tax completely. Why aren't we having that discussion instead of being defeatists about what the government will cut? Because people in favor of raising taxes are scared that cutting income tax may lead to less entitlement programs, so they're willing to bomb people over it. That's why.

Searching religion and cats got me this sad piece of knowledge:

Beginning in the 11th century, tolerance for cats began to decrease in Europe for religious reasons, and “by the 13th century the church viewed witches as real and cats as instruments of the devil” (Lynnlee, p. 20). Dante (1265–1321), for example, mentioned cats only once in his work and compared them to demons. From the 14th century well into the 18th century, cats were regularly killed on specific religious holidays. “By the late 15th century the persecution of cats and witches was a mainstay of European society. . . . The 15th and 16th centuries are almost devoid of any cat literature and art. . . . During this period the cat still was used to control rodents, but it was rarely seen as a pet, for if so its existence and that of its owner were in jeopardy” (Lynnlee, p. 21). Cats became especially associated with heretical religious sects, such as the Waldensians and Manichaeans, and members of these sects were accused of worshiping the Devil in the form of a black cat.

On feast days all over Europe, as a symbolic means of driving out the Devil, they were captured and tortured, tossed onto bonfires, set alight and chased through the streets, impaled on spits and roasted alive, burned at the stake, plunged into boiling water, whipped to death, and hurled from the tops of tall buildings, all in an atmosphere of extreme festive merriment. (Serpell JA, The domestication and history of the cat, in Turner DC and Bateson P, eds, The Domestic Cat, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 156).

"At Metz, for example, on “cat Wednesday” during Lent, 13 cats were placed in an iron cage and publicly burned; this ritual took place each year from 1344 to 1777" (Kete K, The Beast in the Boudoir, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, p. 119).

(http://www.stanleyresearch.org/dnn/LaboratoryofDevelopmentalNeurovirology/ToxoplasmosisSchizophreniaResearch/IAllaboutCats/tabid/173/Default.aspx)


Great, as if we needed more reasons to hate religion...

Why?

I do have a distaste for the free markets where higher profits = the only business ethics that exist. And I'm simply more distrusting of corporations than I am of my own government.

There is a bit of a conflict of interest there no matter who you favor though because of the lobbying that goes on in Washington. Laws created because of lobbyists, as a general rule I find, tend to not favor the people or the liberty you hold so dear. And therein lies the problem that I have with a lot of libertarian ideology in general.

The more markets and businesses are unregulated the more freedom and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Allow me to use privatized prisons as an example of what I mean: Prisons run as businesses have no incentives to decrease their prison population. They trade the cost of doing business for quality rehabilitation.

From this study by The University of Chicago and Harvard:

Prisons seem to Žt reasonably well into our framework. Although
in some respects prison contracts are very detailed, they
are still seriously incomplete. There are signiŽcant opportunities
for cost reduction that do not violate the contracts, but that, at
least in principle, can substantially reduce quality. Moreover,
from the available evidence we have the impression that the
world may not be far from the assumptions of Proposition 4.
First, the welfare consequences of quality deterioration might be
of the same magnitude as those of cost reduction
------------------------------------------------

I'm all for free markets, but the government needs to be there to protect the rights of the people whenever appropriate.

Now when it comes to the Republican party as a whole, generally they support de-regulation as long as it doesn't meet of the following criteria: something the religious right wants done OR something that guarantees rights/money to private institutions.

However, those don't seem like the kind's of things that Ron Paul would support, so I would support him to counterbalance their, in my opinion, insane ideas about how we should run this country.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wow. I'm a bit shocked, I have to admit. Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality

Would be the first Republican I would vote for.

The US is not in jeopardy of keeping up with interest payments on the debt, fiscally anyway. We have a faction in one party who has threatened to do it to make a political point.

>> ^srd:

>> ^heropsycho:
Ugh... let's take the example of the typical American. Is someone in horrible financial shape if they owe more than they earn in a year? No.
Hate this crap...

Someone is in horrible financial shape if he can't keep up with the interest on his loan (3:45 onwards).

Ah blankfist, I can always count on you to downvote my comments. Sometimes I just sit and watch the little "negative one" pop up. I sing the Jeopardy theme song while I wait. "Ding," there it is.

What bothers you about what I wrote? Did I say something untrue?

Or maybe too true and you don't like it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jeopardy, kids week, neil, confidence, stammer, July 7 2011' to 'jeopardy, kids week, neil, confidence, stammer, July 7 2011, oh darn' - edited by calvados

Saving someone's life IS great, and wonderful. It is not automatically heroic. That depends on how the life was saved. A guy who throws himself on a grenade to save the lifes of his comrades is heroic. A paramedic saving someone's life on a very normal situation, is not heroic at all. It should be respected, and valued, but it's not heroic. However, a paramedic trying to save someone shot, in a crossfire, is indeed a hero.

Basically, if your life was not in jeopardy (directly or indirectly) you're not a hero for saving someone's life.

edit: wait, that's not right actually. If there's no self-sacrifice involved, you're not a hero. It shouldn't need to be at the cost of your own life. Let's say someone who gives away absolutely everything they have to try and help others. That's a hero as well.

edit 2: Oh, and today I ate some donuts, so yeah, I'm a god damn hero!