blahblahblah
"i'm honored to be a guest in your country" ...eeeemmm yea... idk about that one
"something something 9-11, thousands dead..."
"confident on afghanistan..." eeem... history... maybe some doubt..

anyway..

so one guy says war is good for the economy, so I could see Afghanistan making sense that way...
and then it seems like it's a money pit ala roman doom...
i voted for him, and maybe the war machine is just totally out his power ala nixon...
or maybe he's an evil fuck killing shit in the desert..
that bomber jacket/bush flashback didn't help...
anyway.. let's see what happens next.

::shudder::

So you want to force all those Sarah Palin types (you know, the ones that can't even -name- a magazine or newspaper, or find a polling booth without a personal guide) to cast votes on issues they can't even name, much less spell?

God save us. If you don't know what the issues are, you have no imposing your ignorance on the rest of the country...stay home on election day. Please!

I actually -would- support a literacy (or civics) test for voting, except that the people who make and administer the test will change, and sooner or later we'd end up with bigots and ideologists in charge. (If you doubt that, remember how our current Supreme Court tossed out nearly 100 years of precedent to give the speech of CEOs a virtually infinite megaphone.) Putting such control in those hands is even worse than being ruled by the opinions of morons.

>> ^dgandhi:
The unwashed masses in the US are equal part moderate/conservative, it just sounds good to the anti-democrat folks who are sure that it's stupid(read black or immigrant) voters that keep them out of power. Such a test will likely have no effect on elections unless it is used to unequally disenfranchise.
I suggest, instead, that we do the opposite, institute a fine(say $100) for NOT voting. Both parties clam to be the representatives of the "silent majority", let's see who's bluffing.>> ^Enzoblue:
Ok, I understand the room for corruption in a literacy test, but can someone explain to me what would be wrong with a test that made sure people where competent enough to know what the heck they were voting for and aren't just taking the side of the very last smooth talker that got them riled? I know there's tons of room for talk here, but I'm having a hard time being against a sheeple filter.

The unwashed masses in the US are equal part moderate/conservative, it just sounds good to the anti-democrat folks who are sure that it's stupid(read black or immigrant) voters that keep them out of power. Such a test will likely have no effect on elections unless it is used to unequally disenfranchise.

I suggest, instead, that we do the opposite, institute a fine(say $100) for NOT voting. Both parties clam to be the representatives of the "silent majority", let's see who's bluffing.>> ^Enzoblue:
Ok, I understand the room for corruption in a literacy test, but can someone explain to me what would be wrong with a test that made sure people where competent enough to know what the heck they were voting for and aren't just taking the side of the very last smooth talker that got them riled? I know there's tons of room for talk here, but I'm having a hard time being against a sheeple filter.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
It gets exposure, it gathers votes, and from what I've seen when a dupe is called the original doesn't get any kind of 'hotness' bump, so by invoking dupeof you're effectively removing a vid from the table entirely.


Hence the ability to promote. If you call dupeof on a video, nothing stops you from then promoting the original to get it more votes. Unless they are out of power points I suppose. I will do both, either put a link if the duper has the ability to dupe it himself. If then after a couple days it's still not duped, I'll invoke myself. If the duper cannot invoke, I will do it immediately most of the time.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who can manage to raise that kind of money tend strongly to be exactly the type of sociopaths that own and run those operations.


Yeah, that's kind of the problem. Those in power are there because they spend that power on keeping the rest of society out of power. That's how they stay on top, after all. Since I can't materialize wealth out of the ether and am not willing to be immoral / unethical to raise large sums of money, I need another way to "fight the machine" as it were.

The song is "Say Hey" and this is the perfect happy Friday vid clip, but I'm out of power points to promote it....I'll be back!

I'll admit, I'm a bit bummed about losing my Bronze, and several of my star points were from applauded comments, back when that worked.

However, a stroll through my own comments highlights the reasoning behind the decision to stop awarding star points for applauds - I've only sifted a few videos and the bulk of my contribution is three years of smart-ass jabs and attempts at sarcasm. I can understand why we wouldn't want to promote that sort of behavior.

I've gotten very little use out of Power Points, except (coincidentally) to beg a video so that I could get my 10th star point and earn my Bronze.

As an additional suggestion, what if Power Points could be used by sub-Bronze members for downvoting?

>> ^burdturgler:
This definition of homeopathy is part of the problem. Who made that definition? I hope it wasn't the people who approved Fen-Phen et al. I truly wish for you that you never have a family member go to a cancer treatment center because the first thing they start prescribing is "positive thinking" and other "homeopathic" treatments. Many of which have profound effect on the outcome of their patients. Yes, get chemo, of course! Do whatever you have to do .. but don't count out the power of your own mind and body to fight disease. Homeopathy is a lot more than watered down drugs.


Wow, a new level in stupidity. Instead of just looking it up you continue to argue what you know nothing about. Who made that definition you ask? Well, it was the inventor of homeopathy, Samuel Hahneman. HE INVENTED HOMEOPATHY! It is defined as: A system for treating disease based on the administration of minute doses of a drug that in massive amounts produces symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the disease itself.

There is no alternative definition.

Positive thinking and placebo do have an effect on the body, that is undisputed. THAT IS NOT HOMEOPATHY and that has nothing to do with homeopathy. Homeopathy is a very specific practice, it is NOT a catch-all word for "positive thinking" or any "new age" treatments.

Do your research. Stop being stupid.

>> ^Skeeve:
The people here who are defending homeopathy obviously do not understand what homeopathy is. A solution prepared under homeopathic guidelines has one part of the "curative" substance to 10^20th water or more. I say again: the active ingredient is one in 10 to the 20th power OR MORE. 1:1000000000000000000000. The chance that there is a single molecule of the "curative" substance in the "medicine" is absolutely astronomical. Homeopathy is a scam and has no effects whatsoever.


This definition of homeopathy is part of the problem. Who made that definition? I hope it wasn't the people who approved Fen-Phen et al. I truly wish for you that you never have a family member go to a cancer treatment center because the first thing they start prescribing is "positive thinking" and other "homeopathic" treatments. Many of which have profound effect on the outcome of their patients. Yes, get chemo, of course! Do whatever you have to do .. but don't count out the power of your own mind and body to fight disease. Homeopathy is a lot more than watered down drugs.

*promote

EDIT: I was an idiot who never bother to find out what Power Points were. I know now.

^Liberals in the US are just as irrational as liberals in Canada. Canada has lately been run by conservatives because there's a single conservative party and 2 liberal parties. Sounds terribly like Gore vs. Nader/Bush in 2000. Bunch of rocket scientist liberals up there, out of power in one of the most liberal countries in the world.

If Gore had been our president these last 8 years, instead of John Roberts and Sam Alito on the supreme court, we would have 2 more liberal justices on a court that was already leaning left. We might already have had gay marriage legalized throughout the country.

The far-left's self-sabotage theory of progress is contradicted by the evidence (and common sense).

I'm out of power points! Gaaa!

>> ^Xaielao:
Off topic, someone needs to upload last nights The Daily Show bit where John Stewart showed how bat-shit crazy conservatives (particularly on FOX) have become after 10 weeks out of power. Funny as hell.

Et voila... http://www.videosift.com/video/TDS-4-7-09-Baracknophobia-Obey

I don't know how FOX reacted to this, but I know CNN had a pundit talking about how this country was founded on christian principles and while we have freedom of religion it cannot be denied that the nation was founded on Christianity.

Which is nothing less then a shovel of bullshit that these people (the conservative movement) have pushed on themselves so much they now believe it. Many of the most renown Founding Fathers were considerably AGAINST fundamental and organized religions.Several, like John Adams, Tomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington either weren't religious or religion simply did not pertain to their work as our Founding Fathers, like Tomas Jefferson who famously quoted;

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

So Obama is absolutely correct. We are NOT a christian nation, nor a Jewish Nation, no any other nation of a particular religion. We are a nation of citizens with their own beliefs and rights.

I know the fundamentals in this country would like nothing better than to make this country a Christian nation, to make Christianity the state religion. But to even suggest the founding fathers would have been behind that is beyond asinine.


Last, Winstonefield, I don't think that the majority are arguing that those who work in the government should be atheist and only atheist. But simply as the above quote states, that religion should be between them and their particular god and should have no place in their work.

The seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution as it was written, but the Supreme Court has knocked down any case that comes up against that in every single case that has come before them. Frankly, the simple fact that nobody can obtain a higher office in this country (particularly that as president) without vehemotly announcing their CHRISTIAN faith. The founding fathers should be rolling over in their grave that such unannounced stipulations are indeed fact. With evidense all around us, with the continued perpetuation that Obama is a Muslam (which was perpetuated by the fundamental conservative movement to prevent him from obtaining votes in the election,) being the most recent.

On a personal level I am not against religion. I am religious myself. What I think is wrong, and what I think many of our founding fathers thought was wrong, was fundamental, organized religion. Religion should be between a man (or woman) and their personal faith. It should start there and end there.


Off topic, someone needs to upload last nights The Daily Show bit where John Stewart showed how bat-shit crazy conservatives (particularly on FOX) have become after 10 weeks out of power. Funny as hell.

>> ^Xaielao:
This is just TWO MONTHS into the new presidency. They've been out of power for two whole months. I cant wait to see how completely bonkers they've gone after 2 years.


It is still a dangerous time. The far right could use the new depression as a means of fomenting support for some polemic dictator-type.

Hell, I bet that there are some who feel that Obama is that polemic. I only hope that they're wrong, and the current administration is smart enough to destroy the giant, opaque investment banking monopolies that are destroying the world. (by breaking them into smaller, more transparent entities)