Dude, look, part of why this country is where it is quite frankly is people blanket refuse to actually think about the issues. I know that's been the case for a lot of people, but it's getting to the point that every political "discussion" turns into a shouting match of "YOU'RE A COMMIE LIBERAL!" and "YOU'RE A FASCIST CONSERVATIVE!"

I got called a flaming liberal because I dared to say the current economic crisis is not Obama's fault. I got called a right-winger the very same day because I said Obama has lacked clear leadership, and has failed in making fundamental change when we desperately needed it.

How can we ever get anywhere if everyone is shouting at each other? This kind of crap doesn't help!

I totally understand why the Democrats would release this kind of ad. It makes sense for them. But we as Americans in general should be smart enough to know it's BS and dismiss it, but we don't.

Here's a slam dunk of the BS in that ad. Romney's vision for the US is a decimated middle class?! WTFBBQ is that?! Look, I understand you believe his policies would result in that, but he believes his policies would have the opposite effect. I even agree with you that I think his policies would do more to hurt the middle class than help. BUT... he doesn't envision a decimated middle class. He doesn't want a decimated middle class. It's just ridiculous.

>> ^dag:

Sorry @NetRunner, I have to disagree with you on this one. Have we actually declared war on Awlaki's organisation? I don't think so. And his US citizenship is very pertinent here. Next time it may be the executive branch deciding to take out a "domestic terrorist". Due process should be a right for all US citizens, it's enshrined in the constitution. Good on Jake Tapper, the guy's got big heroic journalist balls.


"Awlaki's organization" is Al Qaeda. Technically the AUMF (what passes for declarations of war these days), was against "those responsible for the [9/11] attacks", aka Al Qaeda. So yes, we declared war.

And it's not the executive branch that decides who we're at war with, it's Congress. And Congress declared war on Al Qaeda.

But the upshot is that you don't disagree with me. I don't think this is right. I don't think this is the way the law should be. I don't think this is in keeping with our values or morals as they have been traditionally, and certainly not where I'd like them to be.

Like I said in my first comment though, these are separate questions. One is about what is, the other is about what should be.

I think being in denial about where we really are just gets in the way of coming up with cogent strategies for getting to where we should be.

A court case against this isn't some sort of slam dunk. In the current court environment, you're a lot more likely to see the courts validate its legality rather than repudiate it. Certainly the legal opinions of either blankfist or me aren't binding.

If you want a permanent fix, it needs to be legislative. It might even require a Constitutional amendment, especially if we wind up with a Scalia-led decision from the Supreme Court.

We may be getting distracted by the name Austrian which may mean different things to different people. I think there are views skeptical of stimulus held by respectable economists. I put forward Russ Roberts as one example. You seemed to say earlier that these kind of views don't constitute a continuing argument against stimulus-type policy. If that's right, could you explain why? They seem very reasonable to me.

I would also be curious if you have a criticism of the Hangover theory of this recession (that it was caused by malinvestment due to artificially low interest rates.) Krugman criticised it by saying that if unemployment results from frictional problems reallocating workers to new industries, "why doesn't the investment boom—which presumably requires a transfer of workers in the opposite direction—also generate mass unemployment?"

Krugman seems to think that's a slam-dunk against the theory but surely there are simple explanations for why friction could happen one way and not the other. When an industry booms it takes place over a long period and is a beacon attracting loose labour to it. When the collapse comes it is much faster than the boom and there are no obvious beacons for where the misplaced labour is to go. It seems normal to me that the reverse process is more difficult and leads to more unemployment. If you've an answer to that I'd be interested to hear it.>> ^NetRunner: Honestly, I'm happy to litigate out the actual reasons why I think Austrian economics is wrong, but I don't really care to get into a contest of who's got the bigger expert parroting their pet theory.

and scientists, both PUBLIC and PRIVATELY funded have come to the same conclusion... no matter WHAT country they live in... so this conspiracy can't be based on funding, can't be based on politics, etc

>>> You mean, because one country may have a dictator and another a cabal of communists running it, they can't use the same falsities and propaganda to make people surrender their rights (if they had any to begin with)? And why would you include only the findings of "Private" scientitians who agree with you? Aren't THEY in the pocket of someone? Say, investors in Al Gore's companies?

what you are saying is that it would have to be some CLANDESTINE meeting of 10s of 1000s of scientists, who don't all speak the same language mind you, and who don't have the same political views (capitalism/socialism/etc), and are geographically seperated by vast distances...

>>> I think you and others are in error on the number of 'scientitians' who believe anthropogenic global warming is both provable and a slam dunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

and yes a consensus doesn't = fact... but if there are 10s of 1000s of people who devote their studies/life work to a topic, who submit their findings to peer review and follow the scientific method... who all agree on the subject VS a few pseudo science cracks, with no published/peer reviewed articles, who do science out of their garage and a couple 100 oil company pay roll scientists (again, with no peer reviewed/published articles) who try to debunk it...

well i'm going with the 10s of 1000s

>>> Right. And everyone who disagrees with the wonders of socialism (e.g. factual data proving socialist programs don't work as intended or promised) is obviously in the pocket of evil capitalists.

crackpot or inbed with oil companies strikes me as a MUCH more plausible misinterpreting of the facts than the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

It's amusing to no end that the same "rationalists" who never hesitate to jump on governments for using religion to control the public, find no danger at all when the same governments use distorted SCIENCE to hide their power grabs.

Unfortunately, public opinion has had it with these alarmists.

Slam dunk! That's a rap phrase isn't it?

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan
I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.
Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year...
The point I was trying to make is, he wasn't saying there should be no laws. He even mentioned that even the 1st amendment has rules, that you can't injure or defame others. He believes that your personal choices should be your own.
If someone injures another, like your child abuse analogy, then he believes there SHOULD be consequences and laws. If your heroin junkie breaks into someone's home to steal money, then he should go to jail for burglary, not being an addict. If he holds a knife to your kid's throat to get their lunch money, he should be jailed for assault with deadly weapon, not because he has a used needle in his back pocket.


How is polling the audience supporting that argument? He was making two arguments (at least), one of which was the "reasonable person" argument which I think is baloney. You could apply the same argument to a horrible crime like child abuse.

His _other_ argument which you highlight -- the right to personal freedom -- is much more persuasive. I agree it is THE fundamental argument on this topic, and nobody should believe that it's a slam dunk argument either way.

I think entr0py's argument is compelling. Drugs like heroin are an overly tempting way to ruin your life. It's not a matter of intelligence or education -- one of the most interesting anti-smoking studies found that teenagers actually OVERestimate the danger of smoking. But they still do it, anyway. Virtually everyone who smokes started as a teenager. People simply do stupid things which are against their self interests and society's interest. So I don't want to see heroin regulated the way cigarettes are. That's not sufficient. Anyway, this is the "should government protect you from yourself" argument which some people find repugnant. I take it you are one of them. You don't care if 15% of every high school class dies from heroin abuse because on their 18th birthday they get access to plentiful, cheap heroin. I'm not saying that would be the case, I'm just saying that a strict believer in personal freedom would be fine with this.

Also I think we should worry about preventing crime, not punishing it. Yes, we could offer a young mother lots of heroin and wait until her child neglect becomes actionable by the state, but why let a family be ruined? You're right, her actions would snowball to the point of being illegal without making the drug itself illegal. That doesn't really reassure me much.

Maybe such problems wouldn't be widespread if all drugs were legalized. But they're already fairly common, and I don't see how legalizing everything would make them rarer.

Are you really OK with living next door to a house full of heroin addicts? having them offer your children heroin? Watching them spiral in to filth while they lose self control? Seeing their children show up at the bus stop unwashed and starving? And having the police tell you "Well, they haven't done anything illegal yet. Clearly this situation will crash and burn shortly, but we should definitely stand at the sidelines and watch. We wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms". Or maybe child services is more on the ball and the children end up in state custody sooner rather than later, so it's a happy ending? So maybe children and parents aren't allowed to use these drugs but other people can? And maybe nobody who operates heavy machinery? And certainly not schoolteachers.

It just seems like a useless exercise to me to try to give people the freedom to use a drug like heroin when it will only cause terrible repercussions.

>> ^Lann:

How did you get Finland to like your game?


Awesome comic!

Well, the game was dark and brooding, so it was a slam-dunk.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Number One:
Our government is in debt. How do you cure debt?
Cut spending? Sure. Tho less spending doesn't remove debt you've already accumulated.
To pay off 14 trillion in Debt. You need 14 trillion in Income
Taxes = Income.
Taxes are not "income", as governments which didn't earn the $$$ use force to collect. Government is not a performance-based enterprise, it's a necessary evil.
Reducing government from a tick bigger than the dog it feasts upon to a reasonable size is part of the equation. The other part is LOWERING taxes for all, which paradoxically creates more revenue.
The obamateur's corrupt excuse of an administration--even with majority voting power--has failed.
Number Two:
No one who MAKES 1 million dollars a year EARNS 1 million dollars a year.
Earning implies you did work.
No single person can physically work to create one million dollars in equivalent value per year. Physically impossible.
Income is an indicator of how much others will pay for an individual's performance. While I think it's total nonsense that people worship some asshole that can slam dunk a ball through a metal ring, others highly value this skill, so much so they make these ring-dunkers multi-millionaires. And the team owners that pay these 'outrageous' salaries reap financial rewards that make those salaries a bargain.
The average American only EARNS about 2.4 mill in LIFETIME earnings.
Which means, anyone who MAKES a Million+ a year STOLE the money EARNED by the VALUE of other people's hard WORK in order to write themselves such fat paychecks.
Sounds like socialist claptrap. This "rigged game theory" is what justifies the redistribution of wealth (at gunpoint) that the obamas of the world believe in. If there is any 'stealing' going on, it's being done by the looters who hand out wealth to people who had absolutely no role in creating it.
The left in America apparently learned nothing from North Korean, Cuban and Soviet experiments about the failure that is communism, and nothing about rampant socialism from the collapse of Greece.
November 2nd. Change is coming.



And the right that borrows money to aviod tax-cuts, or avoids cutting defense when it is needed? And before it is said, ALL of the right is debt-lovers but deniers... 1/1000 at least. "Cut this program, cut that program, but NEVER, ever My programs..."

Number One:
Our government is in debt. How do you cure debt?

Cut spending? Sure. Tho less spending doesn't remove debt you've already accumulated.

To pay off 14 trillion in Debt. You need 14 trillion in Income

Taxes = Income.

Taxes are not "income", as governments which didn't earn the $$$ use force to collect. Government is not a performance-based enterprise, it's a necessary evil.

Reducing government from a tick bigger than the dog it feasts upon to a reasonable size is part of the equation. The other part is LOWERING taxes for all, which paradoxically creates more revenue.

The obamateur's corrupt excuse of an administration--even with majority voting power--has failed.


Number Two:
No one who MAKES 1 million dollars a year EARNS 1 million dollars a year.

Earning implies you did work.
No single person can physically work to create one million dollars in equivalent value per year. Physically impossible.

Income is an indicator of how much others will pay for an individual's performance. While I think it's total nonsense that people worship some asshole that can slam dunk a ball through a metal ring, others highly value this skill, so much so they make these ring-dunkers multi-millionaires. And the team owners that pay these 'outrageous' salaries reap financial rewards that make those salaries a bargain.

The average American only EARNS about 2.4 mill in LIFETIME earnings.

Which means, anyone who MAKES a Million+ a year STOLE the money EARNED by the VALUE of other people's hard WORK in order to write themselves such fat paychecks.

Sounds like socialist claptrap. This "rigged game theory" is what justifies the redistribution of wealth (at gunpoint) that the obamas of the world believe in. If there is any 'stealing' going on, it's being done by the looters who hand out wealth to people who had absolutely no role in creating it.

The left in America apparently learned nothing from North Korean, Cuban and Soviet experiments about the failure that is communism, and nothing about rampant socialism from the collapse of Greece.

November 2nd. Change is coming.

eh, i don't get it. inhofe actually says that speeding up the project is "great news", and that the funds for the project were "necessary". doesn't seem like a slam dunk. you can have an honestly good project funded with "dirty" money from an ill-conceived program; but that doesn't make the good project any less necessary or its speedy completion a bad thing.

the original inhofe article is here

meh, i prefer to get my new analysis from the daily show.

I can sleep well tonight, knowing that somebody finally said it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I took five days because I wanted to ignore it and move on. The more I thought about it, the more I had to reply. Cute how you're a fucking mean-spirited bastard, who have to attack other people on no grounds.

I'm not certain which behavior you are referring to, but if you are referring to the inflatablevagina incident, then I've settled that with her and that should be that - there's nothing more in that. You had neither the right, nor the knowledge to make statements about what happened there, the fact that you can't help to butt in says much about you.

If you are referring to the lies that came from peggedbea, then you are just running with rumors and taking their side because they are women - you are a sexist.

If you are referring to the way me and alien_concept talked to each other, that is none of your business. You don't understand the "relationship" we had - I only ever reciprocated all that talk, if she didn't want it anymore, she could have told me properly, instead of the shorthanded dismissal thing she sent me. It is not your place to put yourself between other people when you don't know what's going on; it's the same that happened with obsidianfire. Maybe you should burn out too, because your presence isn't welcome or appreciated anymore.

Oooh, people know how "disgusting" I am - no, they don't, they have no fucking idea. And neither do you.

Die in a fire.


In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Cute how you spend 5 days to come up with a reply.

And I don't care if I "damaged" myself while "defending" people on the sift. Your behaviour was inappropriate and unnecessacory, but despite what I and others had hoped, that seems beyond your comprehension. So whatever your current cute-puppy-theme is all about - just know that most of the sift know what a disgusting person you are.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
There was little to learn about myself from that whole ordeal, but a whole lot to learn about other people. Suffice to say, I'm more careful about what I befriend.

While we're on the subject of learning about ourselves, I want to shine a light on you, since it seems to me that you are completely oblivious of your own stance towards other people - your comments often have an unwarranted air of superiority about them, an "I know better than you" attitude even in things that you really don't like the quoted comment, like that whole thread. You were quick to say what I had to learn and realize, well, you need to look yourself in the mirror and realize that you don't know everything and not act as if you know better, or are better, than everyone else. You called me a sociopath - that is unforgivable, but I will ignore it, because there's enough fucking drama on the sift as it is. I hope you got a nice warm feeling from riding in your shiny armor to save those poor women who obviously couldn't speak for themselves, but only whisper in the corners, because in many eyes you damaged yourself in that thread much more than you damaged me, and in my eyes you have far more to learn from that thread than I do.

I shouldn't live with "it" on a daily basis, but I do - I was attacked by several people who had no idea what they were talking about, mostly you. You owe me a fucking apology for that, whether you realize it or not.


In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Yeah, get over it, no one should have to live with it on a daily basis. One thing though - try to learn something from it. Something about yourself. PS. Not meant in a disrespectful manner.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I am.

I'm trying to get over that whole thing, so it depends on my mood. It's basically inversely proportional to how recent I've looked at the talk post, or how vivid it is in my memory. I feel I was very slighted there and I think you owe me an apology for it.

I doubt I will ever get it, but in the mean time I'm trying to, if not bury the hatchet, then let it hang in the cubbard.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
This is a great tune. If only someone else had posted it, I would have qualitied. I'm carrying grudges that way.

>> ^gwiz665:
quality


You are inconsistent! Thanks for the quality.

I took five days because I wanted to ignore it and move on. The more I thought about it, the more I had to reply. Cute how you're a fucking mean-spirited bastard, who have to attack other people on no grounds.

I'm not certain which behavior you are referring to, but if you are referring to the inflatablevagina incident, then I've settled that with her and that should be that - there's nothing more in that. You had neither the right, nor the knowledge to make statements about what happened there, the fact that you can't help to butt in says much about you.

If you are referring to the lies that came from peggedbea, then you are just running with rumors and taking their side because they are women - you are a sexist.

If you are referring to the way me and alien_concept talked to each other, that is none of your business. You don't understand the "relationship" we had - I only ever reciprocated all that talk, if she didn't want it anymore, she could have told me properly, instead of the shorthanded dismissal thing she sent me. It is not your place to put yourself between other people when you don't know what's going on; it's the same that happened with obsidianfire. Maybe you should burn out too, because your presence isn't welcome or appreciated anymore.

Oooh, people know how "disgusting" I am - no, they don't, they have no fucking idea. And neither do you.

Die in a fire.


In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Cute how you spend 5 days to come up with a reply.

And I don't care if I "damaged" myself while "defending" people on the sift. Your behaviour was inappropriate and unnecessacory, but despite what I and others had hoped, that seems beyond your comprehension. So whatever your current cute-puppy-theme is all about - just know that most of the sift know what a disgusting person you are.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
There was little to learn about myself from that whole ordeal, but a whole lot to learn about other people. Suffice to say, I'm more careful about what I befriend.

While we're on the subject of learning about ourselves, I want to shine a light on you, since it seems to me that you are completely oblivious of your own stance towards other people - your comments often have an unwarranted air of superiority about them, an "I know better than you" attitude even in things that you really don't like the quoted comment, like that whole thread. You were quick to say what I had to learn and realize, well, you need to look yourself in the mirror and realize that you don't know everything and not act as if you know better, or are better, than everyone else. You called me a sociopath - that is unforgivable, but I will ignore it, because there's enough fucking drama on the sift as it is. I hope you got a nice warm feeling from riding in your shiny armor to save those poor women who obviously couldn't speak for themselves, but only whisper in the corners, because in many eyes you damaged yourself in that thread much more than you damaged me, and in my eyes you have far more to learn from that thread than I do.

I shouldn't live with "it" on a daily basis, but I do - I was attacked by several people who had no idea what they were talking about, mostly you. You owe me a fucking apology for that, whether you realize it or not.


In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Yeah, get over it, no one should have to live with it on a daily basis. One thing though - try to learn something from it. Something about yourself. PS. Not meant in a disrespectful manner.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I am.

I'm trying to get over that whole thing, so it depends on my mood. It's basically inversely proportional to how recent I've looked at the talk post, or how vivid it is in my memory. I feel I was very slighted there and I think you owe me an apology for it.

I doubt I will ever get it, but in the mean time I'm trying to, if not bury the hatchet, then let it hang in the cubbard.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
This is a great tune. If only someone else had posted it, I would have qualitied. I'm carrying grudges that way.

>> ^gwiz665:
quality


You are inconsistent! Thanks for the quality.

Cute how you spend 5 days to come up with a reply.

And I don't care if I "damaged" myself while "defending" people on the sift. Your behaviour was inappropriate and unnecessacory, but despite what I and others had hoped, that seems beyond your comprehension. So whatever your current cute-puppy-theme is all about - just know that most of the sift know what a disgusting person you are.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
There was little to learn about myself from that whole ordeal, but a whole lot to learn about other people. Suffice to say, I'm more careful about what I befriend.

While we're on the subject of learning about ourselves, I want to shine a light on you, since it seems to me that you are completely oblivious of your own stance towards other people - your comments often have an unwarranted air of superiority about them, an "I know better than you" attitude even in things that you really don't like the quoted comment, like that whole thread. You were quick to say what I had to learn and realize, well, you need to look yourself in the mirror and realize that you don't know everything and not act as if you know better, or are better, than everyone else. You called me a sociopath - that is unforgivable, but I will ignore it, because there's enough fucking drama on the sift as it is. I hope you got a nice warm feeling from riding in your shiny armor to save those poor women who obviously couldn't speak for themselves, but only whisper in the corners, because in many eyes you damaged yourself in that thread much more than you damaged me, and in my eyes you have far more to learn from that thread than I do.

I shouldn't live with "it" on a daily basis, but I do - I was attacked by several people who had no idea what they were talking about, mostly you. You owe me a fucking apology for that, whether you realize it or not.


In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Yeah, get over it, no one should have to live with it on a daily basis. One thing though - try to learn something from it. Something about yourself. PS. Not meant in a disrespectful manner.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I am.

I'm trying to get over that whole thing, so it depends on my mood. It's basically inversely proportional to how recent I've looked at the talk post, or how vivid it is in my memory. I feel I was very slighted there and I think you owe me an apology for it.

I doubt I will ever get it, but in the mean time I'm trying to, if not bury the hatchet, then let it hang in the cubbard.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
This is a great tune. If only someone else had posted it, I would have qualitied. I'm carrying grudges that way.

>> ^gwiz665:
quality


You are inconsistent! Thanks for the quality.

Yeah, get over it, no one should have to live with it on a daily basis. One thing though - try to learn something from it. Something about yourself. PS. Not meant in a disrespectful manner.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I am.

I'm trying to get over that whole thing, so it depends on my mood. It's basically inversely proportional to how recent I've looked at the talk post, or how vivid it is in my memory. I feel I was very slighted there and I think you owe me an apology for it.

I doubt I will ever get it, but in the mean time I'm trying to, if not bury the hatchet, then let it hang in the cubbard.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
This is a great tune. If only someone else had posted it, I would have qualitied. I'm carrying grudges that way.

>> ^gwiz665:
quality


You are inconsistent! Thanks for the quality.

I am.

I'm trying to get over that whole thing, so it depends on my mood. It's basically inversely proportional to how recent I've looked at the talk post, or how vivid it is in my memory. I feel I was very slighted there and I think you owe me an apology for it.

I doubt I will ever get it, but in the mean time I'm trying to, if not bury the hatchet, then let it hang in the cubbard.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
This is a great tune. If only someone else had posted it, I would have qualitied. I'm carrying grudges that way.

>> ^gwiz665:
quality


You are inconsistent! Thanks for the quality.