SEO Los Angeles - MezzoLogic Explains Why Search Engine Opt has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea on that post.

SEO Los Angeles - MezzoLogic Explains Why Search Engine Opt has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/SEO-Los-Angeles-MezzoLogic-Explains-Why-Search-Engine-Opt

*related=http://videosift.com/video/SEO-Los-Angeles-MezzoLogic-Explains-Why-Search-Engine-Opt

SEO Los Angeles - MezzoLogic Explains Why Search Engine Opt has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/SEO-Los-Angeles-MezzoLogic-Explains-Why-Search-Engine-Opt

SEO Los Angeles - MezzoLogic Explains Why Search Engine Opt has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea.

#birthcertificate
#Benghazi
#guessthenextscandal
(or to say it another way, I don't think this will gain traction outside the far-right)

I'm curious @blankfist, are you irate at the Republicans for not telling you what was really in the bill they had the opportunity to read (but you did not)? You expect this from the democrats, so they only lived up to expectations, no? The republicans could have made this point long before the vote on ACA, but instead opted to claim Grandma was going to be sent to the death panels and other nonsense.
And, I must think those who are surprised in any way either missed or misunderstood the supreme court decision last time the ACA was defended, when they said the ACA was legal BECAUSE it is a tax. Anyone who was in the dark should have understood at that point, they made it clear. That's why I don't think this is likely to gain traction, it's not news, it's just rehashing 5 year old politics in the hope that most people don't recall what happened back then and will be angry about it again. That's how I see it.

I do agree, the climate that makes misrepresentation of what's actually in a bill is terrible for everyone. It would be much better if we could bar lawyers from holding any high public office/representative position, as many founding fathers wanted. Then bills might be written in clear language (by all sides). Good luck getting that though.


EDIT: Wanted to downvote the intent of the video, but wanted to upvote the funny song....so I'll just not vote.

Hope he opted for the extended warranty ... what a tool

Economics is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of rationality. Logic. The laws of geometry do not change on the basis of one's interpretation. Same is true in economics. As such, one can apply this logic in the absence of any particular belief system. I cite Mises' book because it lays out, in a clear and understandable way, why this is so. But you can read others on the topic (e.g., Hazlitt, Hayek, and Rothbard), as I am not attached to any sort of "fundamentalism" despite your attempts to depict me as such. But so long as you (or anyone) believes they're going to gain any understanding or insight or ability to parse the type of rhetoric demonstrated in this video, then the confusion and suffering that it propagates will continue. I assure you, nowhere in the text I linked (nor in any of the work of the authors I've cited) have addressed, specifically, the "babysitter economy" or the "prison camp economy," and yet, somehow I've pointed out the flaws in the postulated arguments here (flaws, I might add, you chose to ignore, opting instead to engage in a diatribe about me personally).

I could care less if you or anyone on videosift likes me as a person, but stupidity can be addressed with education. Willful ignorance, on other hand, cannot be helped.

Guys, you have to understand how the industrial security system works. Companies get paid to find and investigate threats. If they don't find and investigate threats, they don't get paid. So, if enough time passes without any threats, care to guess what they might do?

The system has been entirely co-opted by the oligarchs. You want answers? Go ask the Carlyle Group, or whatever security company was in charge of the incident. The government isn't in control.

I've made similar statements to my family. I was raised Republican and think that a lot of the core values are great. Unfortunately, you've got the koch brother tea party nutjobs and previously the neocon PNAC SOB's that have co-opted the party. I do think there is a large portion of the Tea Party that have legitimate beefs and that they actually align in many ways with the Occupy movement. I would like to see the U.S. have many more legitimate parties, but it seems like the system is too rigged for this to happen.

Yes, I am not entirely convinced by the term "reverse racism" either, but that's the one he used so I opted to let it stand.

Nonetheless, it's interesting how people can remain stuck on the label and miss the bigger point.
Yes "racism is racism", but that's not what he is talking about. Let's use a simple example: you're a white guy out in the street (of a western country, that is), minding your own business, when suddenly you are insulted by a black guy out of nowhere. He hates white folks. That guy is an evil racist, you got that right. He even snatches your wallet. You've been mugged by a racist. It sucks. It's an event in your life, but tomorrow will be another day.
Now let's compare that to being a black/colored/minority person: The police can stop, frisk, and detain you. Any day. You may be refused service at some restaurant. Any day. You may not be let in a club. Any day. You may not get that job. You may not get that apartment. If where you live really sucks, you may be in for a mugging or lynching on a seasonal basis. It won't happen all the time of course, but it will happen again and again, with a frequency and severity you will never be able to predict, and when it happens you will have no recourse. It's not 'an event', it defines you life. You expect it around every street corner.

So you and I can encounter a racist, but someone from a minority does experience racism (in other words, they've encountered so many racists in their life they've stopped counting: they talk about 'racism', not 'racists'). These are completely different things. There is simply no way you can actually live that level of oppression if you are not part of a minority.

And this is what he meant. He's not saying that there are no non-white racists, or no racists aiming at whites. He is saying there's no way you can experience actual real-scale racism, as it happens in society, if you yourself are part of the ethnic majority. Quite the difference.

TL;DR: racist != racism

I don't know if that's really a point missed. This paradox that we give up certain freedoms to live in a free society isn't new or controversial imo. The discussion, and the thing Snowden seems to be addressing, is that of a simple cost benefit analysis. I'd wager that a proportion of Americans might, given the revelations on the NSA, still opt for them to continue or even increase their operations in the belief it might make them safer. If they are convinced that not only does this collection of data not offer them protection, but it also comes at great monetary expense, then they might reconsider.

As an aside, the environment, like nuclear war, presents one of the few problems for which it is difficult to fully opt out. In such areas, we are all at the mercy (more or less) of "the people" and their rulers. As such, your "debate" with me has contributed nothing to "fighting" global warming.