You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?

I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.

Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.

( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Nope, I don't. Bush lost in the popular vote but he didn't steal the election. It's just a case of an anomaly in our screwy election system.
This was a good example of why you're such a poor debater, though. If you can't make an argument you just change the topic. You've apparently got nothing to say on the topic of Net Neutrality so you start whining about the election from a year and a half ago. When I call you on your crappy source, you strawman me and start whining about the election from almost 10 years ago.
Most of your "opponents" here are just as ignorant, I know, but you'll have to

My daughter HAS had congestive heart failure [3 times] and sat on ECMO for 8 days, as we wondered if she would make it out alive and then sat by for another 10 more days fully uncertain of any residual severe brain damage [of which none thankfully proved evident]. I have a video of her watching me record her own heart beating away under a thin plastic film, only to hold that diseased mass in my own hands a few years later. My daughter was born with a congenital heart defect [HLHS], and has undergone a number of surgeries and dramas to spin the hours on cable news...I mean real Dramas. In short, she is weeks away from the one-year anniversary of her 2nd heart transplant...and we are feeling that terror gripping again. What 'gripping terror', you may ask. Well, it's really complicated, this Medical Child In The Family thing.

And that's my point, that no real compelling bit of information was shared. It is FREAKY complicated, and this does nothing to tell their/her story...It just says, "there is this young child that needed an heart transplant and the family was scared about something and the mother is somehow to blame for her "thing"...bummer another child has to die first...and they lived happily ever after. [you can send us money here]". This is also a relatively ho-hum story, as medical dramas with children go, if that is really all to the story...which it isn't, I'd suspect. But why, then bother to tell it. There are some real issues in this MCITF thing. What did you learn from this? About Penny?

@oblio70 it's the 3rd part of a documentary series called 8lives....and so far it's the only one with a link....it is my belief that the filmmakers became somewhat emotionally involved in this highly personal story and felt compelled to help out with this familys rapidly increasing mountain of medical bills....i highly doubt that this is some great fly-by-night sympathy swindle....I don't see the link as being any different than a change jar on a convenient store counter asking for contributions to some kids chemotherapy.....she probably isn't any cuter than your own kid, so here's hoping that your kid never has congestive heart failure.....i would hate for you to look back on your cynical rant with regret....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey_Haim

Death

On March 10, 2010, Corey Haim was taken to Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, California, and pronounced dead at 2:15 a.m. (10:15 UTC). Los Angeles police said that his death appeared to be accidental and may have been due to an overdose, but that no illicit drugs were found at the scene. However, Haim had been ill with flu-like symptoms for two days before his death and his publicist discounted the possibility of an overdose, citing his recent clean living. Prior to the official autopsy reports being made available publicly, Haim's mother stated that the coroner's preliminary finding was that he died of pulmonary congestion and was suffering from an enlarged heart and water in the lungs.[21]

Corey Feldman spoke with Larry King on the day of Haim's death,[22] stating:

"...He was his own enemy. I mean, look, a lot of people that are artists tend to be their own worst enemy because we're passionate people... Most recently he's been, honestly, in the best frame of mind that he's ever been in, in the past year..."

Feldman added that Haim had died "very destitute" and alone.[23]

Sad

Well...this is a side of reason.tv I hadn't seen before.

I'll admit that there are certain legitimate uses for eminent domain: sewer/water lines, roads and bridges (in some cases), and other pure infrastructure projects. Eminent domain is appropriate for projects that benefit the population as a whole, when there is some serious restriction as to where they can be built. For example, there may be a limited number of locations at which to place a bridge to relieve traffic congestion. That might lead to a legitimate use of eminent domain to acquire the land on which to build it.

Building sports stadiums is not something that government should be involved in at all, much less taking private property for such a purpose. For one thing, there's no actual evidence that sports stadiums are money-making propositions for cities...they tend to end up breaking even at best, and more often lose money (although they make plenty for the rich team owners). Which certainly means it doesn't benefit the population as a whole.

Great video.

The IBM ad at the end claims US traffic creates 45% of the world's air pollution. I think a congestion tax makes economic sense, but that stat sounds like nonsense.

The entire US, including not just automobile transportion but also industry, generates 21% of the world's carbon dioxide,1 which is less than China. None of the most polluted cities are in the US.

*LMFAHS *QUALITY *LMFAHS

"
- An old man turned 98. He won the lottery and died the next day of a shock-induced heart attack.
- It's a black fly in your Chardonnay going to celebrate your apartment fumigation.
- It's a death row pardon 2 minutes too late because the Governor was busy watching Dead Man Walking.
- It's like rain at a dehydration victim's funeral.
- It's a free ride to your bankruptcy trial.
- It's good advice to never listen to me.
- ...as his plane crashed down he thought "Now I'll never make it to that Fear of Flying seminar."
- It's like rain flooding an umbrella factory.
- It's a free ride to an over-priced car dealership.
- It's the good advice from the guy who just got you fired.
- Traffic jam when you're already late to receive an award for reducing automobile congestion.
- A "No Smoking" sign on your cigarette break at the RJ Reynolds tobacco company.
- It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife from a soup kitchen.
- It's like meeting the man of my dreams and then meeting his beautiful wife who's also my relationship therapist.
- It's like rain on your wedding day to the Egyptian sun god Ra.
- It's a free ride when you've already paid for a stolen car.
- It's good advice someone advised you not to take.
- I have a funny way of defining rhetorical devices that I use in songs.
- I have a funny way of getting things wrong.
"

>> ^Psychologic:
Awesome. I'd love to pull out an Android phone and look up the traffic patterns ahead during a trip.
As far as tracking people, there are much easier ways already. With the right access you can already track cell phones (easy way to keep up with your kids). I'm sure it will be very easy with tech like this, but it isn't exactly difficult now.


Actually, your Android phone probably already tells Google where you are, as do most phones running Google Maps. They use this information as part of the detection of traffic congestion on roads, apparently, which is already available to be viewed in Google Maps Mobile.

[redacted]

>> ^bcglorf:
...If licensing drivers is too tyrannical, surely traffic lights, speed limits and stop signs should all be done away with as well.


Oddly enough, some tests done in Europe have found doing exactly that has cut down on congestion AND accidents. It seems taking away the assumption of right-of-way makes everyone more careful.

>> ^blankfist:
"he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe"

If owning a weapon means you're paranoid, then what do you think having a police force says about everyone?

It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you.

"taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society"
Like war, maintaining hegemony, prison industrial complex, etc.? Compulsory taxation is indentured servitude. It doesn't matter if you agree with how the stolen money is to be spent. Some probably think we should steal more from people to pay for more wars.

I did say that you can disagree with how it's spent, that's hardly the point. The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government.


And, infrastructure is a good point. But it's paid for voluntarily by all of us who buy gasoline. The more you drive, the more you fill up your tank, and therefore the more you pay for infrastructure. Voluntary taxation isn't theft and it's very moral.
Except that the fuel tax starts going away as you increase bio cars, especially if they are ones that are electric and are charged from your house that's powered by solar panels. Sure, they are a stupendously tiny minority at the moment, and for the time being they deserve to not have to pay for the roads for all the good they're doing, but once more and more cars stop needing petrol, you start losing that money stream and it needs to come from somewhere.

And what about public transport? You can say that the cost to run it should be entirely in the price of the tickets, but to run a GOOD public transport system is almost impossible to do at a profit or breaking even, so you need to provide more money into, which everyone should give to as it's a benefit to all. (less pollution, less congestion etc.) It's a case where the people who don't use the service ALSO benefit from those that do, so they should foot up some of the bill also.

Also, the whole idea of voluntary taxation falls over when you get to social security. As the very time you NEED it is when you're not in a position TO pay for it. Hence everyone should pay a little to ensure that if they DO need it, it's there. Just having any service be 'user pays' just doesn't work


"Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan."
I agree. There seemed to be less outrage over going to war and the trillions in bailouts.

Agreed

They're going to try this in London at Oxford Circus. The normal crossings there just get too congested while the Tokyo-style crossings clearly work very well.

>> ^peggedbea:
i for one am outraged at this post. stop eating junk food and walk somewhere?!???!! what is this europe?! or worse yet, canada?!??!!
type 2 diabetes in the most american disease yet and i plan to prove how patriotic i am by developing this before 30.
also, knee replacements, back surgery, congestive heart failure, hypertension... all in my future. thats how much i love this great country.


Fun fact: Up here, us crazy canadians don't have a "Butter" dipping sauce for our pizza @_@

i for one am outraged at this post. stop eating junk food and walk somewhere?!???!! what is this europe?! or worse yet, canada?!??!!
type 2 diabetes in the most american disease yet and i plan to prove how patriotic i am by developing this before 30.

also, knee replacements, back surgery, congestive heart failure, hypertension... all in my future. thats how much i love this great country.

^Taxation, one could argue, so I'm willing to concede it. Others, like probhibiting marijuana possession or gay marriage are clearly tyrannical. Using my criteria, it is easy to see why (neither have victims).

What criteria do you use to determine which policies are tyrannical and which aren't?

Speeding, running a red light, driving on the wrong side of a road, and driving drunk can all potentially involve victims, so I can see why people are tempted to make them illegal. But can you identify a victim in all instances of the above actions? Take for instance, someone doing any of the above on a stretch of road through Nebraska, where there are no cars or people for 50 miles. There are no possible victims, so how can those laws be anything other than tyrannical?

Now, speed, run a red light, drive on the wrong side of the road, or drive drunk in the middle of rush hour in a congested city, and you might be able to identify a victim. If you could, the crime would be reckless endangerment, or worse. Reckless endangerment is like murder or theft, it always has a victim no matter what the circumstance. You can't say that about any of the four actions you mentioned above.

So, why make speeding, running a red light, driving on the wrong side of the road, or driving drunk illegal when all you really need to prohibit is reckless endangerment? If you prohibit the former four, you open up the potential for tyranny. If instead, you prohibit reckless endangerment, which always has a victim, then you have solved a safety problem without tyranny.