@rottenseed, my read of that declaration is that it isn't so much about trying to win a war against consumerism and greed, so much as a call for the restoration of the rule of law and democracy.

And spare me the BS about boycotts being the proper way to deal with every issue of corporate malfeasance.

Is my refusal to buy Apple products making them take steps to improve the working conditions at Foxconn? You tell me, am I winning?

If I start riding my bike to work from now on, will that make oil companies improve their safety on offshore oil wells?

If I move my checking account from Bank of America to a local credit union, am I really going to make Wall Street stop defrauding people?

Boycotts just won't get the job done. People can shop at farmer's markets, and spuriously boycott this company or that company, but has any boycott ever really resulted in an entire industry changing how they behave?

Maybe the protests won't go anywhere either, but they might wind up bringing real change too. It's happened before, it could happen again.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Replace my old rant with a question.
Has this group done something noticeable yet ? I mean a measurable change in something, another way to phrase it would be "have they done anything they said they would "
I am most ignorant on this group.


Small stuff like the arrest of Chris Forcand, world-wide protesting against Scientology(Project Chanology), created a website during the Iran protests along with Pirate Bay and other hackers to subvert censorship of news and happenings in Iran to Iranians, they helped Wikileaks set up mirrors around the world when everyone was trying to censor the leaks that were being released, they were instrumental in taking down the websites of the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan governments during their respective protests, they destroyed HBGary's credibility(a company competing for a government contract to create false identities online in order to subvert political movements), they attempted to boycott Koch Industries products because of the Koch brothers' history of donating money to political groups that try and destroy the middle class, retaliated against Sony (completely disabling the Playstation Network for over a month) after they prosecuted a fellow named George Hotz for his work on developing open-source software on the Plastation 3, organized protests against BART officers who disabled cell phone service to attempt to disrupt protestors from assembling violently after a police shooting.

Here you can find some more information if you'd like to read about it. I've been following them for a while now and this seems to be relatively accurate.

@Stormsinger of course 99% of them are script kiddies, but that 1% has a terryfing knowledge of 0day exploits and computers and is extremely proficient in doing whatever the hell they want to do.

In my experience, these guys want one thing more than most:

1. Freedom of information

If anything gets in the way of that, they will do what they can to try and destroy it.

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Fletch:
She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!

Right. That's sort of the point. Want to stick it to corporations? Don't do those things.
If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations, well, what does that say?

Who said anything about not wanting corporations? I think the desire is for them to quit sending jobs oversees, be less evil, that kind of thing. Change their ways, pay their fair share in taxes, etc. Anyway, corporations are people now. So says 5 of our esteemed SCJs, so it must be true. Sticking it to corporations would be the same as sticking it to people. And I'm a people person, so that's no good.

I'm all for boycotts and applying economic pressure to corps for bad behavior, but this was a single person in the middle of a very uncoordinated demonstration being challenged by some nitwit reporter who thought she had some juicy angle on the whole thing, all because said person was using a Mac to check her email. Give me a fucking (oops!) break.

So, you tell ME "what does that say?" You pulled your premise ("If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations") out of your own ass and applied it to me, as if you have any clue what I'm about. I bet it sounded logical, and maybe even clever in your head when it... formed... in there somehow. But, now, as I read it over and over and over, I'm having difficulty understanding what sort of mental miasma, ideological dissonance, or logical labefactation could actually allow you to think of the question, type the question, and then send the question into the ether, all without realizing what a STOOPID FUCKING QUESTION it is!

So... YOU tell ME what the fuck it says!

TTFN!

In your first paragraph you paint the picture of absent federalism or nullification, practically pre-civil war state power restored. If it'd come to that, I think the USA would cease to exist in its current form of 50 states.

2nd paragraph: Aurens hinted at the antitrust laws being too lenient. I agree that money needs to be taken out of the political process, but I don't think dissolving anti-trust instead of fixing and enforcing it is preferable.

third paragraph and following: American Dream and American Exceptionalism and Excellence have turned negative, i agree.

My rant : I think RP'S fight against selfishness is in the wrong direction, but social policies are decried as "Socialism!" too fast, succumbing to scaretactics, which sadly work. Imho, market libertarianism is a political ideology: The solution to everything is "free market!" and "Voluntary everything!"; this sounds nice, but will likely fail, because everything is too complex for a one-phrase-solution. "How will our country prosper? - Communism!"

I (think I) know how it works, I've been ideological myself, it is very nice to think one's movement as better than all other movements, and everyone else is wrong. All solutions of my movement will work, and all imperfections couldn't be helped, they who fell through the cracks did not trust the movement enough.

Isms do not hold the answer,imo, not statism, not liberalism, not communism, not fascism, not liberalism, and not conservativism. Instead of trying to see how an -ism can provide the solution, a politician should just try to find the best solution. Rant end.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...
Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.
And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.
"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.
Off soapbox.

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...

Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.

And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.

"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.

*Off soapbox.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^aurens:
"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:
Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.
So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.
Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.

People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).
Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.
Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).
People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.
The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

I wouldn't want it to be offline anyway. Starcraft 2 is a good example where it's much better that it's online, and I'm just fine with that. If all the crybabies aer going to boycott it, fine by me.

"Dammit hersheys, why are you forcing me to boycott your good chocolate?"

Are you kidding me? Hershey's chocolate is fucking terrible. It still amazes me how they continue to be successful with their shit product. Have you even TRIED other chocolate? Try the Swiss stuff, you'll never go back!

The claim for Arabs right to the land is stronger because they did not leave the area (as a group). They are also not as diluted genetically from their original ethnicity(s) (shared with Jews, who are of multiple ethnicities, but mainly of Arab decent).
Zionism is the support of the Jewish state, not necessarily the support for it's expansion (although that support is strong in Israel). That means all Israelites are Zionists, unless they are traitors to their own country and are working to end the Jewish state, there aren't many if any of those people in Israel, they would be stoned to death. I'm not sure what definition of Zionist you are working with, it must be different from mine. Not all Zionists are expansionists, and there is nothing in the word that requires poor treatment of others.
To answer Boise_Lib: Because these children are required to serve in the army, actively supporting the state, they are Zionist, whether by choice or by birth. They have the right to leave AFTER their service, or before if their parents leave Israel, so like any child, they are at the whim of their parents and forced into their belief system whether they believe in it or not. This means I was partially wrong in my statement and I will revise it..., all adult Israelis are there 100% by choice.
I love the 'you are just wrong, I can't be bothered to tell you why' mindset. It really doesn't help your argument or help sway my ideas, it gives the impression that you really don't have anything to point at as 'wrong' you just don't like what you read. If you really can point out any inaccuracies I would like to know so I can learn or clarify, but I think you are simply reading in what you want to argue against.
I'm flabbergasted by your idea that (to paraphrase) 'we only send $2.5 BILLION a year, that's not much'. It shows clearly that you aren't being logical or reasonable in the least. If we are going broke fast (and we are), why should we be sending 2.5 BILLION to ANYONE? Especially if your contention, that it isn't a large part of their budget and they don't need it is correct, why bother sending them a dime? There are certainly others we could send that money to and do FAR more good, like Africa.
Anti-Zionism might help, anti-Semitism probably not so much. Pro-Zionism is certainly hurting things by supporting one sides expansion while ignoring the atrocities that causes the Palestinians. As I previously wrote, anti-Semitism often is a by product of anti-Zionism, where the anger at the Zionists is misapplied to only and to all Jews. Therefore, Zionism creates anti-Semitism, rightly or wrongly. I am not an anti-Semite, I am an anti-Zionist...being human, sometimes the two are confused or convergent but not intentionally on my part.
The BEST solution in my eyes is a diplomatic one that stops the expansion and solidifies borders, and one that gets us OUT of the conflict as a nation (if the nutjob born agains want to send their own money, that's their business). I don't see that as the ONLY solution, and obviously neither does Israel, since they are not negotiating in any serious way, and instead continue to expand and provoke, expand and provoke. The Palestinians on the other hand have been pushing for solidified borders for decades and continuously agree to them only to have "settlers" (invaders) move into the land as soon as the treaty is signed. This gives them the moral high ground to me, but does not mean we should be involved.>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^newtboy:
Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.
Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.
Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.
There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

>> ^newtboy:

Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.

Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.

Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.

There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.

Frostbite 2 engine has some amazing features (micro-destruction, quasi real-time radiosity, streamed texturing) yet it's all wasted on EA's douchebagness. BC2 in 3D Stereo is just amazing. I'd love to get BF3, but through Steam, not Origin. I will boycott this product until I can get it without having to run Origin on my system.

Another example of EA buttassing a perfectly good product...

Help reduce the influence of the Koch brothers by boycotting these brands:

http://www.chailife.com/2011/02/boycott-koch-industries-avoid-these-brands/

15 people were arrested for taking part in ddos attacks, which are the virtual equivalent of walking into a store with a 1000 friends and buying nothing. they're facing $500,000 lawsuits and 15 years in prison.

how do you propose we, the people, hold a board of directors accountable for their actions? what steps exactly can we legally take? usually when a group of people disagrees with the actions of a corporate entity, they organize a boycott of the goods/services said entity is providing. your entire last paragraph was not thought out entirely. and a reeked of a typical protofascist cop-out. turn off your corporate medias, son.
>> ^critical_d:

what in particular are you talking about when you say "virtual version of walking into a store and not purchasing anything?"?
The hillbilly analogy was used as an example of punishing an individual (the drunk) versus punishing a faceless company like PayPal. By punishing Paypal (taking down their site) you are punishing the people who work there and the investors who own the company. Do they deserve punishment because of the decisions of a few at that company? Shouldn't we hold the leaders or directors responsible instead?
>> ^peggedbea:
>> ^critical_d:
When will we stop romanticizing the vigilante acts of a group of people who aim a LOIC at a website and press go?
I am in no way defending the targets or their actions that caused them to fall under the crosshairs. But PayPal is not a hillbilly with a who drank too much at the bar, got a blowjob from a hooker, and came home to beat the wife cuz dinner wasn't ready. People who don't deserve to be punished are...and that sucks.

romanticizing? or supporting? ...and hopefully never.
the drunk hillbilly analogy makes very little sense.
who exactly is punished? people who couldn't access their paypal accounts for a few hours?? inconvienced maybe, punished? not quite.
or are you talking about the 20 year old kids who are facing $500,000 law suits and 15 years in prison for what is the virtual version of walking into a store and not purchasing anything? beacuse yeah, that does fucking suck.

when will people stop sounding like protofascist drones and reclaim their innate ability to think critically and be free?
what's happening here is so much bigger than bored teenagers fucking shit up for a day. it's a new current in radical movements. there's always been radical activity under the surface of any dominate power structure, and hopefully their always will be. this is the fist time in history it's been so able to truly be a global force. and that my friend, is fucking huge... a few hundred thousand kids, world wide, understand the technology so much better than any corporate/governmental IT division. they're writing the fucking code. this is the kind of movement that i think really has staying power, and it will be impossible for either political party just absorb some of the ideology into their platform to placate it, like they do with all movements that gain any sort of momentum.

>> ^heropsycho:

This is where libertarian philosophy just breaks down. And once you prove it doesn't work all the time, then it becomes time to have a rational conversation. I don't mean to single out libertarian philosophy; all political philosophies break down at some point. Pure capitalism does nothing to address corporate corruption or actions which hurt society as a whole. Communism does little to motivate people to work hard and innovate because most people simply are not willing to work hard for society as a whole. Every single one of those philosophies however still have value, and can provide tools and ideas on how to solve society's ills.
My problem with Ron Paul and other libertarians is they refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us even when it's staring them in the face, and there's so very little argument against it, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because if he admits that law was a good idea, it means you can't just follow Libertarian philosophy 100% of the time. Sorry, but the real world is complex and complicated!


You mean, "Ron Paul and some libertarians." I believe in state's power, as libertarians do, but Paul does take it too far... I just think state's should compete with each other and people should decide where they wish to live (And thus support.) You don't like Arizona? Move to Ohio and pay taxes there. That, if you will humor me, kind of Boycott will force Arizona to change. Unfortunately, most people are to dumb, lazy, and unmotivated to know their power...

So, what I am saying--is that you are 100% right. Thank you for this truly articulate response. It was much better than other comments.

This is my last comment on this video as it is getting old, but I just can't resist.

You want my definition of a rant? Ok, "to speak or declaim extravagantly or vehemently." As the point of your comment was to declaim James Randi, and you did it in a rather bombastic way, I stand by my statement.

Maybe I should also define something else you don't seem to understand:
monotone - a vocal utterance or series of speech sounds in one unvaried tone. Maybe you are tone-deaf, but Randi wasn't even close to monotone in this video. Monotone is how Ben Stein speaks - it tends to be pretty obvious.

Is Randi condescending? At times, but only to those who deserve our condescension. The purveyors of this shit deserve our complete derision.

Now, I would like to know how, from this one video, you decided that Randi believes that the only people at fault are the corporations. He has made a living teaching people to be skeptical and to question the paranormal and pseudo-scientific. He has made it clear that, while most of the fault lies in the dishonesty of the people who push the scams like homeopathy, applied kinesiology, psychic phenomena, etc., people need to be more skeptical and should resist these scammers.

This video was specifically produced to announce his new million dollar challenge to homeopathy manufacturers and his challenge to the sellers of homeopathic remedies so of course he talks more about corporations in this video.

Yes, boycotts would force these companies to stop selling this garbage but to bring that about you need publicity and a million dollar challenge is a good way to get that publicity. Though it would be even better, IMO, if our health and drug organizations (FDA etc.) didn't allow manufacturers to trick people into thinking water was medicine.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I could type a big response to your response...but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you read my response.
Btw, what is your definition of a rant? Mine is to ramble on over the same point without adding significant clarification (i.e. the clarification that I added.)
Here is the abridged version, since reading is not fun for you. Randi blames corporations because he is either ignorant or a suck-up, I blame the people using the medications and the corporations.
^Skeeve:
I could type a big response to your rant... but it's so messed up I'm not even sure you watched the same video.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Skeeve:
beg
Come on, every other homeopathy video and every other James Randi video is sifted. I figured this was a shoe in.

I voted for the video just now, but the Randi is monotone, condesending, and wrong in many areas--that may have something to do with the poor votes.
I don't disagree that the psedo medicine is fake--in fact I agree. However... "Its not just manafacturer's faults, but Walgreens, etc." Yeah, fuck face, its also the people who buy this shit at fault! Or the parents who trust this shit. But he won't blame the real problems, because that is unpopular, he blames the corporations because every one hates those! "Innocent people suffer." Well, what is the subjective meaning of "innocent?" If he means people who self inflict pain on themselves, he's right...if users boycotted this water shit, then the companies would go bankrupt! Boycotts are the consumer vote...
This feel-good idiot blame-monster is just like a politician... "Scapegoat time!" 'You have to protect yourself." Oh, he get's to that by the end Great science guy--bad philosophy. Maybe I am too anal, but then, I am tired of this "homopathetic displaced blame" water...

Civil partnership should be equal to marriage in everything but name and ceremony and straight couples should boycott marriage in solidarity. Saying "you can get a partership but you can't call it marriage" is almost like telling them they can ride on the bus, just not in those seats.

Marriage doesn't belong to the church anymore, it belongs to society.