>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@rottenseed you don't need that comma there. (as opposed to "You don't need that comma,[pause] there")
Grammar nazi awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I dont know why I do that I think that I have intentions of writing something else but change my mind or maybe I just dont know how punctuation works youd think as ive been writing with this language such a long time that id have mastered it but I havent so go figure


thats the thing about language and punctuation and spelling and functionality and peoeplw who care about stucture everyone acts like they arer above that kind of stuff until its bnot being used enoug to that you can make out what people are saying when they are tryintg to say one thing but then they cannoteven communicate the idea because thier words are bting jumbled up and pauses are where they should not by and no one is using things they way they were in tended in wring to used be so that ideas are organized in such a was (way) as that they are dicsernable to others thats really the whole point of language structure and it bothers sometimes me when peopl e act like itis not important do you no wat i meen!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@rottenseed you don't need that comma there. (as opposed to "You don't need that comma,[pause] there")
Grammar nazi awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy


I dont know why I do that I think that I have intentions of writing something else but change my mind or maybe I just dont know how punctuation works youd think as ive been writing with this language such a long time that id have mastered it but I havent so go figure

>> ^Sagemind:

This video is Dead - why are you sending us there...?
Aha, This post may be a Dupe of the Dead post from four years ago...
>> ^EmptyFriend:
http://videosift.com/video/Judge-Judy-Opens-A-Can-Of-Whoop-Ass-In-Court




The title of the youtube video on that page is "eBay Scammer on Judge Judy" and the comments clearly indicate it was a dupe. I didn't play the video, so I didn't see that it was dead, but I thought the policy was to fix a dead link rather than have a dupe. If that's incorrect, I apologize.

>> ^Sagemind:

This video is Dead - why are you sending us there...?
Aha, This post may be a Dupe of the Dead post from four years ago...
>> ^EmptyFriend:
http://videosift.com/video/Judge-Judy-Opens-A-Can-Of-Whoop-Ass-In-Court




I don't know, Judge Judy opens a lot of cans of whoop-ass.

This video is Dead - why are you sending us there...?

Aha, This post may be a Dupe of the Dead post from four years ago...

>> ^EmptyFriend:

http://videosift.com/video/Judge-Judy-Opens-A-Can-Of-Whoop-Ass-In-Court

http://videosift.com/video/Judge-Judy-Opens-A-Can-Of-Whoop-Ass-In-Court

Personally I'm against killing, but if anyone needed to be killed...

He'll be a martyr! This will just make more bin ladens!

The USA trained him so it's our fault.

LISTEN sheeple, I've been living on earth for some time now, and I tell you this: The GAME is RIGGED!

Oh great, more fascism!

Of course he's dead, the plutocracy had no more need of him.

With bin laden gone, we can finally get rid of the DMV.

We are monsters. We killed a man without a fair trial, not even a Judge Judy trial.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of the conspiracy? The world may never know.

I'm just GLAD he's DAID!

I was/am in the same position...from that video I came upon this other Judge Judy vid with a person so stoned he walked off with their glass of water in his hand...but a terrible quality video...

In reply to this comment by ant:
OK, it might be a while since my queue list is very long (500+ KB text file!). If anyone want to submit it, then go for it.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
It's all you my friend.

In reply to this comment by ant:
>> ^geo321:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuenTGK8Op4


You should submit that!

Thanks for the reply, Netrunner.
>> ^NetRunner:
For example, does Judge Judy deserve to make vastly more money than Sandra Day O'Connor?
They both knew the rules of the game, and one of them is in greater compliance with those rules. However, most wealth is created by being savvy, rather than getting lucky as an athlete or an entertainer.
>> ^NetRunner:
This is just a restatement of the libertarian assumption, not really an argument for its veracity.
That seems like trying to distinguish 'making an argument' from 'making an argument'. Aren't your positions simply a restatement of the liberal assumption?
>> ^NetRunner:
Is Sandra Day O'Connor weighed down from success by her "predictably bad ideology"?
She's just one more government bureaucrat, and probably has a terrible personal life and terrible general intellectual life beyond law. She willingly chose a limited (but still extraordinary) path, knowing the range of outcomes that could occur, so she deserves whatever she gets.


Here's the type of deal I'd be happy to commit to: If people like this http://videosift.com/video/Spring-Break-Couple-Dance-Fail bring sports, alcohol, smoking & drug consumption, and protesting (http://videosift.com/video/G20-Protest-that-was-Stolen-from-the-Peaceful-Majority?loadcomm=1#comment-1028436) down to 10% of current levels, start reading at least 1000 science articles per year, getting rigorous exercise daily, and eating a paleo diet, I'll agree to re-distribute the fruits of my labor.

Last part first, since I obviously need to clarify what I meant.

>> ^chilaxe:
I've spent around 1/3 of my life living beneath the poverty line. I understand the value of a dollar.


I didn't mean that you've never known poverty directly, but that you claimed to have never seen any sort of economic injustice -- never seen someone undeservedly rich, nor undeservedly poor. I spent most of my childhood surrounded by (alternatively) the undeservedly rich, and the undeservedly poor. There were a few who clearly deserved where they ended up, but they seemed the exception to me, not the rule.

For example, does Judge Judy deserve to make vastly more money than Sandra Day O'Connor?

>> ^chilaxe:

That's really a big part of inequality... some folks tap their own depths, and other folks wait for others to tap their depths for them.
When we say people are unable to better their situations, we don't mean they're physically incapable of it... we mean they're ideologically incapable of it. They can't make the sacrifices I make because they're ideologically incapable of doing so. They must watch sports, make bad sexual and marriage decisions, and must generally waste their time in innumerable ways because their ideology is ineffective and they won't change.

[snip]

It seems backwards to ask us to subsidize other people's predictably bad ideologies.

This is just a restatement of the libertarian assumption, not really an argument for its veracity.

Is Sandra Day O'Connor weighed down from success by her "predictably bad ideology"? Is she watching too much sports, making bad sexual and marriage decisions, and wasting her time in innumerable ways?


>> ^chilaxe:
I find the moral to be that short-term thinkers suck.
I agree, that is the apparent intended moral of the story. But what about the questions I raised about what it has to say on the topic of social justice?

I think it's safe to say we both agree that superior resource planning should be encouraged over no planning or inferior planning, but that's a pragmatic question, and not one of the moral weight involved in economic distribution.

Wow...

this needs to be on Judge Judy

One man's opinion: you're wrong, Sheppard.

Judge Judy is the best of all the "reality" court shows, which is, admittedly, a bit like being the prettiest Denny's waitress, but you'd have to agree with me.

I hate judge judy.

Always have, always will. This was no exception.

It was two evils battling in this video, and Judy actually seemed to be the worse of the two. Don't call someones parenting skills into question based upon a court appearance. Don't call their spouse or significant other a coward, when she probably volunteered to go instead of him.

Honestly, a list of what she made fun of.

Weight? -Check.
Intelligence? -Check
Kids? -Check
Parenting Skills? -Check
Spouse? -Check
Insinuate possible tax evasion? -Check
The fact that she signed something her husband handed to her? -Check

All those assumptions made in less then 5 minutes. The only thing she didn't call into question was the girls hair colour.. As a judge, you can't DO that, you have to be impartial in all situations, and that's why court-room dramas like this are always such complete bullshit.

I won't downvote this, but my complete hatred of judge judy prevents me from upvoting it.

Here's a soundboard of Dr.Phil...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGiLgkSzGI0

I like the Judge Judy and Joe pesci ones myself. Anyway, I think I'm going to sidetrack my drunkin ass to playing a game

*nochannel *wtf *comedy

Judge Judy is at least as big of an asshole as anyone in her courtroom.