...unless you don't live in the States, in which case you pretty much have no choice but to torrent it.

That's kind of a silly thing to say.
Do you really think they could say anything even if they wanted to?

They have no choice but to return respect, even when it's not given in return. It's their Royalty. And in cultures that are so closely ruled by the system, no one would ever dare speak up against them. (out of fear)
You never speak out against those who rule you. Speaking up against the Saudi Royalty would mean instant death.


Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Farhan Al-Saud, who spoke to RT from Dusseldorf, Germany, confirmed reports of increased prosecution of anti-government activists and said that it’s exactly what forced him to defect from his family. He accused the monarchy of corruption and silencing all voices of dissent and explained how the Saudi mechanism for suppression functioned.

“There is no independent judiciary, as both police and the prosecutor’s office are accountable to the Interior Ministry. This ministry’s officials investigate ‘crimes’ (they call them crimes), related to freedom of speech. So they fabricate evidence, don’t allow people to have attorneys”, the prince told RT Arabic. “Even if a court rules to release such a ‘criminal’, the Ministry of Interior keeps him in prison, even though there is a court order to release him. There have even been killings! Killings! And as for the external opposition, Saudi intelligence forces find these people abroad! There is no safety inside or outside the country.”
http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-opposition-prince-374/

In my opinion - and i think Brand's too, though i don't want to put words in his mouth - the motivation to act based upon nothing but profit is the largest and most significant drain on happiness and especially the advancement of us as a people. We need a revolution of principle, a revolution of the mind, we cannot keep on doing what we are doing when it is so clearly not working.

We have been pouring the results of our productivity into bank balances for so long now. If our productivity was represented by food instead of money, we would have been putting corn into a hole in the ground for 30 years and wondering why people are hungry. In a system based on corn, prosperity of a nation is based upon the free and active flow of corn.

I ask this question of you, because i don't know the answer. Do you think that we can continue pouring our productivity into big holes that other people sit on for "whenever they might need it?" Is it reasonable to build a system based on flow, but let huge clumps of it gather and expect everything to keep running quickly and without turbulence?

It just doesn't work anymore. The very rich don't realise it yet because they can afford to pay to avoid it, the quite rich notice it when they sit in traffic for example, but eventually things will become so clogged up that they will have no choice but to notice that there are no quality schools, hospitals, roads, airports, shops nor people to do their shopping, cleaning, cooking and driving. We all benefit, including the rich, if money is put into improving our infrastructure and facilities. We all benefit when productivity is flowing freely and quickly through the system. The opposite of that is called a depression, and it's when people don't have confidence in spending their money... we know that, we accept it, people were repeating it during the recession. How come we can't recognise the polar opposite? We're in a semi-permanent state of inverse depression, where those at the top don't have the means to spend their money, so it doesn't move.

This is an idea that needs to come from grassroots, everyone needs to come together somehow and unify over this idea. Because you can't blame any one individual for taking advantage of their fortunate position on the uneven playing field, or for fighting for a better position on the field. We all need to agree that the playing field has to be even, otherwise eventually the playing field will not be worth using.

I cannot stand this poisonous idea that you cannot ask a company for tax and here's my argument against that:
A lot of people live in the UK and a lot of people want to buy coffee and other assorted goods (starbucks, amazon). Even including tax, there is a lot of money to be made selling to these people. Let's say there is 2 billion pounds in profit available to be made by someone. That's still profit to be made by someone, and whoever offers that service to them under the correct rules makes that money.

The problem is that there's 4 billion to be made without tax, and it's cheaper to buy the politician for a billion to ensure you get the tax breaks. That is the poisoned system that psycho-capitalism has eventually produced... And it's so naive to think otherwise... so naive to think that those with billions of pounds wouldn't buy economists and lawyers, tout the favourable theories, generally spend top money on creating the right environment to make more money. Whether you think more or less tax is a good idea, surely have to agree that whatever the rules are, we adhere to them, or the system that we so carefully designed it around will fail.

Why are people so reticent to believe that we're being duped? No, surely not, it's the government, they can't possibly be lying to us. They stood in front of us, bare-faced, and told us they weren't torturing people, they had intelligence about WMDs, they weren't spying on us all. They prove themselves to be deceitful but like toddlers we trust the adult.

You leave someone with no choice... then they have no choice.

All you guys that are saying he got what he deserved are hypocrites and you are obviously not watching the video.

Side note, I dont think a person should hit another person (outside of sports), whether its male/female, male/male, or female/female.

We dont know what occurred before this video but I doubt she is saying, "What do you think of this carpet, looks great doesnt it." When you look at the evidence, she slaps him outside of the elevator. Then she hits him again in the elevator. This is all before he even strikes her. Then he strikes her most likely as a reflex. He is trapped in an elevator so he cannot remove himself from the situation so he moves to the far side of the elevator (people conveniently leave this out when they talk about this). She then CHARGES him, fist leading the way. Rice has no choice but to defend himself and strikes her a 2nd time, knocking her out.

The video evidence shows the bitch deserved it. He is being prosecuted by people who want to see what they want to and not the truth. Which is terrible because its affecting his ability to have a career.

Look at it from this angle, if Rice did nothing and she damaged his eye which kept him from playing. All you assholes that say he deserves it now, would be saying "he should have defended himself" or "I would have knocked that bitch out." You cannot deny this as you people jump from one bandwagon to the next instead of relying on the truth to make a judgement.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. And yes, international law does protect the right of people the resist their occupiers. However, this is a bit more than a "ghetto uprising" because a political group (Hamas) has formed and claimed to have some control over a territory and the people of that territory. Actually let me back up, even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter for the point I want to make.

Armed combatants in a violent conflict, whether international or non-international, whether they are party to the conventions or not, are bound by international humanitarian law to uphold the Geneva conventions. “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.” This places a requirement on armed actors to take reasonable steps to separate their military activities from the civilian population.

However, if people knowingly and willingly stay in place in order to serve as a human shield to military activities, then they can no longer be considered "hors de combat" (outside of combat) and become legitimate targets. The problem here is that Hamas will always say they are innocent people being killed, that Hamas does not launch attacks from residential areas, and that no one is being forced to stay to act as a human shield. Israel will always say that rockets were launched from there and they had no choice but to attack in order to "degrade" military capabilities.

BUT, humanitarian law aside (sorry, it's one of my things) I think it is disgusting doublespeak that Israelis can actually convince themselves that Hamas is killing Palestinians by making Israel fire weapons into densely populated areas. That is disturbing and distressing rationalization that they explain away by saying that there are thousands of rockets being fired on their cities, never once acknowledging that not a single one of those rockets has landed and hurt someone.

Ah yes, unfortunately this is unlikely to be a discussion that will change any minds. I understand the sets of beliefs and logical connections that would lead an intelligent person to oppose abortion, which I respect as a perfectly valid position for such a person to maintain. It would be truly monstrous to give such a person no choice in whether or not to undergo an abortion.

My own beliefs and logic, which naturally I feel are equally valid, lead me to a different overall conclusion, but I nevertheless feel it would certainly be no less monstrous to give a person with beliefs similar to my own no choice in whether or not to undergo an abortion.

Do you honestly have no clue as to what you do ?

The only thing I personaly respect about what you do with the ban thing is that you adhere the Terms of service ( which everyone reads of course right ??? ).

The rest of the time you deny possible gems in the rough without any warning.

I mean I do not want to be so in your face, but to see you write that made me mad. You have denied so many possible peole here without any incling of the genuine purpose of the site, you just outright ban people and we are not stupid, it is so you can garner some form of level up, you got called on a lot of things in the past in that regard. SERIOUSLY ? ? you ask her why she explained that ??

TELL YOU WHAT , I honestly told people exactly what she did in a pm, while you asked your silly little funnel of a question. What makes people pissed is that you give no quarter, you give no choice ( to most - obviously some are blatent www. whores ) but you have a black and white for the most part.

So do not be impressed or decompressed when someone actually explains something to someone, I have been doing it for years on the opposite behalf of you. Lately I just got tired of it for the past year and couldn't give a shit.

But I am in a talking mood, I love ya enough to write this because it astounded me as to your obliviousness to actually giving someone a chance, not just this video in general, this video was the scratch test and the lattice grew.


WHEWWWWW free therapy !

...more like stepping into some "little...thing"

...always something better to do than bother with a "little...thing"

,,,to bad for you that you have no choice

Right. Lincoln had "no choice" but to go to war just as Obama had "no choice" but to keep Guantanamo open, to drone civilians, to escalate the war in Afghanistan, etc. I guess you're right, if you go by the theory that Presidents are little more than high-paid puppets.

Given your historical expertise, perhaps you can enlighten me as to "what the opening choices of [Lincoln's] presidency were all about."

I said "cronyism aside" to explain the pure theory. Of course cronyism throws a wrench into the system. And cronyism is a function of government-granted privileges. As long as you have the monopoly we call government, you will have cronyism. Plain and simple. The most potent way to "slant the playing field" is through the use of government: a powerful and widely accepted tool of legalized aggression and coercion.

In fact, that's one of the main 'uses' of government regulation: to ensure that others cannot "catch up." The minimum wage laws are an example (contrary to the rhetoric surrounding the issue). So is taxation. And currency inflation used to pay for the bailouts. The list goes on and on.

Sociopaths win when they can use government to prevent competition. And make no mistake, the government itself is rife with sociopaths. (One might say that it's a prerequisite!)

(BTW, what exactly do the sociopaths "win?" To my mind, any "wealth" they have was not "won" at all, but was stolen by force, using the government as a mechanism of income redistribution. Without this tool, they'd have no choice but to offer actual goods/services that others want to pay for, if they want any wealth.)

.....
(And just as I was about to post this, I found this!) You think it's harder for poor folks to climb the income ladder now than it was 20 or 40 years ago? You're wrong, say the folks at the Equality of Opportunity project. (Let me note that these are NOT "right wingers." Saez is the darling of many progressives because of some his earlier work on inequality.) "The authors of this study measured the ability of children born in different income strata from 1971 to 1993 to move into different income groups. For example, it found that a child born in 1971 in the bottom 20% of household earners had an 8.4% chance of eventually making it into the top 20% of earners by his or her 20s or 30s. The chances of a child born in 1986 making a similar ascent was 9.0%."

The point of view that Sanders is taking is that corporations are paying so little that the workers have no choice but to take welfare.

I say that if there was no welfare ( well not as much as there is today) then corporations like Walmart would have to pay more. Otherwise people would not even apply.

For every dollar the government hands out in welfare, the corporations have to give a dollar more to make working for them worthwhile.

Minimum wage is not to be a living wage but an entry level wage where one can better oneself and then one would have standing to ask for a higher wage.

As far as big ass tax breaks for the big corporations I say F to that.

I agree that corps have corrupted government to favor them. Capitalism without morality is we are today.


Capitalism is the best system. We all practice capitalism every day with our purchasing dollars. We look for the best value for the good and services we desire.

Wow, so many of these people are so far out of touch with reality.
It's not a choice to work at Wall Mart - It's a last resort. If people had other options, they wouldn't be there. Few people chose to live in poverty

And Who cares about the cheap prices that Wal Mart is able to give. It's self serving. The largest employer keeps it's employees poor so they have no choice but to shop at their own store, which in turn just gives their wages back to employers. Sure other people reap the benefits of some cheap stuff, but let's stay real. It's cheap because the quality is often lowered to meet the competitive contracts targeted for manufacturers to be able to be Walmart's choice product. Nothing bought at WalMart lasts more than a year or two, you always end up re-buying it. So where is the cheap affordability now?

And while Wall Mart works hard to choke out the competition so they can raise their prices on certain products, their merchandising does the same thing. They only target certain manufacturers and give then the lion's share of the merchandising space on their shelves. Selection at Wal Mart is Slim. They are great at choosing your brands for you. The companies that play ball with WalMart. I have better selection on items at non department stores. Case in point Groceries. They have great prices on certain grocery items, but I don't have any choice on the brands I'm buying. And sooner or later, I'll still need to go to the grocery store, because WalMart just can't give me what I need to stock my kitchen with the basics. My Wall Mart doesn't even sell large bags of sugar.

OMFG... the threads... First Bob calls liberals two faced, but Conservatives were upset at the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against Bush and his wars. Many conservatives demanded the Dixie Chips sponsors drop them and had large CD burning events, all over the fact they spoke their mind and their beliefs. Now these same people are upset at A&E for suspending a guy (a rather worthless suspension since the upcoming season is already filmed and he's already in it, and it is making free publicity for a stupid show about rich people).

This isn't a free speech issue. He isn't in jail for espousing anti-gay and racist remarks. He was suspended for saying something that made his part time employer look bad. Food Network fired Paula Dean. There was a PR lady who was going to Africa on a business trip that got fired after she tweeted she hopes she doesn't get AIDS, but no problem since she's white. You represent your company, officially or not, and make them look bad, your employer can fire you. You can say what you want, but sometimes that speech has consequences. A&E created the Duck Dynasty image, he made their network look bad, they have the right to suspend him... suspend, they didn't even fully fire him. Were they really outraged they would have pulled the show or edited him out of the upcoming season, but they didn't do any of that. They made a publicity grabbing move to suspend him.

This video also highlights the one key point I've been saying the whole time. That Jesus Himself said it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, doesn't matter if they want to or do follow Him, they have their reward here, and won't have one in Heaven. So Phil goes off on how gays are "full of murder" and how they won't inherit the Kingdom of God, but ignores that part where Jesus Himself said that people like Phil won't go to Heaven.

Then high, blaming it on some Atheist agenda. The same thing would have happened regardless of what religion or lack there of he had. This has nothing to do with Atheist wanting to make Christians look bad, as there is plenty of outrage over what he said in many Christian circles... you do know most liberals are Christian as well. Yes, most Atheist tend to be liberal, but the largest voting block of Democrats and Greens are Christian. People who take the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe Jesus was serious when He said to help the needy and poor, that the rich won't go to Heaven, that blessed are the peacemaker and not the warmongering Republicans, that when you pray, to pray in secret and not make a show of it the way modern Conservatives do, that know the reason for the destruction of Sodom according to the Bible was that "she was a land of plenty and did nothing to help the needy and poor", basically full of modern Conservatives, that the thing with the Angels happened after the city was condemned to be destroyed and they were there to rescue Lot's family, before Lot pulled the father of the year by offering his young daughters (think Olson Twins) over the angelic warriors of God (think Conan the Barbarian and Rambo) with magical powers, rather than just a simple "no". Anyhow, plenty of Christians are upset at what Phil said, because it makes Christians look bad, he not only bashed gays, but thought blacks were fine under the old Jim Crow era laws, thought Nazis were Jesus free, though Jesus and the Bible was their main defense for all they did... He basically made the Conservative Christians look like they ignore the main teaching of Jesus which was to Love one another. Jesus hung out with the sinners and tax collectors and told them of the love of God, not how God is going to condemn them all to Hell. If Jesus was alive in modern day America, he'd be hanging out in San Francisco talking about the love of God, not fighting to deny them equal rights under the law.

And of course Shiny... The controversy with Chick-fil-a isn't so much what some stupid old rich man says, he also made it clear that was the position of the company as a whole. And that anti-gay money was going to organizations that actively campaign not only to make being gay illegal in the US, in other countries where it is gay and punishable by death, they campaign to keep the death penalty attached to it. That said, at least Siny agrees that A&E had no choice... though, based on past posts, I don't think Shiny sees that the whole modern day Conservative movement is driven by the greed factor, that modern Christian Conservatives are willing to toss out every government program to help the needy and the poor so that they can give tax breaks to the rich...

It's all a free publicity stunt. I'm sure A&E will cave in, or Phil will issue some semi apology, "like I still believe it is a sin, but I'm sorry I likened them to murderers and I'm sorry about offending any blacks, I was just noting my personal observations growing up" type thing and he'll continue to rake in millions, going against the very Jesus he claims to follow... and he'll be right back on.