sposo2 is correct.
there is no proof.not in any definitive sense.
there is only conjecture and suspicious coincidence,which leads to more questions which have not been answered satisfactorily.
this is where spoco and i diverge.
history has shown us that those who rule will exploit it's own citizens for it's own machinations,even if that device is wholesale slaughter.
read Zbigniew Brzezinski:
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
or chalmers johnson:
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Project/dp/0805075593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253120736&sr=1-1 (to give you context)

no body? then there is no case.
the REAL question to start with,and this can be verified,documented and is blocked at every turn,is the WHO and the WHY.
this has never been answered fully or even in part and what we were told has been proven to be not only false,but laughable.
let's start there.
so i cant blame anybody being suspicious of the governments accounts for 9/11.
their answers on these two questions have been suspicious from the start in their inaccuracies and outright lies.
try to avoid the physics and possible demolition of the trade towers.
not because your questions are invalid,but because the physical evidence is no longer there and to attempt to argue the validity of a government conspiracy with no physical evidence puts you in the hole at the beginning.
ask WHO and WHY.
even playing field.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^ netrunner
All social legislations only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom. The issue isn't whether I think I have the authority over you to interpret the constitution. There is a more basic set of ideas about what the constitution was setup to protect, it might be easier to deal with those first. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about the more general starting point we have to go on for a social contract. The constitution in whole can be seen a protecting and preserving these things, both against/from others and the government itself. Meaning, no body shall wrongfully cause you death, confinement or restriction, deprivation or enforcement of ambitions.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution. That document starts off:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A perfect Union does not let someone die from illness because they don't have money in their pockets. It is not Justice to say that a man's right to property supersedes another man's right to live. The general welfare is promoted by keeping people healthy and free of disease. I am not Blessed with Liberty if I have to bankrupt myself just to keep living.

I hold these truths to be self-evident and all that.

As for the rest of your response, you're mostly giving your own interpretation, rather than words and concepts actually delineated in the Constitution.

The phrases "Social legislation" and "personal responsibility" and even "right to property" do not appear in the Constitution.

I'm fine with that, and we can certainly have a discussion based on our own viewpoint of how we should think about the way the government should act and why, but let's dispense with the idea that the Constitution forbids the entire slate of liberal policy goals, including things like a national committment to universal health care.

^ netrunner

All social legislations only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom. The issue isn't whether I think I have the authority over you to interpret the constitution. There is a more basic set of ideas about what the constitution was setup to protect, it might be easier to deal with those first. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about the more general starting point we have to go on for a social contract. The constitution in whole can be seen a protecting and preserving these things, both against/from others and the government itself. Meaning, no body shall wrongfully cause you death, confinement or restriction, deprivation or enforcement of ambitions.

"The short answer is that yes, it falls under the category of general welfare, just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, scholarship programs, public schools, etc. etc."

General welfare is contained in none of these, these all have to deal with personal welfare. Your retirement, your health, your children, your continuing education all have one thing in common...you. They benefit your own life conditions and parameters at very real cost. Those costs are other people personal pursuits.

Social legislation assumes one thing, that is has found a universality. A key good to all existence that all people, regardless of objection should be coerced into capitulation to those things. I don't believe any person or government body should be capable of such a thing. I don't believe the constitution allowed for it as it was very explicit in those things which it sought to create.

The framers didn't need to be "omniscient supermen whose words and thoughts should be held sacred and immutable" to make a document that tried to preserve those things that I mentioned. However, I see, as do many, as a tyranny of some peoples personal moral values, of which some I hold, over others. This violates the heart of what we were trying to start with the whole notion of the social contract.

Neither of us need to be 100% correct about all the nooks and cranies of constitutional debates, there would be no need to talk about such things in open forum if that be the case. I would make no such assertion for myself of being without error. However, I think we can debate reasonably as to the very real problem I have with the moral problems of such laws as federal health care and other such legislative works. I find the patriot act and other such "safety" legislation just as egregious.

Consistency in the matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are my considerations in all matters of law. We have to look past what we want and look towards people to make those choices for themselves. Until we are all like minded in every way, social legislation will act as a tyranny against the minority.

edit: Grammar, where can I buy a pill for it

♫ No body cares....

*kill

I wonder how many chickens after that had to have 3/4 their head chopped off while the farmer and his wife anxiously watched waiting to see if they'd continue living.

That's nuts. Almost as crazy as that dog with no body continuing to live. Now that is some messed up stuff.

>> ^kymbos:
If we all had guns, we wouldn't need helmets.


Helmuts? No. Body armor? ...

Gotta love that sensationalist drivel.

No body does retarded like television.

Feedback from me? I was waiting for more people to comment. I think it hasn't gotten much attention because there have been 10 or so talk posts since I posted it. It got buried pretty quickly.

Maybe I should clarify a few things. Here's the essence of the proposal:

1) Videos will only expire from the queue after being viewed by X number of unique users. (Maybe this should be after falling below some threshold of votes/view ratio. It occurs to me that a video with 1 vote and 40 views is vastly different than one with 9 votes and 40 views.)

2) Users are allowed to submit 1, 3, or 6 videos every 2 days (depending on status - probation, normal, charter). This limit is accomplished by allowing each user's queue to grow indefinitely, but only allowing 1, 3, or 6 videos in each queue with a submission date more recent than 2 days ago.

3) The Unsifted tab adds a time filter. Each viewer is able to select the number of days of unsifted videos included in the listing. The range is 1 to infinity. Default is 2 days.

4) Personal Queues and the Beggar's Canyon are removed. When a video expires due to reaching X votes, it is discarded as was done prior to Personal Queues.

5) The beg invocation remains (or perhaps is replaced with the old requeue invocation), but instead of sending the video to a special page, it simply resets the video's submission date. This will effectively take up a queue slot for that user. It does not reset the number of views.

That's pretty much it. I don't really think it's all that radical. I titled it that way to get some attention on the post. Like I wrote in the initial post, I came up with this idea several months ago, but didn't think anyone would go for it. The inspiration was having 100+ videos in my Personal Queue, most of which had fewer than 10 unique views. In particular, I found it frustrating to have so many with an equal number of votes as views. Anyone that watched them voted for them, but no body bothered to watch them for whatever reason.


Netrunner, we don't have a specific tab for it, but it's pretty easy to get all of the pqueued vids together on one page, sorted by votes (it's not perfect, because PQueued status doesn't seem to be updated in real time for searches). You can also limit that search on a per-channel basis.

^Watch it earlier, and lock yourself inside until you do.

In another case, no body say a fucking word about Watchmen, I'm seeing it tomorrow!

No body on the sift likes the simple pleasures of a guy getting kicked in the face? I *beg to differ!

So no body movement (means they're lying) or body movement (means they're lying) and no eye contact (means they're lying) as well as lots eye contact (means they're lying). Hey lady - I think you're lying...

No no no. No body would do that to a presumably valuable and perfectly functioning device, this is an obvious fake. Even if the mother was upset by the child's continuing misbehavior and wanted to permanently remove it from their possession, the very likely response would be to sell it or give it to some other party.

This must've been a broken laptop that was out of warranty and only going to be thrown out anyway - so why not make a controversial web vid with it.

The flat tax efficiency proposition is a myth to me personally, the often cited example is the Russian Federation which posed such a tax system, and saw revenues rise however investigation of the tax revenues showed that economic growth as a whole contributed to those figures.

Tax evasion will always be a problem even with a flat tax, which while good on paper would disproportionately benefit the rich which is already systemic in the current tax system and am not talking exclusively about individuals here but mostly about corporate entities.

The last 8 years of tax cuts are simply a benefit of decades of government investment taken directly from the taxes themselves, cutting the upkeep of say road up keep and reverting it back as a tax cut is a net loss not a net gain for the society as a whole. Eventually these resources degrade leading to bridge collapses, then the federal government lobbied by private firms proposes privatization as a solution. This is stupid.

I mean at the end of the day we are talking about several years of slow erosion of regulation of the market by the federal government, the tax system as it is just one facet of the continuous break down of boundaries between the federal government and private business as a whole.

But this isn't the government's fault only, it also has to do with the political malaise of the citizenry as well who are satisfied with just enough and not beyond that, I mean how many years has the health care system failed the American public, these issues were raised again and again only to fall back to Reageanesque arguments that socialization of the Health care system being related to communism.

Economically a health society is a productive society, this system is implemented in almost every first world nation but the US. But the problem is that private business can funnel more profit out of the consumer via privatized healthcare, the health management firms and various other schemes.

Now such a long term implementation would only be possible through a federal government implementation, because it considers social good as a benefit sometimes over profit. This is currently seen in China were higher educational standards is leading to more engineers graduating then the US, this is stark revelation for a nation that 2 decades ago was a economical no body.

This is not however an endorsement on nanny societies like Sweden which have taken government intervention to highly ridiculous levels leading to loss of entrepreneurship.

^now you're talkin. I can grow veggies like it ain't no body's business. We'll have to get DC and MGR to hunt then eh? My husband will lend MGR his (never used) hunting suit. Oh wait.. coast? Maybe just fish then.

Dag, you'll be too busy sitting somewhere lookin wise or something.

I suggest we build a series of monolithic dome homes.

Whatever Who are you to call me bitch??? oh Kids...
First of all this is NOT your business,so go and do your stuff and leave me the fuck alone...
like I said I dont post videos that you guys have to like..I dont owe no body an apology,so stop being so disrespectful or might have to talk to lucky about this,this is not a kinder garden...god Im tired of ignorants in this sift...
In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
Either you're blind, or you're a bitch. I'd like to think it's the former. Either way, you owe ThePinky an apology. That was absolutely uncalled for and the most childish, immature, appalling thing I've ever seen on here.

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
>> ^thepinky:
PLEASE DON'T QUOTE THIS SO THAT IF I HAVE SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT POSTING PERSONAL THINGS I CAN DELETE IT!!!



God You dont have to discuss your private life in here for "Simple Art Video"
This is Getting so Dramatic Again and Again...