It offers content through those thumbnail widgets below embeds. But a click won't send you straight to your desired content. Instead, you end up on Scribol's page, where they want to leech just a few more clicks out of you.

I'm oldschool, and this form of artificial traffic boost bugs the fuck out of me.

Oh great let's pimp another commission. Seriously these people are just middle men. You see an area in life where you can leech money by super imposing yourself between the developer and the money. The idea is a great one but in the day and age how could one ever trust it. What's worse is when they get federal backing - then it's a fucking nightmare for the developer to get anything done without handing them their money.

To me, it's a bit of a relief to have tape of Mitt Romney talking like your average far-right Randian asshole.

The biggest thing Romney had going for him was that the press was never going to try to push him to speak plainly about what he really believes, and let him just fill the airwaves with platitudes and sneers.

Even in his "press conference" he held last night to respond to this, he said that basically this is what he's meant by his public comments thusfar. In other words, that his opponents are all parasites and leeches who must be burned off the face of the earth in order for America to prosper.

You know, conservatism.

>> ^hpqp:

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?
Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.
And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.
>> ^swedishfriend:
1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.




You're an idiot and a previous poster had the right idea by saying his opinion is worthless cause he's ignorant. You rise to the level of idiot because you seem to think your opinion about this subject matters. Might as well ask you how the fuck NASA should spend it's money.

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?

Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.

And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.

>> ^swedishfriend:

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.

2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.

3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.

4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?

I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:

I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.

1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

Fuckin leech loses his shirt. Yay! I couldn't be happier, personally.

When I was a kid, cops were the good guys. Then I grew up. They are nothing but tools of the state, leeches of society. There are too many of them, and they have too goddamned much power considering the absolute lack of oversight they operate under. This Zimmerman asshole was exactly the type of person that become police officers every day, and exactly the type of person that shouldn't be.

Something is really strange about this whole thing. I'm not so sure it is outright racism, as Cenk says (although he may be right). It's almost as if this Zimmerman guy has a connection, or is somebody's kid or something. Hell, maybe he is a snitch for the local cops or something. I don't think we know everything yet. In any case, I still think Zimmerman murdered that kid, and his not being arrested right away (and still hasn't) is only going to bring more attention to the police, the witnesses, and whatever reason this asshole is still walking free.

The cave only contains what you bring with you.

Sadly that video was dead so I couldn't see it. I would like to ask how you actually go about verifying spirituality.

Spirituality may be a real experience, but that does not mean that it is actually real. Paranoia is a real experience too.

Faith is a virus in many ways (obviously not biologically), but it acts as one. That said. you can say that for any meme.

Twisting religion and/or faith for "evil" is easy - anything can be twisted. The fundamental problem is that at the very core, religion is, well, bad. It's detrimental for the human race. We would be in a better place without it. By no means perfect, other factors are at work, tribalism, fanaticism, greed, etc. but nonetheless, it would be a better place, because you could not justify your evil actions through a supreme being. Do you realize how dangerous it is when someone is absolutely convinced they are right? Skepticism is a healthy attribute in a benign society. Spirituality (moreso religion and faith) is detriment to that.

When people argue "oh, look at all the culture and art that religion inspired", I think that's a bunk argument. The art and culture is there in spite of the religion smothering it. The reason all the classic art is about religion, is because churches leeched the money of everyone and therefor were the only ones who could pay for great works of art. If Catholicism had not had a stranglehold on Europe for some 1000 years, the art of the whole period would have been far more varied and fantastic.

I'm ashamed of my fellow man not growing up to face what's really out there, because it's crazy enough as it is without lunacy on top of it.
>> ^jonny:

>> ^gwiz665:
Spirituality is a hoax.
Faith is a virus.
Spirituality is a real, verifiable human experience. There are many paths to having such an experience, some of them involving religion, ritual and/or psychoactive drugs. However much we might disdain the belief in some bearded man in the sky as the source of such experiences, it would be absurd to deny their existence, power, or importance. Religion provides the most accessible path for many people.
I'm not sure what you mean by that second sentence. Do you mean faith in general, i.e., belief in something of which you have no direct knowledge or evidence? Or do you mean faith in the existence of Jehovah, the divinity of Jesus, or some other specific religious doctrine? I'd rather avoid getting into an epistemological argument, but the fact is that everyone relies on faith to a greater or lesser extent. More importantly, though, is just how useful faith can be. No one would argue that it can't be twisted to serve "evil" ends, sometimes without the twister or twisted even being aware of it. But to disregard the usefulness of faith entirely based on its misuse and abuse is ridiculous. It's like telling people not to have sex because of the potential negative consequences.
When I look at religion, I don't understand why it is blamed for so many of the atrocities humans have committed upon each other. The deeper cause is (fundamentalist) tribalism, and it comes in many forms - religious, ethnic, geographic, ideological, etc. All of these have been used as "psychic levers" to inspire people to act in ways they never would otherwise. Even in a hypothetical parallel world in which religion and belief in gods doesn't exist, all of the horrors of which humans are capable would still be found. I'd like to think the artistic output inspired by religion and faith would have other sources as well, but I'm not completely certain of it.

Some sort of spending policy was needed, but the bailout as it was put forth was pretty dismal in it's results. The companies that received it were the ones who created the mess for the most part (banks), and we really still haven't addressed punishing them OR putting laws in place to either:
A) Punish them if it happens again, really the laws now should be sufficient.
B) Make it impossible to happen again....all those acts, they repealed over the last 20-30 years.
C) Prevent some of the more insanity driven investing, such as over abundant speculation and similar cost creating but non-value creating (Call it a Private Tax, if you will) things.

Really the more I look back on the bailout, and look at the attitudes of most of the politicians at that time...they were saying let the auto industry fail. But the bailouts to the auto industries have at least halfway been paid back. Chrysler is likely going to short the government 1.3 billion last I read. GM gave the government stock and 22 billion. Stock is worth about 13.5 billion. They borrowed 50 billion. So 28 billion is what we have to get out of that stock to recover fully. And as far as I know there is no interest accumulated, so losing money in those deals is a kick to the crotch considering.

I think the auto industries might have been able to enter bankruptcy and come back out of it with some lessons learned. But vehicles like the "Volt" show that......they don't really know who they are selling to. Chrysler ended up being taken over by Fiat. And Ford handled it's own business. The one in the worst shape was GM, and I can't say that they probably didn't have it coming. And they still ended up pretty much killing the economy dead in my area despite the bailout when they shut their plants down that they really hadn't "kept up" in DECADES...place was really dumpy looking. No one would take it over because it was just utter trash when they left. I'm more against than for the bailout of the auto industries, but I can see that they were probably beneficial there although GM seemingly learned nothing of note from it.

Banks on the other hand......they took in 1.2 trillion. And a bunch of the borrowed money went to European firms. Along with other financial institutions. And many kept taking loans into 2010.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/that_federal_bank_bailout_in_2008_was_bigger_than_we_knew_a_lot_bigger.html

Has lots of info on it. I haven't taken the time to confirm every last portion of it, but we know the bailout/loans of 2008 that were announced ended up being MUCH larger than they told us. So the information is kind of hit and miss since they kept it hush hush for awhile.

But, the money was to help keep the banks off people's backs about foreclosures. It hasn't, in fact they took the money and foreclosed anyway to get both the cash to make it possible to allow the person to keep the house AND the house. That should be criminal.

The bailout of those institutions probably did stop a economic meltdown, but I think that bailout still should be criticized. The people who caused it suffered no punishment by law, financially, or by failure. And they have been fighting have regulations and such put in place to stop it from happening again and from practices like speculation being allowed in such quantities. It's affecting the oil prices and they are using it as a argument for "foreign oil" ALL the time.

Sure the bailout saved us from financial meltdown, but we aren't safe from it happening again. In fact we're probably even more precariously perched at the edge than we were before, and people are making money off that instability. If they could have made money during the total collapse, I don't think they would have gotten bailout to all those institutions.

So, we should criticize the bailout, simply because it has made it possible for the people who control the money to continue making money, and no one has corrected the conditions that caused the collapse in the first place. The people who caused it keep on keeping on, the politicians get some money stuffed in their pockets, and the people who got hurt most by the crash whether you lost your house, job, savings, pension, etc are just lined up to be knocked down again and no one is trying to fix it. The people who had money to weather the crash, are recovering and the people who didn't are still hurt by the crash they had no way of avoiding.

Too big to fail institutions are still too big to fail. Now they know that they can leech all the money from the government whenever they start to lean a little as a collective. Nothing was learned by anyone there, because nothing ended up happening to them besides some bad press...when they should have gotten a major investigation that was more like a full cavity search to determine wrongdoing.

*whew!* You never know these days, thought that was out of character for you.

In reply to this comment by doogle:
>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^doogle:
Was the guy expecting to hear Mittens continue with: "Yeah, I'm against it, but don't you worry, punks like you can continue to get away with doping yourself while you leech off the system."

Are you fucking serious with this attitude? Punks like him leaching off the system? So you exoect him to go out and get a job then? Wow.


No, I'm not fucking serious. Take a breather, I had my Mittens hat on, wondering what he'd be saying. Keep up. And take note, I'm from CANADA. Medical MariJane is legal here, and we all have a system open to all, but no one's leeching. Grab your skis, come up and check it out. I hear you're in for a bumpy tide.

>> ^doogle:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^doogle:
Was the guy expecting to hear Mittens continue with: "Yeah, I'm against it, but don't you worry, punks like you can continue to get away with doping yourself while you leech off the system."

Are you fucking serious with this attitude? Punks like him leaching off the system? So you exoect him to go out and get a job then? Wow.

No, I'm not fucking serious. Take a breather, I had my Mittens hat on, wondering what he'd be saying. Keep up. And take note, I'm from CANADA. Medical MariJane is legal here, and we all have a system open to all, but no one's leeching. Grab your skis, come up and check it out. I hear you're in for a bumpy tide.


*whew!* You never know these days, thought that was out of character for you.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^doogle:
Was the guy expecting to hear Mittens continue with: "Yeah, I'm against it, but don't you worry, punks like you can continue to get away with doping yourself while you leech off the system."

Are you fucking serious with this attitude? Punks like him leaching off the system? So you exoect him to go out and get a job then? Wow.


No, I'm not fucking serious. Take a breather, I had my Mittens hat on, wondering what he'd be saying. Keep up. And take note, I'm from CANADA. Medical MariJane is legal here, and we all have a system open to all, but no one's leeching. Grab your skis, come up and check it out. I hear you're in for a bumpy tide.

>> ^doogle:

Was the guy expecting to hear Mittens continue with: "Yeah, I'm against it, but don't you worry, punks like you can continue to get away with doping yourself while you leech off the system."


Are you fucking serious with this attitude? Punks like him leaching off the system? So you exoect him to go out and get a job then? Wow.