Well it's not too late to stop. Did you know animal agriculture is responsible for over 50% of global warming? Hell even if everyone stopped eating beef and dairy (and didn't make up for it by eating more of the other animal products) then it would make fairly significant impact.

Don't take my word for it, hear it from Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHSkahIFDF4

Informed individuals like you need to take action. The companies and governments will never solve this in time.

So you don't have an argument or a point to make. Fair enough. I won't waste any more of my time on you.

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

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

I apologize if you think I'm being insensitive. It's certainly not my intention. I thought maybe a quick "suck it up" could act as a verbal jolt to help you out a bit. You're obviously feeling aggrieved here. A couple of points I'd like to communicate:

1. If you're going to have a sensitivity dysfunction- "over sensitive" is preferable to "under".
2. Comparing BT to a lactating woman, and other female oriented slurs is kind of mysoginistic- it makes female traits into something unfavorable. It's disappointing to read this from you.
3. I appreciate your contributions to the community, but it's also disappointing to read you bring money into your arguments- as if I would let that be a factor in trying to make fair admin decisions for the community.



In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, I'm hobbled for baiting BT? Wow. I guess that feminine lady-man needs a papa to take up for him. Oh shit, was that also considered "baiting"? FUCK! I really suck at your rules!

Quit trying to turn yourself into a martyr, suck it up and take a deep breath.

No offense, Dag, but you ain't exactly the sweetest most understanding "ruler". You were a dick during your "Siftler" days, and the fact that you ask me to "suck it up" is appalling. I wish I could PM to say this, but I cannot during my hobble, so I have to air all my grievances in the open... I've donated a lot of money to this site and I've been a steady charter (purposely updated recently so I can pay the full amount instead of the BS 10 dollars a year or whatever the fuck it used to be).

Sorry if you think I'm playing the martyr, but I think you're a bit insensitive and unreasonable. And BT is a cry baby.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I thought I made this clear. I'm not hobbling you for being a racist. I don't think you are a racist. I'm hobbling you for repeatedly baiting a fellow Sifter- being grossly insensitve to another human being.

You can point out all the bad words on the Sift that you want. It's not about that- it's about being a jerk to another human being. Quit trying to turn yourself into a martyr, suck it up and take a deep breath.

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

Jonny You were the one who hated the Siftquisitions because of the public lynching aspect. You know what fuck it - we're never going to please everyone, and we may even displease the same person whatever decision we make. Can't help but feel Jonny that you would be the first in line crying "lynch mob" if we went the full Siftquisition route.

we'll keep doing the best that we can and try make fair decisions based on what we feel is good for the site and community. When we don't have a clear precedent, we'll still have Siftquisitions - but don't feel it was called for in this case because it's a relatively minor infraction and they will be welcomed back after their spell in the bad lands.

^ Here's the full study: http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/files/crfb/USBW%20Voter%20Guide%20October%205%202008.pdf

I'm not sure how that paper came to those numbers, because there's not nearly that big a difference in their estimate of the deficit.

Also, once you start looking at the line items, and make fair guesses about what they're making up ($114bn for "Unspecified Spending Cuts" is a good one to look at on McCain's plan, for example), they both look like big spenders.

To some degree, I think people shouldn't take these numbers as gospel -- I'd love to see the same analysis done on Bush's campaign promises in 2000, and compare it to the actual values.

However, a plan like this gives you a good idea, in numbers, what kinds of things these candidates care about, and how they would want to change the budget.

After all, the budget needs to pass through Congress.

qualm, you seem to be under some delusion, that there exists, an alternative to the 2 party system, or that some grand achievement could be made, in redirecting spending, to right the social ills of the nation, rather than dealing with the clusterfuck abroad, ala policing the planet, etc.....the system is in retrograde-the planet's problems are not really being addressed by anyone

right/left black/white good/evil....always has to be just two, that's the disease that has been cultivated in the minds of the linear, symbol-addicted, dualism of the planets peasantry and puddys.....States, by the way, would do better on their own, esp. mine..Texas.

and as always, fuck Medicare, or socialized medicine...you people that want to worry about yer health, eat right-Most of the goddamn ills associated with the health of the Nation, come from what goes into the mouth-And if they want to revitalize and make fair, the Medical Estab.-OFFER NO CARE TO NON-CITIZENS, W/O $$$$$

As for RP, again, no chance-he is not connected-