So media today isn't as high quality as it once was? Look, people still go to the movies, so it's no surprise that there are still high quality movies being made. But music? Recorded music simply isn't profitable. The only way some professional musicians make any money at all is off live performances *somtimes*, or focusing on things that aren't directly writing music, such as self-publishing/producing, etc. Less time is spent on actually writing music as a consequence.

Despite all the technology we have to help find and distribute music, it is harder today to find what I consider quality music compared to 20 years ago. I don't think it's because I'm an old foggy who romanticizes what music was when I was a teenager. But it's hard to argue that the Justin Beibers of the world are the only ones making money these days for the most part, and bands the bands that are truly innovating nobody's heard of.

It's a real problem.

Why aren't people buying what's for sale? It's pretty unrealistic to believe a major culprit is not the notion of why buy what you can get for free. Console video game sales are still doing very well, and the only reason that makes any sense is it's a hell of a lot harder to pirate video games than music for numerous reasons, such as the sheer amount of data that comprises a video game vs music, etc.

I know that piracy isn't the only reason the music or entertainment industries have struggled in the last decade. The music industry has made more than their fair share of blunders. But piracy is a significant problem, Maher is absolutely right about that. But again, SOPA is not the answer, and I don't pretend I'm smart enough to know what is a solution.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.
If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.
The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.
Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

>> ^heropsycho:

Honestly, both are problems. I'm sorry, but they are. When I was a kid, we pretty much bought our music. Kids now? There's a very large percentage who don't buy music whatsoever, and download it illegally.
I'm not saying SOPA is a good idea, because it's a terrible law, but feigning ignorance to the problem of piracy whether it's selling the content or just spreading it around for free without personal gain costs content producers significant money. I don't even know what the solution is if there is one, but I agree with Maher it's a problem.
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^heropsycho:
Maher has a point. There is a section of the population who want quality content without paying for it, and they'll continue to do it no matter what, and that is wrong.
True, people do that, but if they can't find what they want they're still unlikely to buy it. It's also entirely possible to get nothing but free legal content.
Still, that isn't what the legislation is targeting. The real problem isn't end users downloading free stuff, it's people making a living from selling unauthorized copyrighted material.




The problem isn't that people are downloading stuff, it's that they aren't buying what is for sale. Those are two separate issues.

If a magic wand could be waved to to stop "illegal" downloading, I can still get so much legal content via Hulu, Comedy Central, or wherever that there is no reason to spend extra money on entertainment.

The old days where kids bought CDs because it was the only option are gone and aren't coming back. The people stuck in that old mindset are still trying to punish people into spending money when their content is barely worth the time invested in finding it for free.

Yes, reforms are needed, but the first thing we need to do it have people working on that actually understand the issue to begin with.

It's a farce to think contemplating how large the universe has nothing to do with the grand design.

The Universe itself is only the tip of the iceberg - it's not nihilism, the truth is we do not know anything at all ; but the journey to continue on the path of real Truth by piecing it together is one of the more beautiful and meaningful aspects of life in a world so closed-minded, fearful & narcissistic. It is all in the eye-of-the beholder but know that no religion knows what the powers that be are... we will probably never even develop the senses to get anywhere close to understanding.

I am speaking to the pale blue dot theory that humanists rejoice in, to wave the size of the Universe around as a magic wand that erases the idea of any absolute truth, especially when it pertains to a belief in God. To say that our perceived insignificance in the face of the deep invalidates the idea that God, if He even exists, could possibly care about what is going on here.

It is to see through everything and thus see nothing at all, which is essentially what nihilism is. You say we can't know anything; well, the obvious question is, how do you know that? I agree, this existence that we have now is only the tip of the iceberg, but in the manner that it is a poor reflection of what is to come. The size of cosmos is infantesimal in comparison to the depths of the mind that created it. It is not the material that is interesting, it is the glory of that one who spoke it into being, to which the cosmos testifies:

The heavens declare the glory of God;

And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Day unto day utters speech,

And night unto night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech nor language

Where their voice is not heard.

Their line has gone out through all the earth,

And their words to the end of the world.

The temporal is only temporary, because time is running out. What we see now is a pale rendition of the actual, eternal reality. We are spiritual beings, and these are just clay vessels, dust and ashes. The things that are seen are all perishing; it is the things that are unseen which are eternal.

I understand atheism, I used to consider myself one. But, I think atheism gives itself too much credit in face of the vastness amount of possibilities / possible impossibilities we will never understand but could maybe to a finite degree, comprehend.

I agree and so does francis collins:

"of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God."

Well, philosopher, what I will say is that the only thing that matters is what the truth is. If you cannot define what the truth is, it is impossible to understand anything at all. And unless you are omnipotent, you cannot know that truth, but one who is omnipotent could reveal it to you. That is the only reason anyone can know what is true, because we heard from the One who was there at the very beginning. Now if you can admit the validity of special revelation, then you are one step closer to understanding where I am coming from.

This guy says it best "It's humongous big." True that, brother. Keep on spacin' out, it's the closest we will get to any sort of truth.

I think this is a lot closer:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,b but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.






>> ^shagen454

It's quite a leap from me saying that unions comprised of government employees are ultimately economically unfeasible to interpreting that as a desire to destroy unions and stifle debate. Debate all you want. The writing is on the wall for all of our government employees. All the states are in trouble. I just picked California as an example. As far as that goes, I am glad you agree that they have made their system F.U.B.A.R. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones.

Here is another example: the United States Postal Service. A package sent to me this last week by the USPS cost $8.40. I returned the exact same package to the same sender by UPS for $7.07. Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements. The post office is now discussing closing up to 3,700 branches. Those workers are going to be out of a job; real people, with real lives and real families. So it causes me to think: I wonder if they would rather have a job with retirement that looks similar to the rest of the country's private sector retirements, or be promised a larger retirement and end up with neither a job nor a retirement.

What is important is this: some of the unions made up of government employees are fighting to save a future comprised of an empty bag. The money they are fighting to set back for their members isn't going to be able to be paid. The discussion isn't whether or not we are for or against unions. Unions have done much good for the working conditions in the US. Right now that is beside the point. The discussion is this: how are we going to arrange ourselves together to make this whole unworkable system work. I'm beginning to believe that we don't have the capacity any longer to do so. >> ^Yogi:

>> ^silvercord:
Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.
If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.
You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.
If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

>> ^silvercord:

Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.


"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.

If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.

You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.

If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

I am in agreement with that, however it won't solve the entire problem. Collective bargaining, when applied to the the sector of public service, will always end badly. At the risk of repeating myself, there simply isn't enough money. FDR saw this in his letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees in which, among other things, he stated, "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service . . "

We can leave things as they are and just not pay people the pensions we've promised to them, or we can correct the error now. There is an alternative to the government fixing it now. The people certainly will at the polls. You may find this article regarding what is happening in California enlightening. Brown has his tit in a wringer because the people of CA will correct these issues if he doesn't. My guess is that the people of Wisconsin will come to the same conclusion eventually when the "where's my pension you promised me?," lawsuits begin.



>> ^packo:

>> ^silvercord:
Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

subsidizing big business friends that don't need the subsidy or tax break may be the place to look for that

>> ^silvercord:

Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.


subsidizing big business friends that don't need the subsidy or tax break may be the place to look for that

Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

The sonic screwdriver is way too close to a magic wand these days, but if they fix the horrible writing from this past season I might be willing to overlook it. Of course if they had good writers again, they might not need a magic wand to make the plots work.

3 days awake (on drugs)... yep, it's about partying hard all right.

Pille - Palle - Alle Pralle
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff -Druff
Verpeilt und verschallert, alle verballert
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff

Pille - Palle - Alle Pralle
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff -Druff
Verpeilt und verschallert, alle verballert
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff

Auf gehts ab gehts, 3 Tage wach
Nächste Party kommt bestimmt, 3 Tage wach
Afterhour vor der Hour, 3 Tage wach
3 Tage wach jetzt wirst du langsam schwach

Volle Kanne Einwurf, 3 Tage wach
Paniert und ding dong ding dong, 3 Tage wach
Bunte pillen Fete, 3 Tage wach
Puls wie ne Rakete, 3 Tage wach

Punkt Punkt komma klar, 3 Tage wach
Du warst gestern auch schon da, 3 Tage wach
Spieglein an der wand wer ist drei Tage wach?
Du und deine oma sind 3 Tage wach

Nase voll, pimmel schrumpft, 3 Tage wach
essen doof, schlafen doof ,3 Tage wach
banane in der birne, 3 Tage wach
bollerbuden dirndl, 3 Tage wach

Teller bis zum unterkiefer, 3 Tage wach
In der hose ungeziefer, 3 Tage wach
Flasche leer, feuerwehr 3 Tage wach
Laufen geht jetzt auch nicht mehr, 3 Tage wach

Auf gehts ab gehts, 3 Tage wach
Nächste Party kommt bestimmt, 3 Tage wach
Afterhour vor der Hour, 3 Tage wach
3 Tage wach jetzt wirst du langsam schwach

Notfall Apotheke, 3 Tage wach
Rotz auf der Tapete, 3 Tage wach
Verplant , paniert, 3 Tage wach
Völlig ungeniert, 3 Tage wach


Pille - Palle - Alle Pralle
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff -Druf
Verpeilt und verschallert alle verballert
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff

Pille - Palle - Alle Pralle
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff -Druff
Verpeilt und verschallert alle verballert
Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff - Druff

>> ^blankfist:

[W]hat's Obama's position on US Imperialism?

He's against it.

>> ^blankfist:
Is he going to finally end the wars?

He's always said he would. He just put out a budget that counts the savings from him doing so. Over 100,000 troops have been withdrawn from Iraq, with the remainder due out by the end of the year, and troops are now starting to withdraw from Afghanistan.

>> ^blankfist:
What about Guantanamo Bay?

He gave an executive order ordering it closed. But Congress blocked him. If you cared enough about this topic to read up on it, or even one of the many times I've explained the problem, you'd know this one can't be fixed by Presidential wand-waving.

>> ^blankfist:
Or more importantly what about the 700+ bases in over 130 countries overseas? Is he closing those down?

If they're not actively fighting anyone, I'm not too worried about it. I'd like to see us reduce our military presence around the world, but I figure reducing the military's budget overall is all that's really required, and Obama and Democrats generally are on board for that.

>> ^blankfist:
What about the billions the federal government gives in corporate welfare? Is he getting rid of that?

That's congress's bag, but yes. That's literally in the budget proposal Cafferty, the Washington Times, and you yourself are decrying, and counting as eeeeevil "tax increases". Obama's proposal includes a $200 billion dollar cut to farm subsidies, and the elimination of gas & oil subsidies, plus the elimination a large number of smaller-ticket subsidies and tax exemptions.

>> ^blankfist:
Until he does those things, I'm getting tired of hearing your side chanting his praises and raising taxes and whatever other nonsense you like to spout.

But that's the thing, he would do all of those things, but Republicans block him using every trick in the book. Plus, ever since 2010 they've held the House, and won't let any of what you claim to want passed even come to the floor.

>> ^blankfist:
You're the party of war now. Enjoy it, but don't expect me to tag along for the ride into the dirt.


But you are tagging along for the ride into the dirt. You're still living in the US, and you're still parroting right-wing talking points all over the place. You carry water for the Republicans, and then pretend like saying "I'm a libertarian who opposes war" absolves you of all responsibility for generally helping the real "party of War" into power.

And rather than face up to the reality of what you're doing, you cook up these absurd justifications that fly entirely in the face of reality, like "liberals want more wars".

@NetRunner

You said,
"And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it..."

NO! I won't let you intellectualize what he said into something different. I won't let it be justified with words that don't apply. How can a bunch of cells, as he classifies the not-yet born, be a child??? That is saying that the unborn "child" is not a child at all! You add the term "child" but he distinctly says it's not a child. To him it is simply cells that have the ability to one day be a child. That's fine, but accept what that means.


And that brings up my point; either a woman is batshit crazy when she loses her cells (Like a woman crying every time she uses hand soap,) or it is a child she lost... And see Net, the problem is it now becomes an issue that you cannot defend, it is now a sexuality issue, an equality issue, and that's where you are not able to intellectualize.

You know why he won't say they're children? Because then he has to admit that the right have some sense in what they say. Instead, he now get's to have his cake and eat it too. "It's not a child except when the body itself aborts it...then women can be upset...even if I only called it a group of cells."

At least you have the balls to call it a child...

And speaking of cults--what about his own cult? If I called a woman a cunt, any woman, his supporters would be foaming at the mouth against me. But he waves his magical amazing-wand around and the supporters say its fine to use the word CUNT in certain occasions. But not for anyone else besides him...

(For the record, a lot of people didn't like his use of the word CUNT. Also for the record, his cultists didn't mind.)

You know it's funny--when I argue with highly intellectual individuals I always use "straw-man attacks" or am "wrong." In fact, as of today, I have never once noted something worthwhile that contrasted an intellectual's opinion. From now on when I hear the term straw-man I am just going to just assume there is no response and that the straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument/attack.

No..you BURN THE WITCH!!!

>> ^hpqp:

@critical_d
...teach it how to handle magic wands properly?

@critical_d

...teach it how to handle magic wands properly?