There was similar backlash and claims that car accidents were a hoax when wearing a seatbelt became law.

Nils Bohlin received death threats for inventing a safer belt, giving the design away and perpetuating the hoax. The deepstate now credits the man with saving millions of lives from a hoax.

Dark dark times that lead to the world we live in today. Never again!

I'm only critical of this guy because he was part of the media establishment that cried wolf repeatedly and created the hyperbolic partisan swamp we live in today. You keep calling George W. Bush the second coming of Hitler, and guess what? When there's finally a candidate worthy of a Hitler comparison, nobody's going to believe it. The only people who believe that Trump has said strong man dictatorial and racist type statements are Democrats for the most part, even though Trump totally said those things.

No matter how dishonest Hillary Clinton may have been about her email and what not, she's not a racist bigot.

But it doesn't matter. Most of the country is so partisan they can't consider voting for the other candidate that doesn't match their political leanings/party. Whatever moderates are left think both candidates equally suck. They hear about how bad Trump is, and they just think Clinton is right there with him, or they dismiss things too outlandish they don't want to believe a major party's nominee would actually say that.

And that's this election. Despite my misgivings about Clinton, she is by far the obvious choice and desperately needs to be elected because Trump is so jaw droppingly awful.

But good luck convincing people of thinking that if they don't already. And a lot of that is because we the people demand partisan hackery and media hyperbole instead of the truth about the complex world we live in, and the media was oh so eager to give us what we wanted to make a buck.

What messed up sewer moral decay we live in today.

>> ^Ornthoron:

@charliem No, you are wrong.
Noone says that 0.999 = 1. What is true is that the number written as 0.(an infinite number of 9s), which we can write more prettily as 0.(9), is equal to 1. That means equal. Exactly equal. No equivalence needed.
Bear in mind that we are not talking about a number with a finite number of decimals. If we were, it would be true to say that we could get arbitrarily close to 1 without ever being exactly equal. But we are in fact talking about the infinite sum
9 (1/10) + 9 (1/10)^2 + 9 (1/10)^3 + ...
This is a geometric series of the form ar + ar^2 + ar^3 which according to the convergence theorem has the solution
ar/(1-r) = (9 (1/10))/(9/10) = 1
There, I just proved the equality for you.


Something tending to something isn't the something itself. Something tending toward 1 isn't, yet, 1. We don't live in the land of convergent infinities, we live in today. If you can right down enough .99999's that eventually turn into a 1, then I will accept that proof, otherwise, it is an estimation or an assumption. Unless you don't believe in infinite precision, that is. But even then, your left one something with a fineinte number of 9's that don't converge to a 1. Doing loop-de-loops with infinities, a reality in which humans don't and can't inhabit, is trying to abstract away the real problem...the same problem that Zeno proposed long, long ago.

I remember it vividly. I was at home in the UK, watching day time soap opera "Neighbours" on the BBC. As soon as it finished there was an announcement saying they were breaking away from regularly programming to join BBC News. As soon as they joined, it was live footage of one of the towers burning. Then while live, the second plane hit. That sent a huge shiver down my spine. I then sat in front of that TV for about 4 hours until my father came home from work.

Throughout those hours, the Pentagon got hit, the plane crashed in Pennsylvania, and both WTC towers came crashing down. There was footage of fighter jets patrolling over the cities, panic in the newsreaders, their interviewees and the public. Confusion, shock and disbelief everywhere.

It was a declaration of war, and it changed the world we live in today in an instant.

Wow. This is a sad sad world we live in today...

Uncle Sam can't but in the UK we get free health care (Although no free soda).
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)


I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

Allow me to adjust your analogy as you've missed a few crucial points. We've removed government involvement in the market, so Walmart can no longer profit from tax abatements, billions in taxpayer bailouts, protectionist tariffs, eminent domain, state franchise monopoly privileges, subsidized land and other taxpayer funded subsidies. In fact, laws are no longer structured to create better conditions for corporate charters vs. individuals going into business, because there would be no corporate charters.

There will also no longer be costly licensure requirements, regulatory fees, etc. that currently keep less wealthy business owners from competing or even starting a business to begin with. Walmart also takes advantage of China's authoritarian regime which manipulates the market and forces its people to work in bad conditions under the threat of violence. Workers make up to 70% less than they should, which is the only real area you'd have to compete with. But! Being that more local companies could compete with a local Walmart (given the examples above), more companies like yours would open, thus creating more jobs. A little economics 101 here: The more jobs, the higher the wages. The more companies, the higher the competition, thus the lower the cost of goods and services. And given more options and better wages, people wouldn't need to shop at Walmart and probably would choose a store like yours.

Eventually a huge hierarchal company like Walmart would have to reduce themselves to something smaller, because competition would slowly edge them out. The world we live in today would be absolutely transformed. That's your happier picture, and it's 100% plausible.

www.glennbeckkilledandmutilatedacensusworkeron912.com

If all the facts in this story are true, what a fucking sad state of affairs we live in today. Seriously. (shakes head)

Atleast someone(a kid)has a cause and she goes all out for it. I believe whatever she said reflect the world we live in today.It is the matter of needs, wants and desires. One's desire is achieved at the expense of others.

What the northern countries have is this western idea of equating success with having fame and fortune. This idea influence people from all over the world to be materialistic. People are obsessed with becoming rich -some choose to achieve it with sheer hardwork while others do it illegally. With money come luxury.Luxury like cars etc are not simply created just like that, plenty of resources are needed to create these stuffs. When there is a lack of resources, developers will look for it and exhaust it elsewhere normally in the Third World countries. The Third World countries cannot develop because their resources have been used up and with what money they gotten from it, is simply not enough to feed millions of their own people. Yes, it is true that the government is responsible for the development of it's own country but the cooperation of other governments matters too. Human actions influence other humans and in effect, their environment.

'Give up your luxury'..simply means live with what you have and do not ask for more. For when you desire more, you deprive others of their needs.

WORLD PEACE..

The U.S. judicial system is broken. The U.S.A. incarcerates more people than any nation per capita, surpassing China and The Soviet Union. The onset of all anti-drug laws in this country stem from racism and profit; i.e opium in California and marijuana in the deep South.
Nixon made drugs Public Enemy #1 in an effort to hoodwink the population from focusing on Vietnam. The 80s saw a drastic increase in resources to combat a ghost problem. Minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws ushered in the prison-industrial complex nation we live in today. Fortunately, minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws are unraveling.
The waste of money to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders is staggering and shameful. Something must be done hastily.

>> ^Eklek:
Thanks or sharing your story! A real slice of life..
When I read about the "treatment" of homosexuality at the time, I reminded the lifestory of Alan Turing..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Prosecution_and_death


Thank you VERY much for mentioning Alan Turing, one of the brightest minds of his era, a life tragically cut short before we could see what other potential he might have been capable of. He's nothing short of a hero who's contributions to technology sparked the information age we live in today. It sickens me that he was persecuted for his notion of love, despite making contributions to the world that helped end the largest conflict in history to date.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
One thing that can be done now, to ease the pain of marriage woes, is to seek Civil Union, its marriage under a different name.


My gripe with "Civil Unions" is that it's proponents aim for it to be a "Separate but Equal" institution. The Supreme court found "Separate" to be inherently "not equal" during the Civil Rights era. While I appreciate the notion as a step in the right direction, it's not a big enough step to satisfy my desire for real equality.

Thanks again for the kind words, everyone. I'm really glad to see so many free-thinkers here on the sift. I'm still bummed to see so many "Yes on 8" signs and bumper-stickers on the road, though, but I just have to keep telling myself that it is they who are in the minority on this issue, and hope that those who feel the same way as I do will exercise their vote to reflect it.

BillO, try not to drink too much haterade, that stuff is bad for you.

Well said and well said choggie. Fortunately i was able to decipher what you decided to say today.

I think the world's going to hell in a handbasket. Thinking of the world we live in today, i'm thankful for some of the opportunities and benefits that i was granted by the grace of it, but hateful of the rest. A world in which a respectable life-course is to earn money working in an office that deals solely with handling advertising material for companies that sell commodities. I could name other useless vocations that stem from other vocations, and even vocations that stem from the first. "High fashion" - of no practical use to anyone, yet money to be earned. And a magazine that reports on high fashion - a useless job reporting on a useless job, yet money to be earned. What a perfect little rat race we've designed for ourselves, and as long as not too many people protest and try to break it at once, the illusion of progress holds itself steady.

I don't have solutions, and i don't want to hear that what we have now is the best of the available options. I hate it the way it is, and i hate being forced to play that game.

I think the path we chose for ourselves worked up to a point, and then it needed changing for something better for any REAL further "progress" to take place. Right now, we're just going through the motions, a little prison that we made for ourselves that's easy to blame on some imaginary people that pull all the strings. When in actual fact, they don't exist, and we're pulling our own.

I'd love the entire world as a collective to have a Radiohead-Just moment where they all suddenly stop what they're doing, curl up into a ball and go "my god, i've just wasted 30 years of my life in a tiny cubicle entering numbers into a spreedsheet that ultimately has no meaning to humans or humankind".

Neil Armstrong - the most naive words ever spoken - "one giant leap for mankind".. how true we've made those words ring out.

Does this rhetoric even belong under this video's comments?