Your video, The Rummy Returns - Learning Curves Are for Pussies, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, Cenk Uygur, rummy, Tora Bora, Bin Laden' to 'TYT, Cenk Uygur, rummy, Tora Bora, Bin Laden, donald rumsfeld' - edited by xxovercastxx

Like Cenk said, the French appear to have a working court system. No chance such a thing exists in America, where every incoming President pre-emptively pardons the outgoing President to ensure that the next president will do the same, allowing him to commit crimes himself.>> ^Boise_Lib:

W, Cheney, and Rummy take note.

W, Cheney, and Rummy take note.

@SDGundamX

Everything that humans do that isn't provided directly thru our biology is a cultural system.

Science and Religion are both results of cultural evolution.

Before scientific journals and 150 page papers on nucleotides came about, peer review was this:
"Hey man! I discovered this new way to get girls to show up at our parties! Gin rummy & Pinochle!"

'WTF dude, I know for a fact that the only girls that play pinochle are 65 year old ladies. That method will never work'

You are a scientist from birth. Science therefore is essential.
You are not religious from birth. Religion therefore is not.
~~~

To clarify, I said religion & science are geared toward "understanding the universe".
I never said "understanding the physical world".

That was your straw-man so you could talk about some metaphysical gobbledygook I guess.

But you're in even worse footing there because metaphysical things can't be proven.

Religion is useless gobbledygook and serves no purpose in a society that has advanced beyond the need for it.
~~~
Here, I'll use the example how your diet evolved to provide more support for this position.

Humans are carnivorous because early hominids found animal protein - meat - beneficial because it promoted brain & muscle growth.

Eating meat was essential because without it, early human population would have been to weak & stupid to survive.

In 2011, there is absolutely need to consume meat.

We have discovered numerous combinations of plants - like rice & beans - that provided complete proteins and some that provide all essential amino acids outright, like soybeans.

Eating meat nowadays involves massive amounts of resources - land, water, crops - not to mention all the harmful effects like - deforestation, infectious outbreaks, & increased chronic or "lifestyle" diseases like grease encrusted heart muscles.

Consuming meat - like practicing religion - is unnecessary and destructive to our environment.
You only continue to engage in it because of ignorance, propaganda and emotional attachment.
~~~

Sooo, you can keep flappin' your gums.
But until you submit some evidence and not just personal feelings..

This sift talk will continue to head nowhere very quickly

Why do markets allow people to suffer?

1. Better system than capitalism would be a balanced hybrid system of capitalism and socialism controlled by people in a true democracy - as opposed to the plutocratic charade we live under now. Think Finland, Switzerland, Nordic Slavic type social democracies. These systems are infinitely better than our capitalist nightmare by any metric.

2. All the think tanks that tell you what to think are funded by deep corporate pockets. Your guru milton Friedman was chummmy with all the neocons - Reagan, Rummy and some pretty nasty dictators. David Koch was even on the libertarian ticket. Open your eyes to reality, friend.

3. Feudalism is only freedom for the wealthy elite. You don't seem to understand that you have a very subjective and limited concept of 'liberty'.

7. Free market reforms are terrible to labor, as we are seeing right now, where libertarians are calling on American labor to 'get competitive' with Chinese slaves. No fucking thank you.

8. There's no shortage of excuses for your belief system, and never any empirical data. This is why I deride your political beliefs as religious beliefs.

9. It's nice that you used 'Corporatist America' as a way of refuting my contention that European social democracies are superior.

It's amazing to me that someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality could call anyone else ignorant. Time and time again your politics are debunked on this site, only for you to redouble your efforts. I hope one day you are able to overcome your indoctrination.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm an atheist. When I attribute things to God and say things like, "Why does God allow the his devout followers to suffer?" I don't mean, "Why does the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around allow his devout followers to suffer?" What I do mean is, "Why does your personal god that you believe in allow his devout followers to suffer?"

Most atheists, I think, tend to use God in this way, not because they believe in the existence of a personal god, but because it's the widely held understanding of God (if not the original definition). It's irrelevant to our conversation, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Your analogy is bad, IMO.

And you and I will continue to disagree what free markets are, and that's something I cannot change.

1. The claim was "[A free market] states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good." That's what I was responding to. Still ridiculous. I've said constant that if you could find a better system than Capitalism, I'd be on board, but there IS NONE. All of this tap dancing around definitions is obfuscation.

2. Patently false. An absolutely disingenuous and false statement. What's pathetic about this comment is how you continue to twist this bastardized government legitimized entity back on free exchanges when we've covered this a billion times. Again, corporations are antithetical to free markets, because they enjoy a government created reduction of competition, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and so on. In short, they enjoy intervention in the marketplace, which is what YOU'RE touting, not me. So, it's YOUR concepts of government that have been and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. I think people claim the free market is "self-correcting" more than "self-regulation", but that's a digression. But listen to what you wrote. "Claims of freedom, liberty" will spring forth in a free market? Yes. Yes very much. Why, you ask? One must only look to the definition of a free market: the voluntary exchange between people without coercion. That is liberty and freedom on its face. The opposite, your idea of regulated and interventionist markets, is coercive and authoritarian. The opposite of free.

5. Good for them.

7. What? No, I'm saying you're associating things like lowering taxes and "taking away power from labor" with free markets, which is ridiculous.

8. Failed states caused by the failure of statism (and the pilfering of government employed opportunists) is not the free market in action. Nice try.

9. Says you. California is a perfect example. It's struggling at the moment to pay for the huge number of government pensions for those unionized "heros" that retired at age 55 and get 90% of their income for the rest of their long lives. But then just recently the LA city council, a haven for modern liberalism and your capitalist/social-democratic utopia, cleared a 1.2 billion dollar construction project to build a fucking luxury hotel. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. I could go on, but I've already been over this with NetRunner. Suffice it to say, this is your utopian hybrid in action, and it's a complete failure. And it's slowly going bankrupt. In fact, California has asked the Federal government repeatedly for a bailout.

Do go on, though. I like to watch you dig that grave a little deeper.

Ignorance is not a moral high ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

Is this wise man the same guy who can't remember where he was, or what he was doing, on the morning of September 11, 2001?

This man expects me to respect his foreign policies...regarding Afghanistan?

(I saw you too, there, Rummy...I have not forgotten)

You know, it's a wonderful thing how we can keep that piece of shit Cheney alive for maybe...the 50 years behind bars that he deserves.

I said that.

QM- Bush and Rummy DID personally ALLOW Blackwater to commit war crimes by giving them the power of the military without any of the constraints, and by putting them in a foreign war zone as a 'crusading Christian army for Jebus' unincumbered by the law of the land, or U.S. law. Now, because they are from the bush years, it's OK for them to not only kill innocent civilians in other countries with impunity (and then publicly laugh about killing them) but also to kill AMERICANS in the US (as seems to be the case here)? As I understood it, killing a cooperating witness is a death penalty offense in most states, if they are found guilty, they should pay the appropriate price. Those who support them should pay the appropriate price of being ridiculed. Those who assist them should be tried as co-conspiritors.
Obama recession? It started on Bush's watch, apparently because of Bush's inability to do math. His policies of insane spending without taxing bankrupted us, and put us in a position we could not sustain by defering the cost of many of his programs. I think they thought they could hold it together until the election then blame the fall on the new guy, unfortunately for them it fell apart months earlier, yet you still try to blame the new guy for the faults of the old. I've even read you blaming Obama for the bailout, which was a Bush Cheney program. Typical head in the sand retardican responce. There are treatments available for cranial rectosis, if you had healthcare you could afford to be healed!

bcglorf- you said"... Bush Sr. can NOT travel backwards through time to stop his predecessors from providing aid to Saddam."
By predecessors, I'm guessing you mean Bush Sr. himself AND Cheney, along with (I assume) your hero, Reagan. They ALL supported both Sadam and Osama in their time.

oldie
weird
classic cum shot
iron mike
eia
cockblocked

One of my old rummy friends was in a navy ship that went down in a WWII battle. He said that the metal was so hot that the bottom of his shoes melted off by the time he made it up the stairs to the deck.

^ >> ^volumptuous:
It was called the "Torture Memo" authored by John Yoo.
Basically, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the rest of the gang literally signed off on allowing torture, and stating that the 4th amendment doesn't apply for them.


I understand that part, but that isn't what this guy is talking about. He wasn't describing interrogations (which is what the memo was aimed at), he was talking about the general treatment of detainees.

I doubt the medic was ordered to punch any detainee that refused to eat... he was probably just pissed off and figured he wouldn't get in trouble.

I hate that torture was prescribed as an interrogation technique and I wouldn't disagree with an investigation into the policies that the administration put into place, but I also can't blame Bush for every individual decision that each soldier there made.

>> ^Psychologic:
If the Bush administration is to be condemned for anything then it should be direct policy decisions, not the actions of individual soldiers. If they ordered torture then that is perhaps something to pursue in court.
However, if the soldiers down there were being abusive on their own (ie- not because of orders) then they should be the ones facing responsibility for it (and perhaps there direct supervisors). It's difficult to tell who was allowing what without being directly involved in the situation.



It was called the "Torture Memo" authored by John Yoo.

Basically, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the rest of the gang literally signed off on allowing torture, and stating that the 4th amendment doesn't apply for them.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf


It's right there. It wasn't just individual soldiers. It was a policy that came from the top down. During Nuremberg, the Int'l courts decided that prosecuting every single German soldier who went against international conventions on treating detainess would just be ludicrous. That's why they only went after commanders.

If Powell held a press conference stating that Tenet, Cheney, Rummy and Bush were pressuring him to lie to the UN, therefore he is resigning his post, there's a distinct possibility "we" (coalition forces, not just the US) wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

It would've killed him politically, but then again, maybe not. He would've had to switch parties that's for certain, but he could have been regarded as a hero by many.

"Sexy Rice" is the least of my concerns. I want Bush and Cheney in Guantanamo. Then we might think about Rice, Rummy, and the rest of those neo-con bastards.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I used to have the deepest respect for Powell until he played the role in the Bush administration that he did. If he hadn't been in his cabinet and was now in McCain's position I would be voting for him, but I've lost faith in him. Either he blatantly lied or (worse?) he made claims that he did not verify. Oh well, doesn't matter now. He's not in a position of authority.
Obama appointing him would be a mistake. He'd be a reminder of the past (not change) and still represents the GOP for most people.


Powell wasnt in the building when the decision was made by the President, the joint chiefs, and rummy to go to war. They specifically excluded him from that meeting because they knew he would of said no from day one without some serious planning (which the cons did not want, they wanted a rush to iraq).

Colin Powell resigned his commission when he found a replacement, what bush and co. did to that man is unfortunate, but its not his fault, and it certainly wasnt his decision to go to war against Iraq.


>> ^quantumushroom:
If Failin' Powell doesn't see the federal government is already a tyrannical leviathan, then there's no hope for him.
Ultimately you peeps voting for Socialist Barry (not a "characterization" it's right there in his voting record) are still going to be screwed. Whenever government takes one dollar to help your 'cause' it keeps 80 cents for its own bureaucracy, a bureaucracy which depends on expanding the very 'cause' it's supposed to address.
The Constitution limits government power and says nothing about establishing a socialist state or government to provide for citizens' every need (and want). So if that's what you're voting for, have the huevos to admit what you're endorsing is a radical reinterpretation of the Founding Fathers' intent.


Obama has plans to slash federal spending to the bone, and decrease government size and complexity. Im not seeing how you can equate that to a creation of a socialist state.

Colin Powell says it well, a re-evaluation of the taxation system is not socialism, its responsible governing. Lest you apply those same metrics to bush when he got in power and changed the way the tax system worked, then Obama is not a socialist.

Face it QM, the republicans have bought the nation on the brink of collapse, both economically and militarily by committing the nations forces to an ilegal, unjust, vague war, and de-regulating the economy and allowing greed to be the controlling factor in the market.

When the history pages are written, the past 8 years will doubtfully look kind on Bush and his administration, for their failed economic policy, their failed foreign policy, their failure to address katrina, their failure to be diplomatic with rogue-leaning nations, their failure to maintain basic infrastructure, their failure to keep some modicum of peace in the middle east, their failure to govern responsibly and impartially for EVERY american (and not just the rich republicans), their failure to address global warming, their failure on promoting good science.....on literally every level, the cons have failed to deliver progressing the nation, and the world over the past 8 years.

Entanglement with churches, guns, gay rights, the annihilation of basic civil liberties...the list gos on.

I dont understand how you can consistantly sit there and keep pushing the line that anyone not republican, is a terrorist / communist / socialist / generic-bad-guy, given the history of the past 8 years...just astounding how partisan you are.

And lets not even get me started on the topic of republican socialism with the bailout...seriously man, get a grip.