It's not hard. Just speak gibberish, and end yelling, "BORK BORK BORK!" and throw some cooking utensils in random directions.

>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^Yogi:
Germany seems like a nice place to live.

It's no Sweden, but it's okay.

Eh Sweden is full of beautiful blonde women...who'd wanna go there?

Me, as soon as I get around to freshing up my swedish again

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^Yogi:
Germany seems like a nice place to live.

It's no Sweden, but it's okay.

Eh Sweden is full of beautiful blonde women...who'd wanna go there?


Me, as soon as I get around to freshing up my swedish again

Your video, TDS: World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^Yogi:
Germany seems like a nice place to live.

It's no Sweden, but it's okay.


Eh Sweden is full of beautiful blonde women...who'd wanna go there?

>> ^Yogi:

Germany seems like a nice place to live.


It's no Sweden, but it's okay.

I want to walk away after watching this.

http://videosift.com/video/TDS-World-of-Class-Warfare-The-Poor-s-Free-Ride-Is-Over

I don't think you're that far off. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Another thing that comes into play are our affordable "luxuries". Cable TV, microwaves, dishwashers, heating/AC...these things are now things that we risk by protesting/revolting. Why go outside and get shot at when we can watch Cosby reruns for hours on end?>> ^peggedbea:

the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.
i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:
Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.

the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.

i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:

Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.

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

Well how about the free pass that Bay gets to make the same rock-m-sock-em robot movie over and over. God, if I never see another Transformer again in my life I'll be happy.

I've *at least* mildly enjoyed every Shymalan flick I've seen. (although I have not seen the Airbender movie) My point is that a lot of Directors get a free ride. I wouldn't say that Shymalan is one of them. In fact he seems to be mercilessly mocked and ridiculed. Probably because he puts himself out there - and comparing himself to Hitchcock doesn't help. He's eccentric - and I like him.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^dag:
I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a sensational movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:
I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.


while i dont contest your points on michael bay (but really tho, someone has to make the dumbed down, cgi porn, movies that will appease the average movie goer) couldnt one argue that shyalaman was more or less given a free pass to shill out essentially the same movie in a different package over and over and over again. he makes sixth sense, its a smashing success, he's hailed as among the best new filmmakers at the time, everyone and their mom wants to finance his next movie....i dont see a difference

>> ^dag:

I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a sensational movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:
I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.



while i dont contest your points on michael bay (but really tho, someone has to make the dumbed down, cgi porn, movies that will appease the average movie goer) couldnt one argue that shyalaman was more or less given a free pass to shill out essentially the same movie in a different package over and over and over again. he makes sixth sense, its a smashing success, he's hailed as among the best new filmmakers at the time, everyone and their mom wants to finance his next movie....i dont see a difference

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

I'm with you on this one. I would prefer to watch the worst Shymalan movie over the best Michael Bay flick. Somehow Bay gets a free-ride for his CGI splooge fests. At least M. Night's movies focus on story over special effects. And also - Sixth Sense was a *sensational* movie - he gets a lot of credit from me for that one. >> ^shponglefan:

I don't get all the Shyamalan hate. I've seen almost everything he's made (starting with Sixth Sense up to and including The Happening), and imho he hasn't really made a bad movie. The problem seems to be he made a really good one (Sixth Sense) and has been living in its shadow ever since.

>> ^dgandhi:
Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning. You’re quoting phrases from other ideologies without establishing how it has any relevance to the video. You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting. Quoting other ideologies and then saying those quotes contradict themselves—that has no relevance to liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.
Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise. I don’t deny Rand believes in liberty, objectivism goes beyond just believing in liberty. That’s 0 for 2.
>> ^dgandhi:
I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.
Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.
>> ^dgandhi:
I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Then you have no point. Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Social convention: Property is taken from individuals to serve the collective.
>> ^dgandhi:
I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.
No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.
>> ^dgandhi:
I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.
False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.

>> ^dgandhi:
You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.
False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me. I only seek a social contract as a means of collective force to protect myself and other individuals from unlawful action.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

>> ^marbles:


I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.

If you can point out even one point made by the video that diverges from Rand, then you can make a distinction, otherwise I'll continue to call it what it is.

>> ^marbles:
From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.

>> ^marbles:

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Value is also an arbitrary social convention, you will find that it will not help you here.

>> ^marbles:
Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!



I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.

>> ^marbles:

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.
You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.


I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.

You are attempting to get an ought from an is, while completely disregarding the why of the is, or the other things that are for the same reason. The fact that social contract property looks like Randian property 99.999% of the time does not make it the same thing.

You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.

Sarah is a paid shill for Fox News. Sarah is riding around the country on a family vacation, on the dime of her generous contributors, and she gets away with it because she has specifically NOT put her hat into the ring to run. Sarah won't run, because there's more money in being a paid personality than in actually doing something. The minute she says "I'm running for president" the free ride is over, and its back to bumm-fuck Alaska for her brood.

Sarah has a Super-PAC. Sarah is soaking you idiots for all you're worth. Sarah is laughing her ass off at you every night, while she eats $50 steaks.>> ^quantumushroom:

Man-o-man Quantum, you seem to have some serious anger issues.
Anyone who values the exceptional, free and prosperous America is angry with the Obamateur and his merry band of tax cheats and kleptocrats. Not to say the Rs are much better, but they are, in fact, better.
The sad thing is that some of what you say is very true but because of your deep seated hatred for anything left of the extreme right you undermine your own argument against any leftist bias.
Remember that I don't claim objectivity like the leftmedia (actually even that isn't true any more, they abandoned what little journalistic cred they had by joining Obama's 2008 campaign). I have my opinions but there also the numbers, such as unemployment and debt, which no one can fudge for very long.

What really intrigues me is your comment; "Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist...". As you appear to be a bitter right wing extremist, I am curious to know what you think it means to be an American? What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?
You may be surprised to discover I don't necessarily think Palin is ready to be prez (the night is young) but the election of His Earness proves that a sad slight-majority of Americans are willing to overlook a lack of experience and substance, another measure by which BHO fails. Palin governed a whole state, whereas Obama was a junior senator who voted "present" most of the time.

What American principals does Palin exemplify that you find so endearing as to make you believe her to be a good presidential candidate?
Sarah believes in America, Barack doesn't. Sarah celebrates the good, Barack believes that America is the greatest threat to the world and should be "reigned in". Sarah may not know the birthdays of all the Founding Fathers, but is aligned with those principles more than Barack, who believes that the FF "didn't go far enough" in redistributing wealth, which was never their aim.
Sarah is a leader, capable of galvanizing the American People, just like Barack. It's why the left hates her. Even Howard 'Scream' Dean just warned that she could beat His Earness in '12.
IMO she can't screw things up any more than Barry.

@blankfist I can't speak for every state (and BTW, this is almost entirely an issue left to the states to legislate on), but there's nothing legally stopping a divorce from being settled out of court in Ohio. You don't even need an arbitrator, if the parties can come to total agreement on the disposition of the custody of the children and all the relevant property disputes. In such cases, the state basically just acts as a witness to the agreement.

Almost no divorces happen that way, largely because the couple can't come to a full and wide-ranging agreement. Not only that, they usually can't even agree to binding arbitration. My parents couldn't, and instead went into the full legal food fight in civil court.

At no point in here do I see how taking civil court off the table helps.

As far as my own parents' divorce proceedings, my observation was that all the advantages went to my dad, largely because he was the sole income earner in our household. The only topic mom seemed to get preference on was with custody, and I think that was more a case of dad relenting than mom getting some sort of preferential treatment.

Even so, unfair laws aren't written in stone, and I'm sure you could cobble together a pretty potent PAC of pissed off rich men who're mad about how women get too much of a free ride when it comes to divorce. Bad judges can be impeached, and many state courts elect their judges anyways (we do here, and they even all have partisan affiliations -- the Ohio Supreme Court is 100% Republican again).

And as far as judges are concerned, I'm sure the voting blocs are driven more by abortion than anything else, and I guarantee you that the abortion-should-be-illegal crowd are a lot more likely to rule against agnostic parents over "proper" Christian ones in divorce proceedings.

In terms of actual statute, I suspect a lot of the stagnation of law in this area is because the law is set at the state level. Just about no one gets into the details of what their state legislature does unless it catches the attention of the national media (e.g. SB1070, Prop 8, Prop 19, Romneycare, etc.). Even a political junkie like me is hard pressed to say what issues my state legislature has even tried to address over its last session.

As far as some sort of anarchist state-free system, let me quote James Madison, who puts it far more eloquently than I do:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.