I envy you. I'd love to be able to watch The Game or Se7en again without knowing what's coming. Seriously, watch at least those two.

They were definitely stepping high weren't they?

I might not blame them...a set of jaws a pit bull would envy.

Ah, one of the all-time great singles of the rock era. So mature, yet it was their first single. I envy those hearing this for the first time (and they're just kids in this video... kids!). One of Paul McCartney's favorite songs:

McCartney: "It's got to be "A Whiter Shade of Pale." The first time I ever heard it was the night I met Linda. We met at the Bag O' Nails, and we went on to the Speakeasy, and they played the record of it there. We were with Keith Moon of the Who and Eric Burdon of the Animals, and we were all trying to figure out who it was. We all thought it must be Stevie Winwood, but it turned out to be Procol Harum. We just said, 'This is the best song ever, man.'"

You seem to equate "envy-fiends" with "liberals" here. I suppose that it's an understandable conflation tho, seeing as how you seem to consider yourself to be a "liberal" and thus (possibly) know yourself an envy-fiend, and can therefore link the two as being evidently interchangeable.

Perhaps, as a "spokesperson" for "liberals," then, you'd like to clarify for me what it is that the envy-fiends "really" say?

And I'm curious, too, as to whether anyone (other than me) actually care what you (as a "liberal" spokesperson) think (aside from those who have their fun at your expense).

Just like Mr. Rubin would likely remain in the 1% in any system, whether the state is run by "liberals" or by "conservatives," so would the envy-fiends remain so, either way. (BTW, I'm not calling you an envy-fiend, but you made the link for whatever -- Freudian-or-other -- reasons that seem to be quite personal to you.)

Not for nothing, but Rick serves as yet another "poster boy" for how there will never be income "equality." Mr. Rubin would not be "equal" in salary to most people, whether there's a free market, a crony capitalist market, a socialist non-market, or a communist non-market.

Eminem, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Beastie Boys, Sir Mix-a-Lot, Lana Del Rey, Krishna Das, Johnny Cash, Adele, Rage Against the Machine, Run DMC, Danzig, Slayer, the (extremely versatile) list of course goes on and on (and on). That's why Mr. Rubin is in the 1%.. Because you (and tens or hundreds of millions of others) listen and like the albums that he produces and not the ones produced by most of the other wanna-be (or actual) "music producers."

But, of course, the envy-fiends have their "reasons" as to why they think they should be paid that kind of money and/or deserve (like mobsters do) to have a a piece of his pie.

Or that if you could only get others to vote in a certain way, you'd be Rick Rubin, or in his shoes. Such a conceit reinforces the obvious: you can only control your self. Little-to-no benefit comes from worrying about or trying to influence what other people do or don't do (especially when it has nothing to do with you and you can't do anything about it anyway). The conceit that anything else is the case leads to profound suffering on both the personal as well as on the social and political levels.

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

@lantern53

jesus hung out with the prostitutes,the beggars,the sick and the broken.

basically the freaks.

you would not find him in your station house,nor having cocktails in the posh businessmans house but rather you would find him in the crack houses,the whore house and maybe sleeping on a park bench with the homeless.

you know...the people you arrest on a daily basis.

there is actually a reason why many gay folk are flambouyant,gregarious and do not fit into a societal norm that you may find comfortable.

the process in coming to terms with ones sexuality can be arduous and takes immense courage.it is an experience a heterosexual human never encounters...ever.

so while you may find their decisions and behavior abnormal,and it may even make you uncomfortable if too much in your face.you should respect the fact that they lives their lives with a freedom you could never match.

societal norms have you firmly shackled to the wall.
they are free.
and you ridicule something you have little understanding of,but at its heart...you envy.
and what you envy.....you ridicule.

these folks are not moved nor influenced by your (or others) opinion of how they live.
can you say the same?

Oh Bob, how I envy you. The world must be such a nice place if you can view it only in black or white. Binary thinking must be easy on the synapses.
Here's one thing I don't understand, though. Maybe you can help me out.
Why do you hate liberty so much?
I mean, you're an american, right? Land of the free, home of the brave?
Home of the Liberty Bell? The country whose most famous landmark is called the "Statue of Liberty".
Why so much hate the most american thing? I always wanted to asked somebody who's so obviously republican as you.
Here's something I found on Wikipedia:
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Hmmm... generally supporting following ideas:
- free and fair elections (voter id laws and voting fraud prevention)
- civil rights (Dude! Don't tread on me!)
- freedom of the press (concern about lamestream media and "liberal bias" in the media)
- freedom of religion (for example the freedom of teaching children creationism)
- free trade (capitalism yay!)
- private property (for some reason the name "Ron Jeremy" came to mind but I think I got the name wrong)

I can understand a dislike for equality (come on, slaves are super useful) but not for liberty. Not if you're a true american.

Shouldn't you call yourself a liberal? Is it just a weird closet you're in?

The guy drove to the site. He had not been drinking whilst on the site. The officer said he smelled of Alcohol there are the grounds for reasonable suspicion. I don't believe they had another round of reasonable suspicion at the station, they'd just follow procedure. It's more likely that they were simply to busy, you could see they were short staffed at the protest.

You are assuming the police officer made it up, however it would be a seriously stupid plan as if the guy had taken the test and it had come back negative, well the plan doesn't really go anywhere does it?

No the police don't have the right to do what, but they do have the power to right to detain given reasonable suspicion that is what happened here.

You wrong on the right to refuse the "road side" test, unless you have a genuine reason not to do the test like a medical condition (being an arsehole doesn't count) you are obligated to take the test given reasonable suspicion.

Unless there are some unusual circumstances the police will arrest take you back to the station and then use the machine back at the station (unlikely to be a blood test but a lot more sophisticated breath testing machine) to get an accurate reading, if it measures over the limit you will then be prosecuted, if not you won't.

Now your all for innocent till proven guilty, but you soon assumed the police guy was guilty of, well power abuse? Which you can't do as the camera doesn't have smellovision.

I suspect it more to do with you not liking police/authority, and the police man was acting arsy.

It's not surprising when they have to put up with the crap and abuse they have to, that sometimes they behave this way especially at a protest, that's just being human. Apparently he's a Salford Officer as well I don't envy him one bit policing that shole.

Ahh, to be either free or above the limitations of our skin color. I am neither and so I envy that. This man opens his mouth and your opinions are instantly put on hold.

That's a super power.

My wife has that super power and it's amazing to see the flicker in people's eyes when they hear her talk. And then the multitude of international experiences that flood forth. Instant audience engagement.

Racial boundaries. How silly. And funny.

People so emotionally attached to the regime (as @st0nedeye seems to be) are often either regime propagandists being handsomely compensated or serfs who feel so vulnerable and afraid (and maybe even inept themselves) that they can't think of how they would survive without the "rulers" to protect them. (Of course, the jokes on them since that protection, safety, and security, is mostly an illusion.)

If they are regime propagandists, then unless you pay them more to take on whatever views you want them to stick to in the hopes of cashing in on the cronyism.

If they are true believers or fanatics (due to fear, insecurity, envy, etc.), then they will try to tear up anyone who tries to give them information, even if that information will ultimately help them out, improve their lot (help, to be sure, that was not solicited by them, and they have a right not to be given).

These are the attitudes that made Edward Bernays and others rather loathe "the people," allowing them to rationalize the various forms of manipulation imposed in the 20th century. This propaganda was ostensibly for "the people's" "safety," but was more accurately for personal profit. It's a fate though that I can't totally disagree is not deserved.

Still, despite the crazy analysis, I commend @st0nedeye for bringing up the interesting topic of the situation in Europe after the "fall" of Rome (which happened gradually and parallels that of most empires, including this current one). It's worth considering that the collapse of the Soviet Union also, a collapse that even to this day many in Russia bemoan -- just like st0nedeye bemoans the collapse of Rome. Life under the Roman bureaucracy and plutocracy was not as glamorous as many people would have you believe (maybe if you were a one of the beneficiary plutocrats).

This is too fucking bad-ass for words, I so envy this glorious leader's sexy clothing and fetching persona-I'd totally rock the Fisherman's Wharf for photo-ops dude....Get to a tourist location and FAST!
(I suppose yer already in Hong Kong....tourist mecca)

*promote

If corporations acted with honor as Glenn Beck likes to argue, we wouldn't need to raise the minimum wage. But we keep attempting this time and time again, we give corporations all this influence and power hoping they use it wisely and fairly. But they don't. They never have. They use it to make themselves more wealthy than they need to be, masking their selfishness under the banner of "rugged individualism"

I guarantee you that no one *wants* to artificially raise the minimum wage, but it's a necessary step to lessen the income gap and offset inflation.

The right wing talking point is always "a poor person never offered me a job" Well my response is "I never met a rich person who didn't get their money from poor people buying their stuff"

where do you think any business who makes a product gets their money from? Do they just will it into existence because of the power of their ego? They get it from a poor person buying their stuff. But yeah, the corporate apologists don't like to talk about that particular reality.

There is always going to be poor people and always be rich people, but we can be a nation that decides as a whole that we're not going to piss on our poor people so that even the poor can led happy healthy lives.

The right wing talking point is that the poor have rich people envy. The poor don't envy the rich, they don't want McMansions and Hummers and all the stupid bling rich dolts buy. they just want to have their needs met. They just want to not go broke if there is a major illness

If corporations acted with "honor" then the free market idea *might* work, but as long as greed rules the day, there will always be the need to put measures in place like raising the minimum wage and other regulations.

This, and all the other videos of Russia almost makes me envy Snowden.

The parallax effect in the new iOS 7 is having a very bad case of envy right now *promote