Listen yogi, you may not believe this, but I've observed your posts for some time now. While I'm loathe to label anyone with permanence, most of the time you act like a hothead and internet badass. I've seen you disrespect sifters who would probably agree with you they don't like me. I don't really know marinara and doubt he agrees with much of what I have to say, but he was kind enough to defend me against PC nonsense.

It's not my job to offer you an attitude adjustment, only suggest one. You can be passionate without being in ATTACK MODE at all times.

I have EVERY right to call out sh1tbirds like GNOMESANE. Race his nothing to do with it, especially on Judge Judy. Per legacy's post, people of ALL kinds game the system. GNOMESANE is hardly an exception. The clown has no concept of self-responsibility or wrongdoing.

The System itself is sh1t, it's morphed into something beyond control and accountability and it's bankrupting all of us. Do you understand that for every GNOMESANE, someone else who deserves help is denied?

This is the sift. Your attempts to make things personal are a waste of time.

lv,

qm





In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:

I feel guilty for all the people who bust their asses at work, then have their money seized and pissed away on shitbirds like this, so lefties can allay their manufactured guilt at events two centuries old.
Three years of "kollij" and GNOMESANE still can't speak proper English.
Be PROUD, Liberal. You made him.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^quantumushroom:
"Vermin" is easier to type than "parasite".
Judging by skin color is racist.
Judging by content of character is also racist?
What's left?
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Vermin?
The Nazi's called Jewish people rats, the Hutu called the Tutsi cockroaches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide); and the wingnuts called anyone who disagreed with spending trillions to invade and occupy a country, which did not attack us, un-american and un-patriotic.
This guys not too bright, but calling people vermin crosses a line.
What's your definition of vermin? Anyone you dislike?


Why are you bringing up racism? Guilty conscience?



Ya know what welfare also pays for? The old lady across town who is starving. The children who don't get breakfast in the mornings so they spend all day not being able to pay attention in class.

If you're against something you can find examples of it not working or working poorly, especially a large and complex system known as welfare. So I guess because someone is exploiting the system everyone who relies on that system should be tossed off it. Fuck them right?

You're a piece of shit QM.

Listen yogi, you may not believe this, but I've observed your posts for some time now. While I'm loathe to label anyone with permanence, most of the time you act like a hothead and internet badass. I've seen you disrespect sifters who would probably agree with you they don't like me. I don't really know marinara and doubt he agrees with much of what I have to say, but he was kind enough to defend me against PC nonsense.

It's not my job to offer you an attitude adjustment, only suggest one. You can be passionate without being in ATTACK MODE at all times.

I have EVERY right to call out sh1tbirds like GNOMESANE. Race his nothing to do with it, especially on Judge Judy. Per legacy's post, people of ALL kinds game the system. GNOMESANE is hardly an exception. The clown has no concept of self-responsibility or wrongdoing.

The System itself is sh1t, it's morphed into something beyond control and accountability and it's bankrupting all of us. Do you understand that for every GNOMESANE, someone else who deserves help is denied?

This is the sift. Your attempts to make things personal are a waste of time.

lv,

qm


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
I feel guilty for all the people who bust their asses at work, then have their money seized and pissed away on shitbirds like this, so lefties can allay their manufactured guilt at events two centuries old.
Three years of "kollij" and GNOMESANE still can't speak proper English.
Be PROUD, Liberal. You made him.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^quantumushroom:
"Vermin" is easier to type than "parasite".
Judging by skin color is racist.
Judging by content of character is also racist?
What's left?
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Vermin?
The Nazi's called Jewish people rats, the Hutu called the Tutsi cockroaches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide); and the wingnuts called anyone who disagreed with spending trillions to invade and occupy a country, which did not attack us, un-american and un-patriotic.
This guys not too bright, but calling people vermin crosses a line.
What's your definition of vermin? Anyone you dislike?


Why are you bringing up racism? Guilty conscience?


Ya know what welfare also pays for? The old lady across town who is starving. The children who don't get breakfast in the mornings so they spend all day not being able to pay attention in class.
If you're against something you can find examples of it not working or working poorly, especially a large and complex system known as welfare. So I guess because someone is exploiting the system everyone who relies on that system should be tossed off it. Fuck them right?
You're a piece of shit QM.

I have been watching my cocked ( to the left) freezie un-freeze. Twas convex slowly it morphs into a concave well of water and sugar.

@NetRunner: agreed that it's not the worst, nor is my anecdote...

and certainly odd changes in policy and illogical requirements do increase bureaucracy... but i'm not certain that i can agree that there isn't any valid reason for change...

think back through the last 11 years of us elections, in particular the previous three presidential elections... claims of voter fraud, hanging chad, dead rolls, acorn, etc -- now, i don't know if or what impact wisconsin's regulatory changes have on that... but that's the nature of government: we expect incompetence, and success is generally just a fortunate coincidence

from my tale, our overseas missions weren't always as i described... they changed, radically so, post 9-11 -- i used to be able to phone my nation's consular services and be shown respect and have my questions answered... help was given freely and easily, as one should expect

not so anymore - now we're herded in like infected cattle and treated as a possible terrorist - the 'help' has morphed into a hindrance... but are the reasons for such valid? how can we say...

and no, i wasn't dealing with the department of immigration... just my embassy in filing a consular report of birth abroad (CRBA), and those policies have changed recently too... for no apparent reason

i'm an american citizen, not an immigrant - there wasn't one iota of reason to suspect my not being a citizen... and soooo many reasons to accept that i was...

my family came to north america in the early 18th century... i'm tall, blond, and blue-eyed... i speak perfect american english with a non-regional accent... i served my country for six years in the usmc and am a veteran of the persian gulf war... and this is in addition to all the documentation i presented...

instead, i was treated as 'suspect' by a foreign- and indifferent-looking woman speaking to me in broken english... quite rudely questioning ME regarding something i have always assumed was fundamental: my being a us citizen

i guess my point is that videos like this present the particular situation as being 'scandalous' ... when in fact it's commonplace... and while annoying, it's not really insulting -- try visiting a us consular mission abroad and then complain about the bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, and being treated in a demeaning way

honestly, watching the domestic situation in my home country from overseas for the last 15-odd years is amazing... the partisanship is ridiculous, and so are most of their claims -- it's like having your body (the nation) infested with two distinct groups of intestinal parasites--like an old-south, grangerford-shepherdson blood-feud--the attacks from both left- and right-leaning tapeworms have risen to the level of threatening the very health and life of the host

videos and other seeming vitriol like this appear to me as symptomatic of such an unhealthy bent: a bloody feces-laden discharge

Pity the 2 morphs were necessary... awesome installation though.
I'm in Paris next week so I'll be checking this out.

"Yeeees, sleep and grow fat my furry friend... once I morph into my final dragon form you shall provide me with a delicious meal, perhaps enough to sustain me for my flight to the lands of my kin."

>> ^Zifnab:

According to Freddiew:
Here's how we did this one:
Left and Right sections:
Run through the action and throw the ball to a Precision Ball Catching Specialist, or have a Precision Ball Throwing Specialist throw the ball to me from a previous position. The goal here is to match the ball movement as closely as possible. In some cases (rolling on the ground), the match is pretty much exact so we just cut. In others (kicking at my face) I had to delete the ball and animate a new one in there to blend the two takes together.
The Center section:
I would "freeze" in certain points because we were determining the timing later. I also had a designated start/stop position, which we would morph in between slowly in order to loop the takes together.
Stitching:
We shot the whole thing in 3 vertical camera slices to minimize lens distortion, and once each section was looping smoothly we simply stitched it all together (you'll notice that nothing crosses the "seams")


Just watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdFe6p-8Kls ...

According to Freddiew:
Here's how we did this one:

Left and Right sections:

Run through the action and throw the ball to a Precision Ball Catching Specialist, or have a Precision Ball Throwing Specialist throw the ball to me from a previous position. The goal here is to match the ball movement as closely as possible. In some cases (rolling on the ground), the match is pretty much exact so we just cut. In others (kicking at my face) I had to delete the ball and animate a new one in there to blend the two takes together.

The Center section:

I would "freeze" in certain points because we were determining the timing later. I also had a designated start/stop position, which we would morph in between slowly in order to loop the takes together.

Stitching:

We shot the whole thing in 3 vertical camera slices to minimize lens distortion, and once each section was looping smoothly we simply stitched it all together (you'll notice that nothing crosses the "seams")

great, now I feel like an idiot. thanks

so what's the trapdoor for then?

>> ^Drax:

>> ^residue:
you can easily see the trapdoor the kid goes down through at the start (pause at 0:14). not bad for kids though

Uhm.. I don't know if you're just joking or what, but it's incredibly obvious as to how the trick was done.
At 0:28 there's a quick shift and change in the intensity of light hitting the camera, making it obvious there's a camera cut there.
Then with a bit of CGI to morph the frames together to make for a smoother transition they put a mirror in place reflecting the background that's quickly removed once again through editing and CGI to make the kid re-appear... which speaking of; is actually a force perpsective as the kid's obviously a middle aged man with a bad haircut.
..use your eyes, dude.

>> ^residue:

you can easily see the trapdoor the kid goes down through at the start (pause at 0:14). not bad for kids though


Uhm.. I don't know if you're just joking or what, but it's *incredibly obvious* as to how the trick was done.

At 0:28 there's a quick shift and change in the intensity of light hitting the camera, making it obvious there's a camera cut there.

Then with a bit of CGI to morph the frames together to make for a smoother transition they put a mirror in place reflecting the background that's quickly removed once again through editing and CGI to make the kid re-appear... which speaking of; is actually a forced perspective as the kid's obviously a middle aged man with a bad haircut.

..use your eyes, dude.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^marbles:

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.


marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?
The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.
Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.
But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.

I would guess it's a rare occasion that someone goes to the JM to dance. Approaching 0. So why the crack down on it? If someone wants to go to dance, shouldn't they be free to do so as long as they respect other people's personal space? So why the law? What's the point in outlawing something no one does?
My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.


Maybe they thought they'd never HAVE to enforce the law. But who can say? I think this argument has reached a stalemate. Everybody seems fairly set in their opinions so... rock on.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^marbles:

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.


marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?
The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.
Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.
But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.


I would guess it's a rare occasion that someone goes to the JM to dance. Approaching 0. So why the crack down on it? If someone wants to go to dance, shouldn't they be free to do so as long as they respect other people's personal space? So why the law? What's the point in outlawing something no one does?

My argument addresses the crux of issue: That lawmakers and judges are deciding where the Bill of Rights actually apply. They don't have that authority.

>> ^marbles:


I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.
I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.



marbles, tell me honestly, how many people that go to the Jefferson Memorial, on an average day, go there to dance? A rough estimate...?

The thing that makes this pointless is that they are fighting for something that no body wants to do anyway. The only people that care about being able to dance at the Jefferson Memorial are these activists.

Who is this a small battle for? If they were protesting something people do every day or WANT to do every day, I'd be on board. If they were protesting something other, non-activist people did and were arrested for, I'd be all for it.

But, the only instances of the issue they are protesting are their own examples. They don't have any non-protest examples of this great outrage.
That makes it ego maniacal, imo.

Like I said, I haven't reviewed the law, but if it gives the government the power to set up free speech zones, then it's unconstitutional. "Non-public forum" is a contradiction of terms anyway. Ok, so some public property is really not public property, but government property. And to operate as a government, you specify these governments buildings and etc as non-public forums. I can live with that (as long as the government functions in question are constitutional). But at the Jefferson Memorial there is no government function to preserve. It's no different than going to a public park. Whether you're on the steps of the memorial or inside the interior, there's no difference. It's a public forum, ...except when it isn't. Government bureaucrats don't have that authority to pick and choose what is a public forum and what isn't.

I watched part of clip of the original dancers. I don't really remember them being all that loud. (Maybe I missed it) But it's irrelevant anyway. Whether or not they were loud, were demonstrating, or whatever, dancing is the issue. And that's not the protestors fault, the first cop that approached Kokesh made it explicitly clear: You can't dance here. Dance and you will be arrested. Nothing about demonstrating, protesting, or anything else. Dancing was/is the issue at hand.

I believe in The Law as described by Bastiat here. Laws are derived from the individual's natural rights, not by society's mindless whims. The Constitution is what establishes the government and defines it's responsibilities.

I don't believe it's a huge issue, but it's not trivial either. There's certainly bigger issues out there that we need to fight, but small battles count too. One thing these protests really expose is the role of the police force and how they have morphed into a paramilitary occupation force taking orders from the government, rather than a force of fellow citizens working for the welfare of the community and guided by the rule of law.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
1. The law has stood up to multiple challenges as to its constitutionality (the law is about the government's right to declare a space "non-public forum"). It has been around for decades.

If it helps any, the government has tried to use this "non-public forum" legal concept/law and have been shot down by the courts. Apparently, they have tried to encompass ill-defined areas and control the activity when a reasonable person wouldn't recognize the area in question as a specific defined place. No, no, say the courts, and the government has lost those cases.

2. Have you looked at the link I provided from the original event from months ago, that led to this court case? The libertarians who showed up at midnight to celebrate his birthday?

The music was silent but the group was in a good mood and pretty loud in an echoey place. No harm was intended, but the area is posted "quiet please" and they weren't. So that is why the original dancers were removed.

3. The May and June dancers were demonstrating, which is not allowed in a non-public forum, so that is why they were asked to leave. Not because they were dancing. (Watch Kokesh's youtube video calling for folks to come dance in protest, if you don't think they were there to demonstrate.)

So 1) the law is constitutional and 2) defining dancing has nothing to do with it, it is about literally "disturbing the peace" or "demonstrating".

I am as pissed about the Patriot Act as anybody -- I just don't agree that this demonstration is an enfringement on my rights. The Patriot Act? Hell yes!!!!!!!!!


It gets back to whether you believe in laws or not. Does society empower the government to make laws in its name, using the Constitution as its guide?

If you don't think it does, then .... well. Nothing. You don't think it does. Fair enough.




In reply to this comment by marbles:
Thanks, I seen you post something to that effect the other day. I haven't had the time to look into the law, (it outlaws demonstrating right?) but I'm pretty sure my argument still applies. It's two-fold. 1. The law is unconstitutional. 2. You can't define what is and what isn't considered "dancing".

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
It isn't a new law, marbles. It is an old law, decades old, discussed and debated over many court cases.

Just wanted to toss that fact your way, if it makes any difference to your point of view.

Tell me Clarice, have the lambs stopped morphing?