>> ^Boise_Lib:

I got to 1:48 where he said, "Liberals say tax the rich and that will do it."
Umm...I don't remember ANYONE saying that that is enough. It's not.
Cut military spending DRASTICALLY!! AND tax the rich and corporations.
To be fair @surfingyt doesn't say if he thinks this is true, he (she?) just posted a video.
@GenjiKilpatrick -- No, he hasn't stopped his "self-help" racket.
He's helping himself to a big ol' bag of PAC money.
Downvote.


I agree that cutting military spending is an area that does need to be addressed quite seriously, not sure what it is now, but last i heard it was more than 2 Trillion a year (correct me if wrong).
If the military is still contracting out to those $$companies that suck up the funding and do stupid wasteful stuff like buying/building new trucks instead of repairing few-month old trucks because they make a bigger profit, then that needs to stop immediately.. military's should not be privatized like that.

In saying that I also think it's unwise to take out all the government armed forces funding as a country still needs to defend itself for it's citizens security, especially if they've pissed off a bunch of other nations. But the extent of the funding the US engages in is well past an obsessive degree and needs to be pulled into line.

Large corporations being taxed at low rates and in a lot of cases not even being audited for tax evasion (as TYT mentioned recently) is disgusting when the poor get smashed by taxes and audits.

>> ^surfingyt:

Agreed. I liked the way he visualized the deficit and compared it against the calendar. One thing that caught my attention was he suggested bringing all the troops home, which I use daily as an example of useless spending, and that barely made a dent in the calendar. I (a he @Boise_Lib) posted for the discussion and possible votes (and downvotes).
>> ^Sepacore:
I understand the straw-man point and not disagreeing, will state that this is a completely unrealistic strategy imo and those that may talk up the general idea anywhere near the extreme Robbins was so as to make a point, i don't feel they've thought about it too much.
However, despite the level's of bs that's twisted into this, it did give me a bit of an idea of what effect doing 1 extreme (taxing) would have. Would very much like to see a comparative going the other way and focusing on cutting spending. The combination of both would give me a greater idea of what the situation actually is and what extremes would be advisable.
Regardless, upvote simply because the numbers were interestingly/entertainingly effective at keeping my attention, and although the numbers mostly seemed plausibly likely (even though some were simply unattainable) to my naive level of knowledge on this subject (haven't researched it, not planning to), some numbers are so drastically high, that the representation of them against the calendar left me stunned.
I'm left with the idea that taxing + cutting + appealing to the rich (yeah i know, don't get rich by giving your money away) is the only way forward.



Yeah, good topic imo for some open discussion about various thoughts on the overall subject of the Debt and Deficit. It's not an easy fix by any means, and I'm curious and would like to see some takes on the various ideas re difficult decisions that ultimately need to be made to chip away at such an unfathomable number.

1 expense i don't think should be cut is education as it's the foundation of improving infrastructure and advancing a country's capabilities, and NASA funding for much the same reason + I'm bias and love cosmology and the study of the universe.

(I like how Boise_Lib didn't actually downvote your video, just typed the word for reference to show disagreement to Robbins one-sided presentation)

Agreed. I liked the way he visualized the deficit and compared it against the calendar. One thing that caught my attention was he suggested bringing all the troops home, which I use daily as an example of useless spending, and that barely made a dent in the calendar. I (a he @Boise_Lib) posted for the discussion and possible votes (and downvotes).

>> ^Sepacore:

I understand the straw-man point and not disagreeing, will state that this is a completely unrealistic strategy imo and those that may talk up the general idea anywhere near the extreme Robbins was so as to make a point, i don't feel they've thought about it too much.
However, despite the level's of bs that's twisted into this, it did give me a bit of an idea of what effect doing 1 extreme (taxing) would have. Would very much like to see a comparative going the other way and focusing on cutting spending. The combination of both would give me a greater idea of what the situation actually is and what extremes would be advisable.
Regardless, upvote simply because the numbers were interestingly/entertainingly effective at keeping my attention, and although the numbers mostly seemed plausibly likely (even though some were simply unattainable) to my naive level of knowledge on this subject (haven't researched it, not planning to), some numbers are so drastically high, that the representation of them against the calendar left me stunned.
I'm left with the idea that taxing + cutting + appealing to the rich (yeah i know, don't get rich by giving your money away) is the only way forward.

This is what happens when deconstruction of a movie can't really go any further.

I did not get the same impression from this campy video. When they said $88,000/y goes to keeping an inmate in prison, I know it's not their puny wage. It's the cost of the corrections process, infrastructure and the like. I'm upvoting this video for making a valid statement, despite the oversimplification.

>> ^tsquire1:

Although the bill is screw up, this video is too.
It explains the situation as if the prisoners themselves are going to get the money spent on prisons, not the prison capitalists. This is absurd. It's not like somebody locked up for a bullshit crime is getting rich here. Blame the 1%, the the people whose being is criminalized.
And on that note, the video never attempts to deconstruct the prison system in the first place and instead maintains a blame on the people in the cells, and not the system that forced them in there.

Yup. This was an invalid comparison. It's like saying that cancer research money benefits the cancer itself. If it costs $88,000 to keep a prisoner who needs to be behind bars behind bars, then that's money spent on protecting the public. The problem is when a skater kids go into prison and come out hardened, at our expense.>> ^tsquire1:

Although the bill is screw up, this video is too.
It explains the situation as if the prisoners themselves are going to get the money spent on prisons, not the prison capitalists. This is absurd. It's not like somebody locked up for a bullshit crime is getting rich here. Blame the 1%, the the people whose being is criminalized.
And on that note, the video never attempts to deconstruct the prison system in the first place and instead maintains a blame on the people in the cells, and not the system that forced them in there.

Although the bill is screw up, this video is too.

It explains the situation as if the prisoners themselves are going to get the money spent on prisons, not the prison capitalists. This is absurd. It's not like somebody locked up for a bullshit crime is getting rich here. Blame the 1%, the the people whose being is criminalized.
And on that note, the video never attempts to deconstruct the prison system in the first place and instead maintains a blame on the people in the cells, and not the system that forced them in there.

Kinda confusing and jumpy but cool nonetheless. I think she's talking about deconstruction of material and reconstructing the meanings, which is a popular method.

>> ^Phreezdryd:

What's so special about very short video clips repeating?


Nothing really you always have trendy twat face mother fuckers talking bullshit about things.

But by having a specific rules and confines to work to it forces stuff to be a specific way , so for example the character limitations for text messaging forced people to write messages in a certain way . or the limitation of old computers forced people to make games a certain way with certain types of art and animation.

Gifs do the same thing it just forces people to do things in a certain way and so you end up with people trying to creatively work within those confines.

There is no resoin why a film has to be 90 min 1 min or 3 seconds or play once through loop or be short and loop , in the end its ll just doing random shit and if people can happen to enjoy it then its not a problem.

In fairness this video was not that bad and was largely informative but you definitely get allot of people who consider themselves more "arty" or "artistic" than others talking utter shit as a way for them to build there ego over other people.

I had to search for this, but definitely an up vote! Hilarious deconstruction with retro SNES Final Fantasy graphics == win!

Lol fail.
>> ^gorgonheap:

Pornography is ultimately deconstructive to healthy relationships. Just about any marriage councilor will confirm this. It degrades those involved with it. Some may disagree with it that but everyone should remember the sick feeling that accompanys the first few time one sees pornography. That's , in my opinion, a God given instinct to turn away from the filth.
Yes porn is attractive, especially to the male psyche. But it's incredibly damaging to ones relationships and how they view members of the opposite sex.

Love this idea. I'll add something a little different...

You really ought to check out some Devin Townsend if you're into some really unique sounds.. The guy has an incredible range but dedicates his base music to "metal." Though the genre is closest to metal most of the time, he also has some really outside music as well with a recent example being the paired 2 disc project of deconstruction and ghost, 2 wildly different albums. One of my favorite projects by Townsend, however, is an album called Synchestra, which when played as intended is a seamless blend of an entire album. There are no gaps between most of the songs making it very easy to listen to the whole album. It's also got cameo artists like Steve Vai and Deborah Tyzio in some tracks.

On a side note I he's incredible live. Seen him twice, once headlining. Amazing. He talks to the crowd the entire time and got down in the crowd to play a few times. Wonderful energy, great personality and really intelligent.

I'll stick a few links from synchestra in here though it's better to go start to finish and enjoy the rollercoaster

All from Synchestra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc2dsNQX4Tw - Triumph. Metal + banjo? why not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XERqZRMG5Cg - vampolka. Directly precedes vampira, which can be found on the sift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzewVfIX9_w - Gaia. awesome tune. A "sprinting" song for me when running..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ0T7_3YD6o - Pixillate, follows Gaia. awesome vocals once it gets going. goosebumps.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Jinx:
I dont think he got schooled at all. Well, unless you think ad homs are cool.

He talked, and acted, like a fool--he got called a fool.
Petey tried to control the conversation with talking points--he couldn't.
Schooled.

No sorry. Talking points or not he did still make points. Points that could have been deconstructed and debated. Instead we got some guy calling him an idiot, which true as it may be is probably something any of us could do on our worst days. So no, he wasn't schooled. He is an idiot though and I would like him to get properly destroyed by a real argument, and not just this schoolyard shit.

Oh wait. I suppose in that sense he was "schooled". GODDAMN I'M WITTY.

@NetRunner

I know "you're saying" there are still valid reasons to participate. You say that every disagreement.

I'm saying, the only thing you're doing is giving legitimacy to a broken, fucked up, backward ass system..
One that will NOT produce the desired outcome in the appropriate time scale.

If Dems won every Congressional & Presidential election for the next 40 years, how much progress do you think would be made?

Green energy, free college all, universal healthcare and the deconstruction on the Military Industrial Complex?

Stop deluding yourself, all the same laws that have allowed the corporate coup d'etat to occur will still be in place.

Those interests would continue to manipulate the system and it would be made all-the-more-easy now that they only have one party to focus on.

Dems have had majority control of Congress since 2006 and what do we get. Expansion of Iraq & Afghanistan conflicts.
Bailouts for Gazillionaires.
Healthcare mandates that funnel more money to shitty service providers.
[oh, thanks for letting me stay on parents insurance. Nevermind that the cheap ass insurance refuses to pays for a goddamn thing.]

To boot, Barack Obama current King of the Democrats murdered a citizen without a valid charge or cause of action.

That goes against all the supposed values of Democrats and you wholly ignored addressing this GLARING issue with your "Dems are better" argument.

So it's clear, QuantumNetrunner, that your not here to expand your horizons or any of that nonsense.

You're only here to make excuses for the continuation of broken system.

All cause you're to scared or indoctrinated to call Dems out for what the really are: Corporate sponsored slimeballs clinging to the coat tails of ACTUAL progressive individuals,movements and ideas.. for Public Relations purposes.

@chilaxe, ahh, so your issue is that you don't like the bigotry of the Tea Party being put front and center.

That's cool, but it's not an inaccuracy. Inaccuracy is saying Santorum was avoiding condemning all Muslims when he said "our civilization is antithetical to the Jihadist civilization".

What civilization is the "Jihadist" civilization? Is it not the same as the Muslim civilization? If he meant to say it's just a band of extremists operating outside the mainstream, why frame it as some clash of civilizations?

Paul understood the subtext, and pushed back on it.

Yes, the overall exchange was ostensibly about the general platform for the demonization of Muslims -- they hate us for our freedom and all that -- but people who listened to their undergraduate professors' encouragement to read skeptically and deconstruct media instead of accepting it without question saw that underlying theme, and wanted to try to highlight and expose it.

That's why I don't see your complaint about the title as a question of factual accuracy, so much as a disagreement with me over what the lede is. You'd prefer this particular lede be buried.

You're right about there being a timing problem with the title's current call/answer format. How about "Ron Paul Booed by Tea Party for Defending Muslims"?