free style climbing is just ridiculous, it makes those climbers that use ropes look like pansies, and those that don't climb look like quivering mounds of jelly.

Poor people are poor because they make poor economic or social decisions, the same way rich people can be made poor. Fortunately most people learn not to make the same mistakes.

"So, if everyone in the world worked hard enough, could everyone be a millionaire?"

Why is this a 'clever' question? The answer is no, because not every nation in the world has a capitalist system which supports the trade of valuable goods and services for money, or heavily taxes citizenry to the point being "extra" productive is worth it.

The idea that economics is a zero-sum game and that the system is hopelessly rigged are left wing shibboleths. Outside of black markets, there is no such thing as "unregulated capitalism." The socialists have seen to that.




>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great sift, Bill is really getting to the heart of conservative psychology here, which reminds me...
I had a conversation with a conservative friend a few weeks ago, and the conservative used the typical 'poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough' spiel. I responded, "so if a poor person works hard enough, he or she could become a millionaire?" "Yes", the conservative said. (The trap is sprung.) "So, if everyone in the world worked hard enough, could everyone be a millionaire?" No response - the conservative was literally speechless. Put that one in your quiver.

Great sift, Bill is really getting to the heart of conservative psychology here, which reminds me...

I had a conversation with a conservative friend a few weeks ago, and the conservative used the typical 'poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough' spiel. I responded, "so if a poor person works hard enough, he or she could become a millionaire?" "Yes", the conservative said. (The trap is sprung.) "So, if everyone in the world worked hard enough, could everyone be a millionaire?" No response - the conservative was literally speechless. Put that one in your quiver.

Thinking about it makes me quiver.

I'm pretty sure that this is the fake "fan made" trailer that the studio started doing takedown notices about a week or two for.

Can someone confirm for sure if this is that trailer of if suddenly they released this? It looks very familiar and similar to the fake one?

Morganth posted the same video last week but it went dead
http://videosift.com/video/Harry-Potter-Deathly-Hallows-Pt-2-Featurette

ARTICLE:
Muggles the world over were quivering with excitement on Monday (April 18) when an alleged new "first peek" trailer for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" debuted online. Just one problem: It was a fake.

After the trailer was picked up by several sites -- from fan blogs to legitimate news gathering organizations -- Warner Bros. had the footage yanked off YouTube (though it's still available elsewhere) and issued this terse statement:

"Warner Bros. is not pulling the 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2' trailer. The alleged 'trailer' is not a trailer. It's a fan-created piece that uses the studio's intellectual property in an unauthorized way."

Since the movie hits theaters in July, we expect a trailer for *real* fans -- you know, the kind that don't get so excited about a hyped-up blockbuster that they take the initiative to create a tribute of sorts -- soon.
http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/04/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-trailer-a-fake.html

These actually have a real impact on me, I think due in part to my dogs. People make light of it, but something as simple as finding your pets after something so tragic has taken place will turn the biggest man in the room into a quivering bowl of jelly; it's very emotional. Just look at the lady; she's almost speechless. The dog as well is overjoyed.

I've come back from long trips and my dogs will literally not leave me alone for a good 20 minutes or so.

I know it would leave me nearly speechless and overjoyed to an extreme extent.

The ending showing the rescue makes me tear up... Sometimes humans truly do, do the right things and they'll steal your breath if you witness it and if they do it right. Inspiring.

I think you're taking it a lil' too far. Like I don't watch major networks and I didn't hear about this whole drawing muhammed thing like ever before. Bar the original BBC/CNN debacle a couple of years back which did happen during a slow news day. I think most of this is manufactured totally and gives some free publicity to some small sector of nutters.

Like this past year some group announced some plans to hold a rally carrying caskets of dead muslims around the city in the UK where almost all UK troops killed in Afghanistan are carried through.

What followed was NATIONWIDE coverage and outrage from all sectors of the public from MPs to the SUN to the fucking mail about how fucking horrible and insensitive it was and what not.

The rally never happened, it was just announced and PRed into the mainstream media and made the group who wanted to hold it national news they had the head guy up on telly chatting shit. Their representantive actually said that they did this for Pr and the media bought and spewed it back to the masses.

Its just like those pictures of muslims in the UK with signs that read SHARIA is GOOD for UK, all zoomed in with cops around made to look like there are hundreds of people pull back and theres like 12 of them...

Its just yellow journalism of another sort.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'd like to see that, god yes. Major networks want to spark the controversy even more, it's good news, gives good ratings. I'd like to see muslims unite against muslim hatred, on the inter-web for instance. There's not censorship here other than what we make ourselves (and china and so on), but there's far less censorship than on any network.
Every muslim who says "oh that's only the fundamentalists, most of us aren't like that, so I'm just going to stay muslim and mind my own business" is in essence undermining the effort to destroy the fundamentalists and their stupid beliefs. Why don't they make "neo-islam" a thing akin to protestants breaking off from the crazier outliers of their religion, so we know more clearly who to hat and who not to? That would be a good start.
I'm speaking out against islam, christianity, mormonism etc. because I cannot just stand by while we devolve into the dark ages again. Why can't more people just voice their disdain, dislike, disgust or whatever they have for the fundamentalists, who more than anything else sullies their religion, their persons, their families?? Why aren't they OUTRAGED!?>> ^Farhad2000:
Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.
>> ^gwiz665:
I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

I'd like to see that, god yes. Major networks want to spark the controversy even more, it's good news, gives good ratings. I'd like to see muslims unite against muslim hatred, on the inter-web for instance. There's not censorship here other than what we make ourselves (and china and so on), but there's far less censorship than on any network.

Every muslim who says "oh that's only the fundamentalists, most of us aren't like that, so I'm just going to stay muslim and mind my own business" is in essence undermining the effort to destroy the fundamentalists and their stupid beliefs. Why don't they make "neo-islam" a thing akin to protestants breaking off from the crazier outliers of their religion, so we know more clearly who to hat and who not to? That would be a good start.

I'm speaking out against islam, christianity, mormonism etc. because I cannot just stand by while we devolve into the dark ages again. Why can't more people just voice their disdain, dislike, disgust or whatever they have for the fundamentalists, who more than anything else sullies their religion, their persons, their families?? Why aren't they OUTRAGED!?>> ^Farhad2000:

Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.
>> ^gwiz665:
I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

Oh come on show me one major media network that has ever been willing to put on the air a moderate muslim voice like Hamza Yusuf.

>> ^gwiz665:

I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.
>> ^MrFisk:
Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

>> ^MrFisk:

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

If moderate Muslims exist (the ones critical of Muslim irrationality), then they are doing as good a job of hiding as moderate Christians did in the 14th Century. And for similar reasons. Because of this, yes, it is fair to blame the entire religion, which can be described as a religion of conquest like no other before it.

I blame them all. If they want to be a religion of peace, they have to speak out against the violence. As long as they just go along with it, they are not much better themselves. I spit in their direction.

>> ^MrFisk:

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explain my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media it quivers others into submission.

Freedom of speech is the primary thread that the Bill of Rights, and thus, the U.S. Constitution dangles from. However, it is not absolute - e.g., I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Now, I hold free speech especially dear to my reasoning. I believe that John Milton's Areopagitica is essential - i.e., "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple." (That is the key to explaining my Glenn Beck submissions.)
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for drawing Muhammad, but I downvote this because this guy is a moron and I don't think that you should blame an entire religion for something a handful of douche bags espouse. The real shame is that these handful of douche bags has been given such a loud voice by the media that it quivers others into submission.

[edit]: If Freedom of Speech is the thumb, and laws expressly prohibiting religion, press, assembly, and petition are the other four fingers on the hand which makes the Bill of Rights--why was religion guaranteed first and foremost?

>> ^Psychologic:

I definitely question those things... not whether they exist, but what their underlying mechanics are. As far as I am aware, the exact nature of gravity (for example) is still uncertain.
Likewise, I am not proposing that the climate is not changing. I do want to understand why it changes though, and I have to get beyond that before I can even begin to know whether or not I agree with projections for the future.
If I had to pick sides for some reason, then I would side with the consensus. I have no reason to doubt it. That wouldn't satisfy my intellectual curiosity though... I like to know how stuff works. If someone asked me whether or not I could explain how much of an effect humans have on the climate then I would have to answer "no", and that bothers me.
Disagree with the video all you want, but don't think that it represents me. It's just something I posted to start a discussion.


Great points! Glad to hear that this video does not represent your views, and big ups for intellectual curiosity for how things work.

"Sides" are my problem.

There aren't two sides to this debate. There is science, and there is corporately funded propaganda. Science starts with data and works forwards towards a conclusion; the corporate skeptics start with their conclusion and work backwards to try and find only the bits of data that support the previously decided upon conclusion. There is zero intellectual curiosity behind this 'skepticism', and their really isn't any genuine skepticism either, just profit motive.

Notice how this corporate effort manipulates and flatters people. If you embrace their ideas, they are quick to compliment you for your freethinking, your independence of thought, your wise skepticism, and your ability to see the truth through all the partisan hackery. Never mind that half empty Kool Aid pitcher on the table or that quivering bladder full of purple sticky stuff, because you are an individual goddamit!

This is called identity politics, because the ideology is basically stapled to your ego. It's very effective, because you can't change your mind on the issue without also sacrificing the fantasy of your own bold, rugged individualism. Not only that, but your old skeptic friends will consider you just another sheep in the herd, a patsy, a monkey, another drone in the matrix, blind to larger conspiracy that surrounds us all.

If you want to satisfy your intellectual curiosity on climate change, go to the source. Science isn't some faceless authority that hands down arbitrary judgments (like the Supreme Court). Science is made up of intellectually curious individuals who want to know how things work. They carry out their debates through research and editorialize with peer review. At the end of the day, the ideas that have not been disproved are allowed to remain, while the ideas that have been disproved are discarded. Is this not a fucking beautiful system?!

Thanks for the opportunity to articulate some of these thoughts in writing. I'm upvoting the video for the discussion.

(not sure why the formatting is so strange on this comment)

So let me get this straight, a rich elderly politician with a plum government health care plan opposes similar options for his constituents, and he calls it a freedom movement? Freedom for whom? Freedom for corporations to deny care for pre-existing conditions? Freedom for people who can't afford health care to die? Freedom for middle class people to go bankrupt paying inflated medical expenses?

Ron Paul is a fraud, and a willing proxy for the people who profit off the status quo. If your nose wasn't lodged so far up Ron Paul's tender, quivering sphincter, maybe you'd be able to see it too.

I saw this low value production several years ago. It is a mostly boring film with an unforgettable live turtle butchering scene.
Meat quivers.