Check out his second part Q and A session. I think he's heartfelt, been through a lot, and is genuiniley a brilliant person for our age....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy8osVETT2o

Warning, this is long. It's a general reply to bob, but really it's a rant about the reality of this country, origins, issue, and where we are headed... Like they say in Horace and Pete, at this point we just might deserve a president like Trump (especially because we are stupid enough to vote for HIM, and for so many Senators AND Congressmen like him or even far worse)...

Reply to bob at the top...


I hate to tell you, but "SHALL", according to the times in which the founding fathers wrote this IS indeed the utmost highest form of that period meaning that you "HAVE TO" do something.

Go ahead and let your own party change what grammar and vocabulary meant from that period--or simply not have enough brains to know what it really means (though most of us know by now their assistants have let them know what it means, they just refuse to believe reality and instead insert their own collective psychotic delusion).

Typically when it says SHALL (BTW, NOT doing that job should be getting them in HUGE amounts of trouble as well), they should be doing everything they can TO nominate a new judge into the open position in their next open session (not a session one year away, so Trump or Hillary has to do it).

If they want to complain about the nominee they CAN, just while they are under scrutiny to go up for the vote. But, they simply are NOT supposed to do nothing and furthermore say they WON'T do anything...

I'll have to look up what the penalty is for not doing this, but it could be a full "boot" from their job. Simply what has been referred to by Republicans in the past as Impeachment. But, then the Senate has to start that (I'm not sure if anyone else can; hence, this is why I said I'd try to see if there is anything else that can be done)

I believe they can also do it at the state level... BUT ALL of this requires for our government officials to do their fucking jobs! PLUS, the citizens that voted them in to give a shit!
----------


We REALLY, REALLY, do not deserve a country like this...it is BARELY alive and well. We are just a few presidential terms away (plus senators and congressmen) before we grind to a complete halt.

Then we can finally watch everything implode on CNN and FOX while REAL extremists take over and then the real fun starts. True extremists taking control with minimal bloodshed and shouting matches, civil war with outcomes that grant us either the NEO-United States (the U.S.A. V:2.0, which might be good), to the Neo-Confederacy (since that is what it all amounts to on the FAR right's spectrum). OR we simply just dissolve and become something entirely new.

Hey, bob did you know that your party used to be JUST like the Democrats of Lincoln's age. The Republican's were more like the Democrat's of our age. Weird right. THAT conservative party died out with Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party; then all of the citizens decided that they simply liked the name "Republican" more (since they'd always voted for that name, right...it'd be weird to change it). That is where the Republican's became a FAR different party than they had been (though they still had a few more GREAT leaders before their schism drove them all, sadly, into madness ). The "Democrat's", they thought slavery was just peachy at first, and now they vote for gay-rights. NEITHER party remembers it's roots and the citizens of the United States have had their idiotic teachers and parents tell them all sorts of stories about how great either party WAS, but never telling them what they are like NOW. We all need to vote for our president, nowadays, without even LOOKING at their part's affiliation. It doesn't do any of us any good. Because none of them have ANY real lineage or links to the old presidents of these United States--they're full of shit.

Just remember, Republicans and their party were formed basically to try and abolish slavery--now they are more likely to put it back into action; a complete reversal of their direction, progressive and liberal!

Democrats tried to keep things the same as it was and to even expand slavery--now they want to allow marijuana to be legal, allow gays to have rights, and essentially pick up many progressive and liberal causes... They too have utterly reversed the direction they were at and taking during Abraham Lincoln's time. Conservative on many topics and wanting to expand the states' rights and abilities. Now they are the ones that would abolish slavery and even have Lincoln on their ticket if he ran...

Our parties in these United States are abysmal, a joke, a farce, and shouldn't even be used... The Founding Fathers would be dismayed over so many issues it wouldn't be even funny. They would more than likely throw OUT the Constitution and start a new draft, simply due to the amount of changes we've made in the WRONG direction and the fact that they weren't able to see the future far enough ahead to imagine gigantic empires made only of Business (with a mere handful of people, not hundreds, thousands, and many more like it was in their times) and how News would become so powerful it is essentially as powerful as the president of the United States--and if watched by enough people it is even FAR more powerful than him/her (like in Russia; The Internet being the ONE thing the Founding Fathers would pat our country on the back over and it's what can restore balance to the people who watch or only can gain information from these entities; a new type of "University" where anything can be shared; truth and facts obtained at every man's fingertips nearly instantly at any point on this planet; it IS the world's greatest WONDER ever made).

Lastly, they would absolutely abhor our parties and how they are used--internally and externally (how our politicians...how all the issues interconnect together; all politicians that receive outside money, they would likely want to have them all impeached, same with those that USE the media; they would HATE parties--but they know they'll always exist, you just have to get rid of the things that LET parties abuse we the people and also the government, and those things are: money and media...).


/length

This is the rosetta stone of our age. Archaelogists thousands of years from now will use this as a guide to unlock our mysteries.

"Although some intolerance, bigotry, and lust for persecution is still left in religious matters, it is unlikely that religious passion will kindle wars in the near future. The aggressive spirit of our age stems from another source, from endeavors to make the state totalitarian and to deprive the individual of autonomy."
- Ludwig von Mises
(Theory and History, p. 64)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Holy crap - John Oliver's comedy show is the 60 Minutes for our age.

The only reason people become grumpy old folk is because experience gives them the insight to discern quality from tripe, and because the older you get in our culture the further away you become from the honest, cultural evolutionary changes.
All we hear at our age is the shit that's pushed out on the radio (if you even still bother with that). That media has been shit since before we were born. If you had the time and ground-level access to the culture younger people are brought up with today, you'd find just as many wonderful, legitimate sources of art, culture and change as when we were discovering it in our youths.
Teach people to assess things honestly if they're put in front of them by someone else. Is Youtube telling you what the hottest 100 videos are? The manipulation is pretty obvious, even if the wolf is wearing a different sheep this time around.
Look to the origins of whatever is the current greatest thing to find the true art, and as soon as a genre or medium finds popular appeal to the point that it's exponentially mass-produced and formulaic, move on to discover the next thing. You'll never grow old that way. Don't get angry! Get wise! (and more importantly, raise future generations to have that wisdom as well.)

To be fair, that is called a bad tenant, not a bad program. Section 8 aids a lot of people with disabilities and our aging people on social security, and the majority of them are good tenants. Now having helped paint the campus area housing for the city in which I live, I can say that college students paying $1200 a month out of pocket managed to flood a basement with 5 feet of water without any obvious leaks in the home, presumably by running a hose into the basement and deliberately flooding it.

Moral here is that bad people do bad things.

Wow, that is a pretty amazing piece of musical history to have in your memory! My first concert was Garbage when I was 13, haha.. Now we're both showing our ages!
>> ^PlayhousePals:

The first live concert I attended was the Beatles. Maybe heard four notes because of all the screaming [I couldn't speak for a week .. heehee] =o)

the true prophet of our age

I don't think you quite understand the mechanics of conception... Just because there's semen in a woman doesn't mean she's conceived. Emergency contraceptives are no different than birth control. They prevent conception from happening. >> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^CaptainPlanet:
>> ^Porksandwich:
I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot

Ron Paul states that he believes life begins at conception. And prior to this he says that there is no chemical, medical, legal evidence of a pregnancy when administering the treatment to stop the progression of possible conception.
I liken that to saying that you could justify murder by arguing that you have no reason to believe the guy didn't die of natural causes a split second before he was shot/stabbed/ran over. So while it would have been murder, you can't 100% prove due to lack of chemical, medical and legal evidence that he was expired mere seconds before I would have killed him. So at best I stabbed/shot/ran over a corpse that hadn't hit the ground yet.
And I agree, that does sound idiotic.
In the case of someone having a natural death right before something that would have otherwise killed them, they would argue that you intended to kill the guy and ended all chances of him being saved from the natural causes (heart attack, brain bleed, whatever) by your actions. It's more about the intent. If you are giving someone drugs/treatments to abort or prevent any possible pregnancy after the fact, your intent is clear. If you were pregnant you aborted it, if you were not the treatment was unnecessary....but the intent was still the same.
It's an argument basically boils down to: It's an abortion, only if you can prove they were pregnant. But there is no other reason to perform it besides the chance of pregnancy. So why is it not abortion/attempted abortion when the intent is there? And how can he say life begins at conception, but then do these procedures that are designed to prevent or end conceptions before they are legally, medically, and chemically provable?

It's a half joking, devil's advocate kind of argument. We don't give our ages from the day we were conceived, but we definitely begin life prior to our "birth day". So there needs to be a upper limit instated by law, and a general understanding that the doctors and clinics should make sure all information and choices are presented before doing anything permanent. It should definitely not be a spur of the moment choice, where a patient can walk in to a doctor with no previous discussion and say they want an abortion and have it carried out with no information to other options. Once presented with the options, and as long as it's under the legal time limit window, then I don't think anyone can say it should have been any other way than the people involved in it.
I don't technically have a problem with what Ron Paul is saying here, but he states something contrary to his own beliefs. 7 months is probably too far along, the kid could probably survive outside of the mother's body at that point. But if he believes birth begins at conception, doing things to prevent conception that ALSO ends conception and justifying it as no medical/legal/chemical proof of conception....that's just hypocritical.
That kind of grey area lurking to satiate the need for abortions, but still sticking to your hardline statements is chicken shit justification.

>> ^CaptainPlanet:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot


Ron Paul states that he believes life begins at conception. And prior to this he says that there is no chemical, medical, legal evidence of a pregnancy when administering the treatment to stop the progression of possible conception.

I liken that to saying that you could justify murder by arguing that you have no reason to believe the guy didn't die of natural causes a split second before he was shot/stabbed/ran over. So while it would have been murder, you can't 100% prove due to lack of chemical, medical and legal evidence that he was expired mere seconds before I would have killed him. So at best I stabbed/shot/ran over a corpse that hadn't hit the ground yet.

And I agree, that does sound idiotic.

In the case of someone having a natural death right before something that would have otherwise killed them, they would argue that you intended to kill the guy and ended all chances of him being saved from the natural causes (heart attack, brain bleed, whatever) by your actions. It's more about the intent. If you are giving someone drugs/treatments to abort or prevent any possible pregnancy after the fact, your intent is clear. If you were pregnant you aborted it, if you were not the treatment was unnecessary....but the intent was still the same.

It's an argument basically boils down to: It's an abortion, only if you can prove they were pregnant. But there is no other reason to perform it besides the chance of pregnancy. So why is it not abortion/attempted abortion when the intent is there? And how can he say life begins at conception, but then do these procedures that are designed to prevent or end conceptions before they are legally, medically, and chemically provable?


It's a half joking, devil's advocate kind of argument. We don't give our ages from the day we were conceived, but we definitely begin life prior to our "birth day". So there needs to be a upper limit instated by law, and a general understanding that the doctors and clinics should make sure all information and choices are presented before doing anything permanent. It should definitely not be a spur of the moment choice, where a patient can walk in to a doctor with no previous discussion and say they want an abortion and have it carried out with no information to other options. Once presented with the options, and as long as it's under the legal time limit window, then I don't think anyone can say it should have been any other way than the people involved in it.

I don't technically have a problem with what Ron Paul is saying here, but he states something contrary to his own beliefs. 7 months is probably too far along, the kid could probably survive outside of the mother's body at that point. But if he believes birth begins at conception, doing things to prevent conception that ALSO ends conception and justifying it as no medical/legal/chemical proof of conception....that's just hypocritical.

That kind of grey area lurking to satiate the need for abortions, but still sticking to your hardline statements is chicken shit justification.

I think this guy is great for promoting free, individual, logical thought. But he may have made an error when he said; "If there's any truth to empathy, you're going to have to substantiate it." I thought empathy was simply recognizing, and sharing, someone elses experience (happiness, sadness, pain). I hope he keeps up the good work, we need many more like him, especially when we may soon (hopefully not) lose the greatest free thinker of our age, Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

As much as I'm loving this rant, Louis is making some inconsistent arguments, especially regarding Apple. He starts by presenting Apple and Microsoft as the 'Tesla and Edison' of our age and saying how lucky we are to have escaped the clutches of Bill's inferior technology and his evil empire, then he goes on to rant about the state of online consumerism today and how we've abandoned certain ideals for the sake of comfort.
Honestly it just feels like ignorance on the subject on his part. In this argument he's making, if anything, the 'Microsoft' era would be the equivalent of the 'local businesses' and Apple would be the Starbucks. Not that I'm suggesting Microsoft is a small business, but from a consumer point of view - the rise of Apple is an exact example of the process he's describing, he even admits it by ranting about iTunes, how we all 'share' our likes, god-forbid we 'exist on the fringes'. Apple IS a big 'fuck you' to anything independent, it's the personification of the 'evil corporate empire' he's talking about. But they make a PC that looks nicer and an OS that works smoother, so fuck all that idealistic shit, let's just buy their products and welcome our new overlords in all things technology-related.
I honestly do not understand how Apple have generated this public image of excellence for themselves, a future in which these types of business practices are common-practice in silicon valley is a scary one...


To me it's not ignorance because he's obviously knowledgeable about the subject matter. The problem is this is a radio show and he's supposed to be off the cuff this isn't a prepared rant or anything like that it's stuff that's in his head rattling around and some of it may be a bit more polished than other parts.

If he say ordered his thoughts into a paper say or a talk and presented a case then it would be much more coherent. We can't expect everyone to be coherent especially when they're going off the trial from accepted dogma. If you tune into a political program and someone says "Iran is evil cause they are doing.." whatever, it's taken as read. Iran is evil, they're being accused of evil things blah blah blah don't need any more information it's accepted, mainstream thought. If however someone comes on and says something like Chomsky's quote "education is a system of imposed ignorance" that's a seriously against the grain statement...it seems to make no sense. You'd need a LOT of examples and well ordered explaination to break down the already ingrained beliefs.

So Louis CK maybe a bit all over the place...that's cause he's not giving a talk or presenting a paper. He's speaking off the cuff on a radio program and I think we can give him a pass because he's doing his job, being entertaining. He's not a professor he's a comedian.

As much as I'm loving this rant, Louis is making some inconsistent arguments, especially regarding Apple. He starts by presenting Apple and Microsoft as the 'Tesla and Edison' of our age and saying how lucky we are to have escaped the clutches of Bill's inferior technology and his evil empire, then he goes on to rant about the state of online consumerism today and how we've abandoned certain ideals for the sake of comfort.

Honestly it just feels like ignorance on the subject on his part. In this argument he's making, if anything, the 'Microsoft' era would be the equivalent of the 'local businesses' and Apple would be the Starbucks. Not that I'm suggesting Microsoft is a small business, but from a consumer point of view - the rise of Apple is an exact example of the process he's describing, he even admits it by ranting about iTunes, how we all 'share' our likes, god-forbid we 'exist on the fringes'. Apple IS a big 'fuck you' to anything independent, it's the personification of the 'evil corporate empire' he's talking about. But they make a PC that looks nicer and an OS that works smoother, so fuck all that idealistic shit, let's just buy their products and welcome our new overlords in all things technology-related.

I honestly do not understand how Apple have generated this public image of excellence for themselves, a future in which these types of business practices are common-practice in silicon valley is a scary one...

If you want to grow the economy then perhaps a simple understanding of the word grow might help. A tree doesn't have branches appear in the air, then as years go on, it moves to the ground and eventually establishes roots. One doesn't build an economy from the top down, just like you don't suspend a mast in the air then build a deck, then a framework and then the hull. No building things and growing things go from the bottom up. Help the people who spend money, the poor and working class, and when they spend money those businesses soon have to hire more people to help with the increased customer base. Those workers now have more money and they spend money and the cycle starts. Now suppliers and transportation need to ramp up their work force. This puts even more people to work and more people spending. Now we need more manufacturing to keep up with demand. This builds things even more. Giving money to the rich who only horde it does nothing for the economy. Simple logic... this is of course why the Republicans want to cut education, the more ignorant the populace the more willing they are to accept BS lines like that GM quoted. Even though that is exclusively about federal income taxes and not taxes as a whole. The rich stop paying their share of Social Security at about $106,000.
During the past 30 years of this trickle down/supply side economics, the rich have got richer while the middle class has gotten poorer. 10 years of the Bush tax cuts and the job rates have gone down and the rich get richer. Of course facts never got in the way of real policy, a gullible Fox News public believes that all poor people are poor because they are lazy bums, all of whom just want to leech off society. The Fox News public believes that critical thought is evil and leads people away from Jesus, never mind that they ignore their Bible lessons of Jesus wanting to help the sick and the poor, of reaching out to the sinners of his age and hanging with them and condemned the religious zealots of his time, and they want to smite the sick and the poor and condemn the sinners of our age and hang out with the religious.
Of course 98% of the Democrats give in as well. They refused to stand up and fight for the people they say they care about (oddly the Republicans don't even pretend to hide their pure hatred for the working class and poor and favoritism of the rich and the Fox News public still love them, even though they are the very people the Republicans make a very vocal point of hating)...
Just getting myself upset thinking about it all and the lack of care for their fellow man that the right has...