@Psychologic

Now this I agree with. "Gangs" or tribes of people dominating other people is the more natural condition, not libertarian ideals. The notion of individual rights is very new, and defies the natural order of our evolution. The drift towards collective authoritarian systems is only natural, as a result. This is why, often times, I overstress the need for liberties and freedoms, because they are destined to erode, it is our natural tendency.

However, I still see the only answer to the plagues that humanity unleashes on itself as personal, individual choice and responsibility. Someone here on the sift said something to the effect that he believes that Aspergers is the next stage of human evolution, I am starting to see the wisdom in the statement. Only when the violent, overly competitive sections of our DNA are extinguished can we ever have uncompromising peace.

Commander Adama said it best "We never asked ourselves, are we worthy of survival?" It isn't enough to live, or to kill people. It isn't enough to have laws that punish evil doers. We must not have evil doers, it is the only solution that has humanity survive for any geologically significant time frame. The Meta game for humanity is only just begun.

@hpqp
Perhaps I read to many poems in high school, but every one of these, to me, seem to be analogous to being killed in spirit.

Mt. 10:28: "...destroy both soul and body..."
Mt. 25:41: "...into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..."
Mt. 25:46: "...eternal punishment..."
Mk 9:47-48: "..thrown into hell, 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched."
Lk 10:15: "...will go down to Hades"
Lk. 12:5: "has authority to throw you into hell"

The only one that seems to really indicated being not destroyed seems to be Mk 9:47-48. Eternal punishment could be eternal non-existence, and going to hell or Hades could mean the same thing. Unquenchable fire seems to speak more about the fire, not those being eradicated by it. Fire seems to be what most people see as the "hell" part, the part about eternal torment in the form of torture instead of destruction. For me, the idea of fire is that it consumes things. Once consumed, the thing is gone, and so is the fire. So, is the bible saying the fire doesn't go out but is always ready to consumed the next evil doer, or the fire isn't going out because the source isn't consumed? Really, I don't know, don't care anymore I guess..."hell" seems to violate God's own decree of love, a fairly large theological problem, more than just being destroyed.

Most likely it is me that is wrong about hell, no matter, I don't think it a real thing. Even though, sometimes, when I see all the injustice in the world, like all those assholes in the video, I wish there was a place after death where justice was done. If your an atheist, then the life itself is truly an unjust thing.

Edit, o ya, and thanks for taking the time to research a very great reply

It is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution. Do as we say not as we do. … Hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.

You are absolutely correct, and that is the major stumbling block of religious belief in general. It is one thing to preach (as others denigratingly say) and quite another to live the principles. This issue is raised quite often in the New Testament. People who are hearers only, rather than doers, are just in need of correction as anyone else. Christ’s central message was that people needed to internalize and live the principles of religion, rather than having a rote set of rules to beat each other up with.

lets change "church" to "community" and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".

But don't separate them. Church is an integral part of ‘community’ (or should be). Your message here is pretty much, “whatever source works”. I don’t disagree with that. I’m not saying church should be the only source of morality, but it is certainly a very important one. The problem is that in Western society, there is an active effort from many sources to completely uncouple religious faith from the public discourse. How can we establish a moral people when we have a sector of “the community” which seeks to muffle one of the best sources of moral guidance that exists?

I would put it forward that this tendency to belittle, ignore, or segregate religious faith from the public “community” is one of the main reasons WHY we have so many bullies and other ‘bad people’ in the community to begin with. Popular entertainment almost exclusively portrays people of faith in a negative light. Government seeks to shut out faith completely from public sight. You can’t talk about it in schools. Internet forums are crawling with those hostile to religious faith. It is a poisonous atmosphere that undermines one of the most important sources in the community for moral guidance.

i believe it all starts with parenting.

I agree. In fact, if a religion does not actively seek to support and advance a strong family unit then it is not a very good religion.

Well, I'll point to one example. When they went after Scientology I was quite surprised of the organization and setup. In multiple cities in the U.S. and in International places (mostly NATO countries) like London. They got hundreds in some locations and thousands of people/protesters to show up and protest Scientology's right to be a religion (as they're considered one in the U.S--not sure where they are, out of country of course). Usually, their Constitutional right to be a religion, would be something I would fight for, but they have crossed the line more than enough times that they seem like fair game to me. Hell, we had atleast a couple of hundred, maybe even one thousand, protesting the church in Utah of all places! Utah is far off from any of their headquarters or any major "church", installation, and "health" centers.

(Off-topic Sidenote: The Mormon or LDS church also crossed the line with Proposition 8 in California--I've seen the LDS church get involved in other political affairs, but only to the same extent all churches in this country do--block voting is ridiculous and should almost cause your vote to be counted as less-as you're actively using religion as a political pulpit and then voting from that; if a connection could be made I'd think those votes should be countermanded as well as the religion's tax exemption status--especially when you have meetings, literally, before a vote. Mormons do this, I'VE BEEN to them!)

The fact that Anonymous can pull that off over night means a great deal. They're most defiantly not weekend warriors in their mother's basement (although I'm sure there are plenty like that). They must have quite a few people that are highly trained in a wide range of topics as they've gone after many targets; easily separating, for the majority of Anonymous, what's an incorrect target and what deserves their attention. To me this means you can't write them off in any fashion; as they may have "Ivory Tower" support, due to their targets and being able to seem "right" and "innocuous" at every turn--people cheer them on.

If I had to pick, I would wager that Anonymous can and does affect more changes socially than al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda has a poor societal impact except the desperate or those that have nothing to lose--only if it used like-wise tactics, which they won't (likewise tactics meaning: terrorism, like 9-11). Their methodology is *flashy*, so every media outlet focuses their news-time and airtime on them. If Anonymous did these infamous type of events except against an U.S. enemy, would they have the same "deeply rooted" infamy/notoriety in American society? I'd say yes.

Outside the U.S. they may have that attribution (good doers/fighting evil or infamous) already in certain places. Right now, Americans are more concerned if their McMansion will be a viable end solution or if it's another "living beyond your means", moment.

I do agree with you that Anonymous must be worried about their banner being lifted by the wrong person. But, as their is no leader in Anonymous it will lead to inter-anon wars; we've seen a few, but most have ended blindingly fast. You almost never hear about it unless you dig around (and even then you find out it's a year old).

I'm just trying to remind people that if Anonymous whimsically can get Colbert to wear the mask in solidarity and can gets thousands of protesters to show up at your doorbell overnight (with same mask ), they may have power that I doubt they've even tapped into yet.

Plus, I do think China or any country willing to stand toe to toe with the U.S. would be grateful to have a voracious enemy of the U.S. on their side (yes, I agree that China would be bad; I also doubt that they would choose it--maybe more like Russia). Especially, if it ends up being one that knows the U.S. fairly well. Secondly, as before, taking random people off the street in Anonymous's name would only feed the machine. We have yet to see what happens if Anonymous, itself, is attacked. It's always been a side attack due to another on going event. The rules might change for both sides if it became a "war" (how they target and what is targeted, then how does the information become presentable). Yes, the U.S. could cut-off the Internet, but I think we've learned enough that THAT may be a grander problem for the U.S. than what it originally had (it's happened everywhere else; citizens revolting).

Yes, Anonymous "may" be getting too much credit, but since their anonymous... They might loose badly even in a straight up information war. But, none of this has happened yet or been tested... I agree with the majority of what you're saying @Yogi . I'm just reminding people that underestimation of your enemy (do we, as Americans, really want Anonymous as an enemy? The Colbert show seems to show the opposite...)

Get rid of one person and another falls in to place, and the hacks they do can be taught ridiculously fast. The other side requires *tax payers'* money or private contractors (using *tax payers'* money, or someone like Dick Cheney who has Halliburton), all of which seem shady as what they do is kill other Americans, arrest other Americans, kill NATO citizens or extradite NATO citizens, and heaven forbid: use black-ops for non-Western countries (Anonymous has enough foresight to get clear confirmation of any event and spread it virally; like a video).

If these guys lose one person it takes quite a bit of time to replace--even if they become misaligned with the publics' view, like the guy in Colbert's piece. Everyone will question his motives now except for the complete utter sheep with no in-the-know friends (to explain what Anonymous is doing).

All I'm trying to say is that in an age of information the U.S. may find themselves on equal footing in a war they'd have to start. The U.S. tries a physical response it will be posted in full glorious detail on the net with redundancy ad nauseum (one well placed real-time camera or auto-upload camera and it becomes a nightmare). The U.S. employs thousands of people that can barely log into their e-mail account(s)--these people are also responsible for enacting physical responses. Imagine an Anonymous that hacks, but keeps the game running. Key loggers, viruses, worms, trojans, hardware hacks, software hacks, people IN the government in on it...? Anonymous has always pulled their stunt quickly and shown everyone the ramifications; don't you think a prolonged version would be highly dangerous for both sides?

Again this assumes a lot about Anonymous just from what I've seen them accomplish in the past. They are most defiantly not some sort of elite commando force. What they lack is simply made up in their ability to manipulate data; which is HUGE in this day and age... Anyway that's long enough; respond to the areas you think need to be toned downed or clarified upon.

-grammar edit

Cramer is just being vocal about a real, and pervasive problem in the current wall street investor mentality. He advocating the investor mentality of sucking money out of companies instead of the older, and some would say antiquated, notion of finding companies that are going to successful and invest in them.

Which sounds easier, to invest in winners and gain over time, or to invest a short into any company and instill a sense of panic in the company that causes a run on it to collect your short? The later is much easier, and done often even though it is illegal. The gains are multimillion as well, the risk can usually be obfuscated away with front companies that only exist in paper.

While Cramer here is doing wrong, he is only a small fish in the pool of wrong doers. The huge mutual funds do the same, and have been implicated in the death by stock manipulation of many companies. The SEC is mostly helpless in regulating such things. I think stock owners, buyers and sellers, should demand more transparency in all stock exchanges. It is beneficial to nearly all people to have complete transparency, and beneficial to a select few when the books are closed. Stockholders and companies really need to advocate a sort of "stock exchange bill of rights", because government oversight is a joke and problems like Cramer are all to common.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Also, I'm calling fallacy on your 'coercion' argument. You are begging the question. Your argument that taxes are 'coercion' is an opinion that is far from universal and thus cannot be assumed. Taxes are part of the social contract you enter into when living in a representative democracy.


I have been thinking about this idea for awhile now. Did any of us actually accept the contract? Citizenship is merely bestowed upon us at birth. I have been toying around with the idea of explicit citizenship. In part, I find it could perhaps make the general population more interested in the affairs of government, and perhaps stave off the entropy of the system. It would also make people more aware of the roles of government.

I have also been reading on some neat alternatives to the ways to construct a legislature (from fiction). One that was of particular neatness factor was a 2 part legislature. One branch only passed legislation and needed a 2/3s majority to do so. The other part was a body dedicated to the repeal of legislation and only needed a 1/3 majority to revoke legislation. I thought this was a rather neat concept for organizing a legislature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority (nothing can stop it in a democracy), while also being a democratic way to adopt to things that most all people hold to.

To that end, I see unregulated capitalism very closely tied to democracy in the way it needs to be setup. With the proper foundations, you don't really need "regulations". If contract fraud, property rights, and constitutional rights are all well defined, you shouldn't need government regulators. You would need government legislators and democracy to determine what level of justice to extract from wrong doers, but that is something that works itself out through democracy quite well.

I think that is where a lot of the verbal confusion comes in on "free markets" is when it comes to fraud and disputed contracts. A more classical liberal would say let what happens happens, and if there is a dispute, the courts can handle it. A liberal today would want to regulate the market through government oversight to marginalize the occurrence in addition to the courts being available. The second option seems harmless enough, and indeed wanted, but as we have seen how it has played out..and it is into the hands of those with power and influence (which aren't voters). I agree with the idea of "a well regulated market" to the end that fraud/contract disputes have a government avenue available for resolution that is binding, this would include standard of indisputable denominated units (you can't claim to be selling pounds of beans that are your own version of what a pound is), among other things. But pre-government intervention isn't a good idea (in practice).

In closing, I think "free markets" is a loaded word. What I think is right in a market is a post regulated one established on a solid framework of understandings that are iron clad. I am currently trying to work out a system that also makes it harder for people to pass down wealth; that wealth is only earned, but that is a subject of a different conversation.

Solar cells have reached 40% effectiveness, which is far more than any conventional energy source. The tech has come leaps and bounds from what you refer to. Nuclear isn't the answer either as peak uranium is about as close away as peak oil. The fact is, free photos rain down with a total solar energy hitting Earth at around 10^17 Watts, and that is just on the earths surface. Tapping into just a portion of that is worth it. Extra planetary collectors would fetch nearly double of their earth bound brethren. Solar makes to much since to ignore. In other videos, he talks about the cost, and it was about as costly as a second of equivalently maintained asphalt, and that doesn't even factor in the energy they provide as an offset.

The ball has to start rolling. As others pointed out, replacing all sidewalks with something like this would be a great start. Smart sidewalks have whole other neat set of applications! Hey Mr. Smart phone, why don't you sync up with the side walk and point me in the direction of that bar I am going to...I shall follow the sidewalk arrows until I arrive!

If you are talking about technological costs, the always goes down fast with time. Problem is there are about 20 different sets of competing technologies that are still viaing for dominance. We are only about 10 years away from paper printing, high yield cells. With a modular system like the one proposed, outdated units could be phased out for newer ones very easily. In the end, it takes a doer to get this done, it is easy to be a naysayer and poke holes in the boat. I mean, the internet, surely that would never work. Hurdles can usually be overcome, doing nothing can't be.

Where do you rate Eva Braun on the evil scale? Certainly the (voluntary) husband/wife of an evil doer is not that innocent themself. How about the close, confided-in friends of the 9/11 hijackers? Stalin's gardener? LexCorp janitors?

If you are paid with blood money, well I think you could make an argument that yeah, you aren't that innocent. Still doesn't mean you deserve to die in a plane crash...
>> ^longde:
What about the families of the employees of those evil institutions?

yah , I do hope valve do a better job on the level design , for example I don't understand where there rnt more situations where a player litraly has to retreat and lock themselves in a room , having say a large house with loads of wooden doers would be really fun

Everybody's sayin'
What to do when suckin' lunatics start diggin' and chewin'
They don't know that the Soul don't go for that
Potholes in my lawn
And that goes for my rhyme sheet
Which I concentrated so hard on, see
I don't ask for maximum security
But my dwellin' is swellin'
It nipped my bud when I happened to fall
Into a spot
Where no ink or an ink-blot
Was on a scroll
I just wrote me a new 'mot'
But now it's gone
There's no
Suckers knew that I hate
To recognise that every time I'm writin'
It's gone

I've found that it's not wise
To leave my garden untended
'Cause eyes have now pardoned all laws of privacy
Even paws are after my writer
See, I've found that everyone's sayin'
What to do when suckers are preyin'
On my well-guarded spreadsheets
Oh why, hell does it send up fleets
Of evil-doers through the big hole
To get to evil-doers who dig holes
Which leaves my lawn with lawn-chew
I think I'd better plant traces to give clues
Or better yet call 911
And when they get here I inform them I'm the Plug One
Open a chair and let them realize the reason
For concern of the Soul,
'Cause we've come down with a case of potholes

Now you got the message
What to do when you die
The death that I predict in 'Plug Tunin'
It's a shame that you deny to claim
That you stole my words of fame
That I wrote in my rhyme sheet
Which I concentrated so hard on, see
I don't ask for a barbed wire fence, B
But my dwellin' is swellin'
It nipped my bud when I happened to fall
Into a spot
Where no ink or an ink-blot
Was on a scroll
I just wrote me a new 'mot'
But now it's gone there's no
Suckers knew that I hate
To recoginse that every time I'm writin'
It's gone

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^HaricotVert:
I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine

The word "doctrine" may be specific, but "the Bush Doctrine" is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
It is not clear which "Bush Doctrine" he was referring to... he was ambiguous on purpose.



She clearly didn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" was and probably never heard of, it's clear when he asks her what her interpretation of it.

Ask any first year Pol-Sci major who has done a basic course on modern international relations and they'll tell you the Bush Doctrine relates to a speech given in 2002 of which preemptive strike against a perceived threat, immediate or otherwise is a key component. All this rubbish about 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is simply revisionist history. People have to go back and look at when the term was initially used and in what relation, the reason people are claiming there are 'multiple Bush Doctrines' is because the term was high jacked by successive journalists and theorists. It's exactly the same with the crap about "appeasement" of Iran by Obama, they took a term which has a clearly defined meaning and history and tried to turn it into something it's not. The same has happened with the term "Bush Doctrine" however since the term wasn't so widely well known it's been successfully abused.

As the possible VP of the 'most powerful' nation in the world she should have comprehensive knowledge of ALL aspects of the foreign policy her country has subscribed to for the past 8 years regardless of what name it's been given otherwise what the hell is she doing running for VP. She clearly has no idea what she's talking about except to say the same old bs talking points:

"There are evil men/doers/Islamic Extremists/Osama bin Laden/Ahmedinejad/terrorists out there coming to kill you, only we know how to stop them"

In saying that clearly the interviewer was trying to trap her, I would have preferred if he'd just come out and said "do you agree the United States has the right to invade any country which poses a possible threat to the United States and it's interests be that immediate or otherwise?"

Oh and anyone that thinks there is a possibility that McCain won't invade Iran if elected is deluding themselves. Iran is to McCain like Iraq was to Bush jnr. They'll go in and it'll be Iraq II followed by 9/11 part II. McCain is a disgrace, I don't give a toss about his war record, when you come out the way he has running his campaign the way he has you can't say he is a man with honour. Deliberately distorting someone's character with no hesitation or second thought is all I need to know about the man and his character.

Anyone who votes for these two clowns (McCain/Palin) should have to sign on for military service for the duration of their administration if they get elected.

Apologies for the rant but as the last remaining 'super power' citizens of the United States not only have a duty to themselves but a moral responsibility to the rest of the world to elect rational leaders that will think of the consequences before taking such reckless action.

This and recent events involving Greenpeace sneaking into a jetway and onto the top of a plane make me think that TSA (Transp. Security Admin.), DHS (dept. Homeland security),TWAT (the war against terror) and even the terrorists themselves are a farce.

There hasn't been (thank goodness) a single bomb in the US, and now we've got people scaling the Golden Gate? This seems to indicate that either the DHS is so efficient and effective that they've caught all the evil doers, or that the terrorists are incompetent or don't even exist.

It can't be both. If they'd caught anybody, you'd be sure they'd tell us.

I'd take the cop. I've known a number of them and they were nice folks. Most know how to party if they want and wont scold you for partying... so long as said partying doesn't include anything illegal. Anyway, it could be handy to have a cop around now and then, at least you know no one's going to steal your TV. I've also lived with druggies, doers, not dealers. They're more trouble than they're worth... well, they can be entertaining at times at least. heh.

Anyway, do you really want to live with someone who has no respect for the law or the health of others. Do you really think a drug dealer is a reliable or trustworthy friend?

In lieu of religion, socialists needed a way to control the masses. After the Fail of "global cooling" in the 1970s, anthropogenic global warming became the latest fad, a one-size-fits-all way for geo-bureaucrats who produce nothing to control the doers.

Take a scientifically unproven consensus opinion, declare all debate "over", needlessly frighten the sheeple and start making fascist laws. They did it with tobacco, they're doing it with fat and now this crock of excrement. It's a dream come true for those trying to enslave humanity in the name of "for your own good".

Sorry to oversimplify, but the free market and its technology have lifted more people out of poverty around the world than any cabal of sanctimonious bureaucrats. I ask no one to believe blindly, but to consider who really stands to gain from endless bureaucracy. Hint: not you.

In my opinion, the pro-war/pro-torture position simply does not hang together. If you are pro-war (and not in the military) you are essentially asking other people to sacrifice their lives and limbs for some shared ideals. And what are these ideals? Let's assume they include good stuff, like freedom and all that, and that they probably do not include torture and other behavior associated with "evil doers".

The pro-torture argument is that if we can save some innocent life by torturing an evil-doer who probably deserves it then that's fine--especially if it keeps a bomb from going off in my local shopping mall. Ideals be damned.

Put these together and you get Romney's position: "Let's sacrifice our ideals if it'll save my ass, but lets defend them to the death if it just costs yours."

So it's all flags and handshakes now, but once one of these guys gets elected, it's all about taking care of number one. And number 1 ain't you--you ain't even number 2. (RIPFZ)