because things like religion, abortion, immigration... while important to people, aren't important to politicians who use them as "look over here, don't look there" tactics...

they don't want you to focus on how they are blatantly working against the average American citizen's economic interest for their corporate and financial masters

they want you to fight over issues they themselves deem unimportant while feigning concern

they'll use semantics to confuse issues rather than take action

they'll wrap themselves in the flag, all the while ushering in fascism for their own short term social/economic benefit

these people aren't patriots, they are committing treason, and should be hounded through the streets until they can no longer run due to exhaustion; then made public examples of

public servants? the only people they are servicing are themselves

these aren't the departments of this or that I'm talking about... I'm talking directly about the people elected by the citizenry to represent them

they're selling your future, and the future of your children... for the right to suckle at the tit of your new corporate and banking masters

A (possibly unimportant) detail - the people are in a bus, not a car. The angle of the windshield, the dash arrangement and the acoustics felt like a bus, and the YouTube description confirmed it.

No, I didn't forget agenesis of the corpus callosum. While partial absence is more common, agenesis is only present in 1/3 of cases and I can find no evidence that this is the case with the civil servant.

As usual, you conveniently misunderstand the arguments against your position. Firstly, you are the one claiming the brain is unimportant with regards to consciousness and that the case of the French civil servant is proof of this. This is clearly false, as he has all the biological faculties for not only consciousness but the faculties allowing him to lead a relatively normal life.

It's not clearly false, we don't have the medical information. But we do have evidence from other cases:

http://www.rense.com/general63/brain.htm

The subject on that page was said to be scoring 126 on IQ tests, and was about to have graduated with a degree in mathematics. He had virtually no detectable brain what so ever:

"Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column."

Secondly, the video makes no claim that someone without a textbook brain can't live a normal life. In fact the video is overwhelmingly of a larger scale - referencing humanity as a whole as opposed to individuals and individual brains. So his brain does not refute the claims of the video at all.

Lacking any hemispheres at all, how could anything in this video apply to that person? It clearly shows it up to be the fever dreaming of militant materialists.

Further, I would argue that my analogy of the circulatory system, while not perfect, makes the point I intended (which you conveniently ignore again). The heart sends and receives the blood, the brain sends and receives electrical signals and chemicals. Not only are these physical, but they can be measured. A conscious mind can be differentiated from an unconscious one with the use of medical equipment like electrocardiogram and MRI. Recent research has even come close to "seeing" conscious thoughts with fMRIs.

There are innumerable cases of people who reported being conscious during periods of unconsciousness. It is a false analogy because consciousness is not proven to be physical and is therefore not analogous to blood. Chemicals and electrical signals are also not proven to have anything to do with consciousness itself, especially considering people experience consciousness during brain death: http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html#a1.

As for your free will response, I'm not even going to bother. Free will can be explained, and explained away a hundred different ways. From Foucaultian post-modernism to Hobbes' determinism this is a problem that wont be resolved here to anybody's satisfaction.

If you want to concede the point, that is up to you. You'll note that I didn't ask you to explain it away, I asked what you believe.

>> ^Skeeve:
You forgot agenesis of the corpus callosum, which means it is only partially formed or completely absent. Which means that his brain operates much differently than normal (obviously).
I never said he couldn't have consciousness if his brain was jumbled up. I was saying that his brain does not have the structure described in this video. Since we know he was a normal guy able to hold down a job and have proper relationships, it refutes the assertions that it made.
No, I didn't forget agenesis of the corpus callosum. While partial absence is more common, agenesis is only present in 1/3 of cases and I can find no evidence that this is the case with the civil servant.
As usual, you conveniently misunderstand the arguments against your position. Firstly, you are the one claiming the brain is unimportant with regards to consciousness and that the case of the French civil servant is proof of this. This is clearly false, as he has all the biological faculties for not only consciousness but the faculties allowing him to lead a relatively normal life. Secondly, the video makes no claim that someone without a textbook brain can't live a normal life. In fact the video is overwhelmingly of a larger scale - referencing humanity as a whole as opposed to individuals and individual brains. So his brain does not refute the claims of the video at all.
Further, I would argue that my analogy of the circulatory system, while not perfect, makes the point I intended (which you conveniently ignore again). The heart sends and receives the blood, the brain sends and receives electrical signals and chemicals. Not only are these physical, but they can be measured. A conscious mind can be differentiated from an unconscious one with the use of medical equipment like electrocardiogram and MRI. Recent research has even come close to "seeing" conscious thoughts with fMRIs.
As for your free will response, I'm not even going to bother. Free will can be explained, and explained away a hundred different ways. From Foucaultian post-modernism to Hobbes' determinism this is a problem that wont be resolved here to anybody's satisfaction.

You forgot agenesis of the corpus callosum, which means it is only partially formed or completely absent. Which means that his brain operates much differently than normal (obviously).

I never said he couldn't have consciousness if his brain was jumbled up. I was saying that his brain does not have the structure described in this video. Since we know he was a normal guy able to hold down a job and have proper relationships, it refutes the assertions that it made.

No, I didn't forget agenesis of the corpus callosum. While partial absence is more common, agenesis is only present in 1/3 of cases and I can find no evidence that this is the case with the civil servant.

As usual, you conveniently misunderstand the arguments against your position. Firstly, you are the one claiming the brain is unimportant with regards to consciousness and that the case of the French civil servant is proof of this. This is clearly false, as he has all the biological faculties for not only consciousness but the faculties allowing him to lead a relatively normal life. Secondly, the video makes no claim that someone without a textbook brain can't live a normal life. In fact the video is overwhelmingly of a larger scale - referencing humanity as a whole as opposed to individuals and individual brains. So his brain does not refute the claims of the video at all.

Further, I would argue that my analogy of the circulatory system, while not perfect, makes the point I intended (which you conveniently ignore again). The heart sends and receives the blood, the brain sends and receives electrical signals and chemicals. Not only are these physical, but they can be measured. A conscious mind can be differentiated from an unconscious one with the use of medical equipment like electrocardiogram and MRI. Recent research has even come close to "seeing" conscious thoughts with fMRIs.

As for your free will response, I'm not even going to bother. Free will can be explained, and explained away a hundred different ways. From Foucaultian post-modernism to Hobbes' determinism this is a problem that wont be resolved here to anybody's satisfaction.
>> ^shinyblurry:

No, Dandy-Walker does not contradict everything taught in the video. He has (and others like him have) most of the same brain structures (especially the ones related to consciousness). For the most part, they are missing their cerebellar vermis, which controls and analyzes spatial motion. The parts that have something to do with consciousness are still there, and they are even in pretty much the same place as they would be otherwise.
You forgot agenesis of the corpus callosum, which means it is only partially formed or completely absent. Which means that his brain operates much differently than normal (obviously).
Even if the parts of their brain were jumbled up a bit, that doesn't mean they couldn't necessarily have consciousness. The body does some amazing things considering some of the biological errors that happen. People can be born with holes in their hearts, or on the wrong side of their body, and have perfectly functioning circulatory systems - that doesn't mean the circulation of their blood is transcendent from their circulatory system.
I never said he couldn't have consciousness if his brain was jumbled up. I was saying that his brain does not have the structure described in this video. Since we know he was a normal guy able to hold down a job and have proper relationships, it refutes the assertions that it made.
And there is no comparison between consciousness and the brain and the circulatory system and the blood. The blood is physical, consciousness cannot be measured.
This is a complete cop-out. I can say the same to you. If your god is
omniscient, then he knows what you are going to do before you do it.
Therefore you don't actually have free will because, no matter what,
you are going to do what god always expected you to do.
Are you suggesting what I said isn't true? If not, why? And, God knowing what I am going to do next does not limit my free will. I am not being prevented from making any choice, nor am I being forced to make one. Simply because God knows what I am going to do doesn't mean I had to make the choice I did.

Lol! Sorry friend, staying off the sift more and more these days so only have time for a quickie or two.

I just want to point out to @dystopianfuturetoday, before I get to my point, that the common defense of those defending a position, "words mean different things to different people;" is, IMO, a weak argument. Those attacking tend to use words definitively, ironically (Conservatives say Obama "hates" America, some say he "loves" America... And both are probably right in a fashion.)

I say that if a word is so broad as to be utterly, entirely, completely useless, then why even have those words? The sun is "hot", oh yeah? To who, or what? And what are the comparisons? Is the sun really hot or is that subjective?

While technically it is correct to say the sun may not be hot, it is a silly argument to make and really makes the word "hot" so subjective that it's pointless to note anything hot. And certainties? OMG, there can never be any certainties with this line of open-ended wording (Except, oddly enough, the certainty that itself is the only certainty...)

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

Sarcasm >>>>> (Freedom must be good. It is choice. But, as noted by a great philosopher, in a world of a million choices, you tend to make less choices because the choices enslave you to an extent...so it's not about choice, that is the rhetorical, American-ized version of freedom...) Urm, how about Sarcasm>>>> (Freedom is great, good and promotes prosperity.) How so? That is subjective as hell and cannot be quantified in any way shape or form.... Or >>>>> (Freedom is found in a democracy...) When a million people have a say, your say is very unimportant...

Just weed through the words and find their core if you can (Some don't have one.) And of course, the words change with society too, so the answer never stays stagnant forever.

Otherwise, if we cannot say this is correct, then I will just start typing anything about anyone and say, Sarcasm>>>>>>>"Hey, words mean different things to different people. dystopianfuturetoday is like Hitler means something completely different to me than you--it is not an insult at all but a compliment!"

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!
What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)
If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?
Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)
Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?
WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

Why do people always think libertarians are anarchists? Just because I don't belong into either of these bullshit parties doesn't make me not believe in government. I do, however, believe that government is a social contract between you and me, and everyone else, and that contract has to be balanced since we all don't have the same opinion. With that said, I do not believe anything a democrat says, and I sure as hell don't believe anything a republican says. The sad part about these parties is that the only time in the last decade where they actually agreed unanimously at the house was right after 9/11. As for the people (fans), only sheep will agree with their party all the time.

As for size and function of government, this is dependent on the state of the country and the scope of government's responsibility (Federal vs State). If you read Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract (Du Contrat Social), you'd see that an exemplary government is one that focuses service, and not laws. If you have a serious drug problem, then you should get help, not get thrown in jail. Alas, we have an archaic emotional government. Republicans want to limit personal freedom, and democrats want to limit economic freedom. I see no point in either one of those as long as nobody is unfairly treated. That is THE bottom line.

Three things should be considered essential to our future economy:
1) Education
2) Healthcare
3) Science Projects / Environment

I'd vote for anyone who is willing to throw everything else under the bus for reconsideration - regardless of partisanship. The reason I brought the politician's case to pay their own healthcare and get a pay cut is not to save money - You can't consciously deny others free healthcare when you yourself have it. That's what's happening in congress today.

I like your statement about the legalizing and taxing Marijuana; however, Marijuana can't be taxed as most people would grow it at home - I say just legalize it and stop wasting DOJ resources. I don't mind taxing the shit out of oil, use of plastics, tobacco, and alcohol.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?




You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.
No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.
Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.
It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.
Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.
Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.
Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Your assumption is that the government will create jobs. I don't expect the government to create jobs - that's socialism. Just so you get this straight. I am not a democrat - I am a libertarian. I don't care about Obama; he is a failed president - just like Bush Jr., Carter, and Reagan. I'd rather have Ron Paul in the office, but you have to understand that we DO need a government. You have to understand that conservatives are not helping the situation either - two years in congress and nothing to show for. On top of all this, the hoards of Tea Party drama queens have been a horrible addition to our economic climate. They are not happy with anything, and are not offering any solutions. They give a bad name to the rest of the libertarians.
I don't like pensions, I don't like entitlements, and I don't like big government. However, everybody bitches about not having any money, yet nobody is willing to give up their benefits, pensions, and social security. Nobody is boycotting Chinese products at Wallmart/ToysRUs or outsourced manufactured goods. Nobody is willing to send their kids to private schools, yet they want to put a tourniquet on the education system. It's total hypocrisy. I hope the movement will die soon so we can go back to reconstruction.
The key word in this whole debate is "deficit." The money is already gone, and no amount of budget balancing alone will pay back the ridiculous amount the government already owes. I call on all these house representatives and government officials to take a 15% salary cut and pay for their own private health care. Let's see how patriotic they are. That'd be a good start; if that's not enough, then we can revisit the talks about taxing the rich.
As they say "Those who make the rules don't play the game."
>> ^quantumushroom:
His Earness has burned through 4 trillion dollars already. Why didn't he put any of it towards "paying off" the wars?
The logic here is astounding. When the wealthy keep more of what they earn, the left claims they don't use it to create jobs, but when the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the government (which creates nothing) can't use the "extra" revenue create jobs. Repeating: 4 trillions dollars already down the shitter, no jobs created.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
It's going to start paying back for the two useless wars that some idiot president started about 8 years ago. One thing is for sure though, not taxing them did not create jobs!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?





You do know that cutting senator pay and benefits is a drop in the bucket. Overpaid as they are, they're still gov't employees and really don't make anything compared to their private sector counterparts.

No one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It just can't be the only thing we do. There is nothing wrong with entitlements and pensions as long as they are paid for and efficient. Sure there is waste and corruption in government. The obvious answer is, eliminate the waste, root out the corruption. But that takes regulations and enforcement. Two things that Libertarians seem to oppose.

Freedom is really quite a myth. There are plenty of things people are not allowed to do because we as a society has deemed that they are harmful to others. We live in this country and thus, we have agreed to live by it's rules. If you don't like it, get the hell out.

I'm fine with making sacrifices, but dude, you need to remember what a luxury is and what a necessity. Pensions and entitlements for some people ARE necessities. It's not just some giveaway to people who don't need it. you want to cut entitlements? why do rich people even get medicare and social security and other entitlements...they don't need them obviously...they're rich..so they have the most, so they can shoulder more burden without being seriously affected.

It takes a scalpel, not a bludgeon. There is plenty of waste in social entitlements that even dems would be willing to cut. Get out of these wars we're in. No one is saying throw the military under the bus and leave our nation unprotected but we clearly don't need to spend as much on defense as we do. There are plenty of expensive pie in the sky defense projects out there that simply don't need to exist right now. get rid of them.

Dems have already agreed to plenty of cuts, Dems have compromised up the butt or have you forgotten Boehner bragging about he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now it's time to bring some extra revenue to help pay those bills and invest in green tech that will improve our economy.

Pardon the pun but cutting alone just doesn't....cut it. Legalize and tax the fuck out of Marijuana. empty out the non-violent offenders in our prisons.

Gov't will shrink and grow as it needs to be. the size of gov't is unimportant, it just needs to be efficient. And small gov't is not necessarily efficient gov't.

Any design changes to a pez container will benefit him, as they would most likely be easier to get out.>> ^zeoverlord:

1. that guy is still gonna buy and play the game, and so will you
2. i don't think he will be able to play it on his net book
3. he will probably also buy and sell items for real money
4. always on drm, he is not gonna notice it, like everybody else
5. in about a week he is gonna forget about it and rage about something else equally unimportant, like design changes to pez dispensers.

1. that guy is still gonna buy and play the game, and so will you
2. i don't think he will be able to play it on his net book
3. he will probably also buy and sell items for real money
4. always on drm, he is not gonna notice it, like everybody else
5. in about a week he is gonna forget about it and rage about something else equally unimportant, like design changes to pez dispensers.

why do we even talk about fox anymore?

let unimportant shit like this die

Give everything else irreverent South Park has done, the swearing is pretty unimportant compared to the rest of whats on tv.

Potty Mouth makes me think of a 3yr old being told off for saying poos, wees and bum.

Amazing how childish adults can be when they want to be prudish.

The hypocrisy is in it instantly going from an issue to raise, to being completely unimportant when it doesn't fit your preconceived views. And for the record:

- Every economic forecast worth it's damn before Obama was elected projected unemployment to remain high for a prolonged period of time. It's historically what happens after financial crises. The talking points that the blogs you read are pushing were being drafted by conservative interest groups while he was being inaugurated.
- Tell me what magical wand Obama will wield to bring down gas prices.
- A low US dollar helps exports and assists in transforming the economy from consumption to investment/productivity based one.>> ^quantumushroom:

So where's the incongruity? His Earness finally released it. He's still the worst President since Carter.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Good, good, good. I mean, I don't use the password I use here for anything important, but it would still be a potential pain in the ass if someone had access to all the unimportant sites I visit.


I'm using Lastpass for all sites. That way I have unique passwords for everything.

Good, good, good. I mean, I don't use the password I use here for anything important, but it would still be a potential pain in the ass if someone had access to all the unimportant sites I visit.

"The same road at 2am on a weekend with nobody around could be safe for 60mph. That's safe, even though it's over the limit."

Not safe. It's safer, but that's a different thing. In a built up area you don't know what could step out from behind a parked car, or tree or whatever is around. You can claim you can, but you can't. What you're saying is that it's unlikely there's anything there to hit. Which is true. But unlikely is not the same as it being guaranteed. On a race track the whole area is controlled. You can be sure that there aren't any kids about to run out in front of you. You can go as fast as you like and that's fine. You know the surface of the track is prepared and cleaned, and even if it isn't if you come off there are run off zones and safety barriers to stop you safely. But in the real world things are just never this controlled. Never. There could be oil on the road, there could be mud/stones/whatever. If you come off you could end up hitting the guy walking home from the nightclub, or just killing yourself.

You obviously feel that the risk of killing someone is one worth taking. Please don't try to say that driving through a residential area at 60mph in a 30mph limit isn't risking killing someone because it is. Every time I get in my car, or you get on your bike we risk killing someone, be it ourselves or someone else. Driving or riding over the speed limit drastically increases the chance of any collision being deadly. This guy in the video hits the dear, which would have happened to the best of riders. This forces him onto the wrong side of the road, which again could have happened to any rider. He's just lucky there isn't anyone coming the other way. This has nothing to do with skill. It's luck. I don't like that you are choosing to increase the chances of killing someone else by speeding, and advocating speeding. Like it or not this is the case.

It seems I'm not the only one thinking this way. You're obviously not going to win anyone over to your 'speed is safe' ideas. Speed kills. As for the 60 in a 30 zone thing, if you hit someone at 30mph they have around an 80% chance of survival. If you hit them at 40mph they have around an 80% chance of death. (Figures from UK road safety campaign)

You can choose to ride how you like. You can fool yourself into thinking the world is predictable and easy. So far you've been right, but you're one person, statistically completely unimportant. The fact that you've gotten away with it is no argument at all. Think what you like, but the facts simply don't support your view.