I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:

1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?

The issue in this video is not whether slavery still exists or whether we should "get over it". The issue is a person trying to distort American history for political gain. And to those of us who find the history of America important, it should be a serious issue.

I agree that the teabagger barely got a chance to talk, but the fact is that at the beginning of the video he was asked a very specific question. Every interruption was seemingly caused by the fact that he refused to answer that one simple question. I've never watched this show and I probably never will but I understand the frustration caused by the feigned ignorance of bullies and politicians.

@dystopianfuture ie: god as the projection of the self
krishnamurti as well - it just makes sense. indeed, our "version" of jesus is blond/blue eyed Caucasian. Most of the bible is about tribal norms and law. A simple question to any bible thumper is: which is more likely - god created us in HIS image, or we created him in OURS? I think, given the laws of probability, proportionality of the universe, and simple inductive reasoning, the answer is pretty clear.
We create a god, endow him with our "virtues", proclaim our godliness and our wisdom, and then pretextually justify just about any powerhungry, disgusting action we commit.

@SDGGundam
indeed, it is certainly hard to quantify that which remains un-quantifiable. "energy" in so many respects is something we really are just beginning to understand.

after the new year, i'm becoming a full member of this site. principally because some of the best, most thoughtful discussion on the net seems to take place here. I appreciate all of you. happy holidaze.

>> ^shagen454:

It's a conspiracy!!
"Could you repeat the question (I lost my train of thought uncomfortably LYING through my teeth)?"
Grayson replies,
"WHAT DO I STUTTAH MOTHER%^&%$^?!"
So, when am I going to get my free $30,000? Or would that make me just as much of a crook as these corporate tools?


It would have been noticeably more interesting if he were to go medieval on her ass. As it was, he just repeated simple questions in plain English she should have been able to answer and she was all, "Sorry, I don't know how to word this without making me myself look crooked, so I'm going to pretend I can't understand English."

Happy Birthday, Kenneth.
Great offering joedirt-If those here who fancy themselves informed or knowledgeable of the entire process of those who wield the real power of government and who control the contrived and fundamentally fucked economic system in the US and the world which, in effect, keeps everyone butt-fucking apathetic and enslaved would demand answers to some simple questions, well, the emperor wears no clothes doesn't quite begin to cover it.

Elections are shit, because the people who vote for the most part in the US, are fucking ill-informed idiots who watch too much fucking television, eat shit disguised as food, and raise their children to be optimistic, dutiful putties.

Here's to Gaetano Bresci, Leon Czolgosz, and anyone else who decided that something radical must be done to affect radical change.

Read the link I posted.
Better yet, read the book the link is referring to.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Too bad Pavlov's theory of classical conditioning is philosophically unsound.

I think the behavioralist response to that is that there's a lot of evidence that we're simpler machines than we think we are, and that much of our conceptions about our motivations and thought processes are post-hoc justifications of what we did without conscious thought.
I definitely prefer the way philosophers approach human action, but I've got this gnawing doubt that they simply assume we're far more rational than we really are. After all, if we were rational, simple questions like "what is right and what is wrong" wouldn't be so hard to answer.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Too bad Pavlov's theory of classical conditioning is philosophically unsound.


I think the behavioralist response to that is that there's a lot of evidence that we're simpler machines than we think we are, and that much of our conceptions about our motivations and thought processes are post-hoc justifications of what we did without conscious thought.

I definitely prefer the way philosophers approach human action, but I've got this gnawing doubt that they simply assume we're far more rational than we really are. After all, if we were rational, simple questions like "what is right and what is wrong" wouldn't be so hard to answer.

>> ^Bloocut:
S'That Demi?? A lot of people can't dance. Can you dance? Simple question.
1.Fake
2."If it isn't who cares?"
3.Demibot
5.So she can't dance-No natural rhythm.


I agree whole heart and lack of soul. Dancing has become nearly as popular as religion in the cult part. Can't dance? Sorry, I wont sleep with you (Man or woman.) Don't love god? Sorry, cannot sleep together---one of us breaking his commandments is just plain wrong...like dancing alone.

S'That Demi?? A lot of people can't dance. Can you dance? Simple question.

1.Fake
2."If it isn't who cares?"
3.Demibot
5.So she can't dance-No natural rhythm.

This seems to be the only way the DC press ever "challenges" Republicans anymore. Ask a simple question like "what policies will you enact if elected", press for an actual answer, and let the Repub flounder.

Good on Gregory for not letting him dodge, but it's an almost accidental thing -- Meet the Press is basically a second hour of Fox News Sunday under his stewardship.

But even Chris Wallace nails Republicans from time to time with this same "hard hitting" journalistic method. At least when someone like Chris Matthews does it, he really drives home the rank incompetence of the empty suit he's interviewing for being unable to answer the question.

*news

How would you feel if when you brought up some controversy about representative democracy, I said, 'well, that's not a true democracy. In a true democracy, none of these problems would exist.'? That's how I feel arguing with you. You accept no responsibility for the many likely vulnerabilities your hypothetical doctrine has to corruption.

Assumptions can be right. - Yes, just because you've made an assumption doesn't mean that it's wrong, but if you have no evidence to back up your claim, or if your entire body of evidence consists of criticism of competing ideas, it makes your own assumption less persuasive.

Your assumption vs. my assumption - Your 'assumptions' are hypothetical, as a free market system has never existed or been attempted (unless you count Darfur or Rwanda). My 'assumptions' about representative government are based on evidence of a system that has been around for a long time. It's strengths and weaknesses are well known. There is a huge difference between hypothetical assumptions and assumptions based on observable evidence.

Argument from fallacy - That's actually pretty hilarious that calling out a fallacy is itself a fallacy. Ironic.... dontcha think? Guilty as charged, but you do this too hypocrite.

Red Herring - Half of your PQ is filled with Red Herrings. We both use these.

Negative proof - Yes, because something cannot be proven true doesn't mean it is false. How appropriate. Religious people use this one often and atheists usually rebut 'yes, but that's where evidence comes in'. Yes, blanky, that's where evidence comes in. I know you believe the free market would work as you want it to, but without any evidence to prove this, my brain will not allow me to believe in it, just as my brain will not allow me to believe in God. It doesn't mean you are wrong. You may be right. Bigfoot might be real. Aliens might abduct cows. Could be? Who knows?

Ridicule - You make political jokes too. Are you really suggesting we take humor out of the equation? Fuck that. No jokes and this becomes a droll exercise. It's getting a little stale as it is, but you've pumped some life into the discussion with this whole fallacy thing.

Example - I never said free markets are false, just impossible to achieve as you envision them. Considering that no political ideology has ever existed in its purest, corruption-free form, I feel like history backs me on this one. To clarify, my belief is that the 'free market' is too prone to corruption to make the world a better place, and would almost certainly make the world a worse place, not that it's false.

Repetition - I've never used the fact that you repeat the same arguments over and over as a way of trying to prove you wrong. I'm just noting personal frustration.

Repetition - I've never used the fact that you repeat the same arguments over and over as a way of trying to prove you wrong. I'm just noting personal frustration.

Consequences - I'm not saying deregulation MAY lead to problems, I'm saying it DOES. There are plenty of real life examples of the consequences of deregulation, one big one at the top of the page. We've lived them for decades. Is observable evidence really a fallacy?

Your example of me 'begging the question' - If you limit the role the public plays in affairs of state and country, the public will have less of a role in affairs of state and country. Lewd cat is lewd. Those with means would absolutely have more influence without having to compete with the will of the people. This doesn't seem like a controversial statement to me. What do you find untrue, unproven or unrealistic about this statement?

How does your system end a corporate dictatorship or achieve things? This is the simple question that has prompted much monkey dancing and tangents from you. I want to know specifically how we get from a to b, and doctrinal hypotheticals don't do it for me. Tell me a story, something that could make this seem real and possible.

Example: Dick and Jane open up a competing corporate dictatorship, make a shit ton of cash, then they buy a majority share of the other company and put it out of business. That's not a very believable story. If I could think of a good believable story, I would probably become a libertarian. That's where you come in. This is your bright shining moment to make some sense of this bullshit.

It was a simple question. Here, I'll say it again sans spite to avoid any more non-sequitors:

What does 'people have direct control of the market' mean, and how does it specifically translate into either 'stopping a corporate dictatorship' or achieving meaningful change?

There's an element of this that I keep finding interesting. The supposed problem with a minority government is that the out-of-power parties get an effective veto on policies the plurality party tries to present.

Most people present this as a situation that wouldn't last long, and that the new PM would just call for another election, rather than try to muddle through.

Well, since we seem to have decided in our country that any party with fewer than 60 seats in the Senate (or doesn't hold the White House) is effectively a "minority government" due to it being vetoed by the opposition party, this seems like a permanent condition here in the US.

Simple question -- if this is considered untenable in the UK, why do we act like it's a good thing in the US?

Or am I missing some fundamental difference between our systems?

>> ^KnivesOut:

Looks like someone here is on the Jamie Oliver protection force. Why are you covering up for Jamie Oliver? I'm just asking a simple question, and you fucking jump down my throat. What a douche.


Yes I'm just asking if your mother could possibly be a whore. I mean I've heard she has sex for money I just find it interesting in a leading sort of a way.

Looks like someone here is on the Jamie Oliver protection force. Why are you covering up for Jamie Oliver? I'm just asking a simple question, and you fucking jump down my throat. What a douche.