Dude, I'm not the victim, I couldn't care less if you call me a communist. From you, it doesn't mean anything since 99% of everyone is left of you. Therefore, you think everyone is a communist. That explains most of your gibberish posts.

Pretty much how Lewis Black describes Glenn Beck playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except there's only one degree, and Kevin Bacon is a COMMIE!

I guess I need something that doesn't make any sense to end this post now, but it needs to be in all caps, because that makes it more emphatic...

MY ANACONDA DON'T WANT NONE UNLESS YOU GOT BUNS, HON!

*shrug*

>> ^quantumushroom:

Quit acting like a victim, it's unbecoming, especially since you're casting stones.
YOU DON'T START NONE THERE WON'T BE NONE.
>> ^heropsycho:
I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd call me a socialist. That of course makes me a communist, since socialism and communism according to you are the same thing. ROFL...
So in short, everyone even remotely to the left of qm is a communist apparently.
>>

McBain Saves the World form Commie-Nazis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g6ctonQoGA

that's right there QM. our hordes of overpaid commie teachers will have those kids tree-hugging and fucking farm animals in no time flat. they'll be spouting Mao and dosing eachother with patchouli and erecting slightly homo-erotic statues of our Obama GOD (made out of gold with YOUR money). then we're gonna take em all down to the needle exchange while destroying a couple of nativity scenes on the way.

Good points.

It's not universal, but for the most part, when gay 'marriage' is put to a vote in the USA, it loses. California's Prop 8 comes to mind, and I believe in the 90s in Hawaii--at the time the state most likely to legalize it--'gay marriage' failed to pass by a large margin.

It's possible others oppose gay marriage simply because it's not traditional marriage (e.g. also oppose polygamy) or simply "something new".

Has anyone surveyed gays themselves to discover if the majority in that community is even concerned over marriage rights?








>> ^messenger:

Your logic is sound, but I've got a feeling it's a media distortion (from all sides -- polarization and controversy sell newspapers) that a majority of Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. I think they mostly put it in the same category as men not having long hair and so on. I'd like to find some numbers though (a 5-minute Google search turned up nothing useful).
If I'm wrong, then CNN is giving undeserved airtime to an author who calls a majority of Christians hypocrites.
Regardless, yes, CNN are hypocrites themselves, considering the first "N" in their name stands for "News".>> ^quantumushroom:
The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.
A majority of Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.
Therefore, Christians are hypocrites because they ignore other parts of the Bible ignored by most everyone, such as hair length.

The real hypocrisy here is moral relativists at the Commie "News" Network accusing anyone else of selective morality.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.
A majority of Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.
Therefore, Christians are hypocrites because they ignore other parts of the Bible ignored by most everyone, such as hair length.

The real hypocrisy here is moral relativists at the Commie "News" Network accusing anyone else of selective morality.


Fuck me. Mistaken upvote. Ack. Where is the downvote -9000 plus 1 button?

Your logic is sound, but I've got a feeling it's a media distortion (from all sides -- polarization and controversy sell newspapers) that a majority of Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. I think they mostly put it in the same category as men not having long hair and so on. I'd like to find some numbers though (a 5-minute Google search turned up nothing useful).

If I'm wrong, then CNN is giving undeserved airtime to an author who calls a majority of Christians hypocrites.

Regardless, yes, CNN are hypocrites themselves, considering the first "N" in their name stands for "News".>> ^quantumushroom:

The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.
A majority of Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.
Therefore, Christians are hypocrites because they ignore other parts of the Bible ignored by most everyone, such as hair length.

The real hypocrisy here is moral relativists at the Commie "News" Network accusing anyone else of selective morality.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.
A majority of Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.
Therefore, Christians are hypocrites because they ignore other parts of the Bible ignored by most everyone, such as hair length.
The real hypocrisy here is moral relativists at the Commie "News" Network accusing anyone else of selective morality.


Morality is selective. I would believe in the bible except I would have to stone all three of my teenage daughters by their teenage years; and I don't want to do that.

The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.

A majority of Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.

Therefore, Christians are hypocrites because they ignore other parts of the Bible ignored by most everyone, such as hair length.


The real hypocrisy here is moral relativists at the Commie "News" Network accusing anyone else of selective morality.

Forsooth! On a Sunday no less!

And people aren't going to be bullied into wearing a lapel flag?!?

Fucking commie pinko nazis...

@marbles That doesn't sound like strict constitutionalism so much as strict ideology. The constitution/BoR says nothing about restricting the first amendment on private property. Therefore, under what authority do the courts uphold laws against trespassing?

Also, call me a commie, but I don't view property as a natural right. It's arguable that using the threat of force to lay siege to resources stolen from the commons is the original sin of violence. I don't recognize the lords of old, nor their "rights" to the land. No man toiled to create the Earth.

Lyrics:


Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Black and yellow [x4]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Black and yellow [x4]

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray, I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]

[Verse 1:]
Black flag, yellow star, them commies scared of it, got my war paint
Soon as I hit the forum, crack keynes, instant faint
Hit the podium once make them liberals shake
State inflates, now the prices soaring
A failed policy, you know the people payed for it
And you know we dig them precious metals
We callin on your horseshit game we balling out on every level
Hear them statists talk but there's nothing you can tell 'em
Fed prints a trillion, got another trillion on their schedule
No love for central planners breaking hearts
No state, free market art

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray , I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]

[Verse 2:]
Got a call from Tom Woods, this just in
Bitches love me for my non-aggressive means and ends
Neo-Lockean? Maybe. The market's free, yo.
This ain't the new deal, it's the real deal no joe blow
I'm sipping Four Loko and puffin on the ganja
You social engineers will never stop the marijuana
Statists act like bitches, Tyler Perry
I ball out while Ron Paul does some commentary

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray , I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]


[Verse 3:]
Stay praxeological like I'm supposed to do
Broken window fallacy, them Keynesians cant get over you
And our crew look unapproachable
We're with Rothbard, Bitch, we go hard

They wanna fuck with the market, monopolize, constrict, get high, talk shit and that's that Real crap, depression but, they said we wouldn't feel that, they took the blue pill, or must just be on crack

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
(emotional appeals ain't shit, it all comes back to economics, bitch)
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray, I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray, I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]

@xxovercastxx Red menace! I'm here entirely for the bragging rights, showing good videos is a byproduct of that. After I've gotten my crown, there isn't much more to gain, so now I sift more rarely and just things I like myself. There is to little systematic focus on "look what I did". If the sift promoted that more, like games do, like reddit does, like many other places do, then it would get bigger. I'm certain of it. We need more competition and we need more reward, it will cause growth and it will better the sift for all of us! I'm a single blue fish in an otherwise red sea, ach!

If you don't like that argument, and you're a commie, then you might appreciate that there is a pragmatic element to not having videos not be linked to dead users, in that live users actually go around and fix their videos when they go dead. Furthermore, if the point of sifting is to show videos to more people, then we should be able to repost as much as we like - dupeing only takes the video away from views, especially if it's to an old post - then the video vanishes for people who don't know what to look for.

@BoneRemake over the years a lot of unwritten rules have sprung up from discussions

for instance:
* It used to be that if any video that wholly contained another newer video, then the newer video was considered a dupe - that's not changed to include that if it's "significantly different" then it's not a dupe. That's a big grey area right there.

* If an original video is long and the newer video is not, then - within reason - you should not dupe it, because the newer is likely significantly different in that it focuses on a single event or small part of the other video

* if the newer video is posted by me, then I kill you!

* If a video is discarded, you can bring it back with promote, this is a bad thing, since it fucks around with dupes - while the video was discarded, it was "legal" to post the video again and fair game. But if you promote the old one, then suddenly there's an older version lying around - in that case the old version is actually killed and the newer stands.

@blankfist:
It's simple:
more views = good
more votes = good
dupeof -> no more views, no more votes ->bad
dupeof -> clean up sift -> good
dupeof = bad+good

I'm sure you get my point, but just to spell it out, the video loses by being dupeofed quickly, because it does not get exposure - this is more relevant with old posts, like the one referenced earlier, because a lot of younger sifters might not have seen it at all - a promote does not do the same as just letting this one ride the wave of votes and then dupe it afterwards. Viewer win, the original poster wins, the new poster wins (top 15/1 achievement) and who loses?

When I speak of "God" to Christians, I usually speak to them in terms of a colloquial personal god, and sometimes I use the Einsteinian meaning of creation or nature. I find it bizarre, and frankly a bit misleading, to use it to mean their fundamental teachings and their effects. That's very bizarre indeed.

Quick point of information: it's not volunteerist society; it's voluntaryist society. I don't want you thinking I'm talking about people volunteering out of the goodness of their hearts to run some form of public works projects.

Just like your bizarre and revisionist definition of God, you're also following a bad trend of modern society to change the definitions of free markets to suit a political end; in your case, conflating free markets with the negative impacts of corporatists. When I point out the differences, you loudly profess that you don't care if you're painting the two with the same broad brush. That's where ignorance begins, dft. And ignorance isn't a moral high ground.

Free markets are as idealistic and utopian as freedom itself. There's no more an invisible deity that guides free people to make free choices than there's an invisible hand guiding their free exchanges.

1. Wait, wait, wait. I never said selfishness was a virtue while empathy and compassion was evil. Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, what assertions in favor of free markets require evidence? That they've helped humanity? I think you mean capitalism. There are loads of examples, dft. The entire industrialized revolution which lifted poorer generations out of poverty is a good place to start. Today live longer, healthier lives which is the result of capitalism. Even Karl Marx understood the necessity of capitalism in the betterment of human lives and saw it as an evolution.

2. Corporations are fair-weather. They enjoy regulated markets as long as they're regulated in a way that benefits them. Corporations hate competition, which is the cornerstone of free markets. There's absolutely zero connection between corporations and free markets (i.e., the free and voluntary exchange of people without coercion).

3. My view isn't "utopic"; it's the real definition. You speak here again about capitalism, which is dangerous, I agree. Corporations collude with government to use unilateral aggression in areas of the world that have plentiful natural resources. It's robbery. It's greed. And it's horrendous. And I stand in open opposition to it. But to me this is ultimately the failing of government and the centralized bank system, but that's a whole other conversation.

4. Meh.

5. Doesn't matter. If we have to change the definition of free markets, then so be it. We had to change the definition of liberal from it's original meaning to now embody anti-liberals like yourself.

6. Surely. But go back and read what you initially wrote. Comes off as alarmist and paranoid.

7. No. This was about government "implementing" reforms as being part of the free market. You're changing the criteria now. I would NOT agree that "taking power away from labor" is a principle of the free markets. Remember, free markets are voluntary exchanges between people without coercion.

8. I have no idea what you're getting at. This started with a comment about chaos where there's no taxation. Still irrelevant.

9. Hahaha. Talk about utopian! That's what we have today.

Nah, you don't need to purchase the book for me. I can do that myself. And, to be honest, I don't want to give you a reading assignment, because I doubt that will benefit our differences in world beliefs.

And I know you're more of a Social Democrat than a Docialist. Funny thing, the social democrat is disliked by both the Libertarians and the Marxists equally. Marxists tend to think Social Democrats perverted the socialist movement. Marxists and Libertarians (don't think the party) have a lot in common in terms of how they view human interactions and the evolution of human society. Tangent.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.