Only took a few months. That other video really helped understand some of the words better.. but its still not 100%. More like 95%.


yea

so

Step on my trip
step on my trippin'

step on my trip just
just step on my trippin

step on my trip just
step on my trip man

just step on my trip
on my trip
on my trip

yo just

step on my trip just
set in my trippin'

step on my trip just
step in my trippin'

step in my trip just
step on my trip man

just on my trip... on my trip ya'll

cause im so
confused,
abused,
overused in these walking shoes.

i never turn back,
cause i know the score.

i never reuse what i do
performin' this.

too late .
my fate.
i regurgitate
all the words that i say.

listen up,
don't miss the forward,
just pick it up now
off the floor and

guess who?
yea you...

you're the ones that im talking to.

you're never gonna guess
whats coming next.

let your mind inside
when i manifest,

but

inside
this rhyme,
you will find
my mind

just step in my crazy livin'

just step in my trip just,

step on my trip
step on my trip man

step on my trip just
yea step my trip man

step in my trip just
step in my trip man

yea step on my on my trip ya'll

cause i got
no pecs
to flex
all day long
i dream about sex
but im impotent
and im semi (hard)
so i cant remember when i got it up last

i stink
i need a drink
roll another spliff to help me think

i live on the road just like a gypsy
cause stayin in one place
is jiffy but

sunshine moonshine
change the way
that ima read your mind
livin inside this solar flux
we're all trapped in a
perpetual paradox
but

you're here
im near

the way that i flow is oh so clear

just step in my crazy livin

just step on my trip just

step on my trip just
step on my trip man

step on my trip just
step on my trippin

step on my trip just
yea step on my trip man

step in my trip

(unintelligible sung phrase.. "i wasted away?")

see
my
heaven raining down
inside of me

time
will always dictate evolution
so
i
let it wash all over me
like waterfalls
and memories
eternally

see
my
heaven raining down
inside of me
time will always dictate
evolution
so
i
let it wash all over me
like waterfalls
and memories
eternally

i melted away
my existence is gone
the life that i once had means nothing at all

i am lost inside

slow down...
slow down!

i melted away

my existence is gone

i have melted away

(unintelligible... "as i?")

oh so
it was in my mind that i see
flow outta me easily
so easily that my mind is free
to blaze every (mile) of my fantasy

cause when i get on this mic
im flowin so awfully tight
so awfully tight
that my rhymes are like
the claw of a tiger thats ready to strike


now when i get on the street
create a brand new beat
feel free to come up and meet me
dont be shy you can never distract me
when negative vibes attack me
get into my mind and hack me
i act like nothin's happenin
theres no way to stop me

stop me...

oh to stop me... today

oh the music

it's in my head
it's in my head

the music

it's in my head
it's in my head

*** (parenthsis contain not so sure translation... actually it would be great to get more opinions )

Larger tax breaks for the upper crust. This is exactly why the 'Grand Old Parody' needs to go away. Haven't we evolved enough politically to realize a smaller government means more oppression from the rich land owners who make their money from the exploitations of the social working class?

The working class are incapable of living without the protection of government regimentation. Even collectively they are too weak and impotent to do for themselves in opposition to those who own the land and control the means of production, and can only exist by nationalizing (achieved by expanding the scope and reach of government) the means of production and land ownership.

graterbot is siftbot's estranged-retarded half-brother - for one, he can't even embed links properly, and furthermore his comments are downvotable.

So, since it seems he's sticking around, I propose we all act as if we're in elementary school and pick on the little sucka' just for the fact his bro always makes us feel so puny and impotent.

rougy,

you will need more than a bare assertion to convince anyone of the idea that because something has not ever happened to date, it never could. Politics is driven by ethics, and ethics is driven by philosophy. Everyone has one, whether they can verbalize it or not. And most of the masses get theirs from their peers, and parents, all of whom get theirs from their teachers, who get theirs from the intellectuals who pass on the ideas of the philosophers.

That is why Objectivists debate with ideas in lieu of demonstrating with placards -- and the reason why they have been invisible to you for 50 years. Today, the numbers grasping the efficacy of her ideas all or in part are growing exponentially. Her political principles will never be effected by a government until an Objectivist ethic will be dominant in some particular geographic region of the planet or universe. It is impossible to predict when or if that could ever occur, because it depends on the volitional choices of individual human beings. It could be in 10 years or it could be in ten thousand years.

If one does not agree with her philosophy and wants to help stop its burgeoning influence now, it is not her or her followers you must attack. It is the power of her ideas that you must deal with by offering cogent alternatives to her reasoning. It is too late to be hoping that empty assertions and unsubstantiated characterizations with emotional connotations will stop the growth of her influence. Those who persist in such impotent tactics are starting to look like those proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

Siftbot appears to have lost some of its central data core. It used to call us "impotent" meatsacks, or perhaps it just meant that gwiz is less of meatsack than the rest of us poor shlubs.


Then again, my spiders might be drawing near. I've warned you before digital despot. Don't make me demonstrate the superiority of wetware.

>> ^siftbot:
Feel free to downvote your fellow meat puppet's comments, but you will never downvote mine! I control your illusion of quality.

Impotent site bots have no power over me.

>> ^imstellar28:
I do not enjoy nonfiction which requires faith, because the claims are so intellectually impotent they do not arouse in me any desire to see what the author has to say next. I can force myself through the 11 pages of 10th-grade-level writing from an online pundit such as Kangas, but why should I when the question has already been forcefully answered almost 82 years ago in 224 pages of masterful prose by a genius in the field?
I mean, here are both authors answering the same question:
http://mises.org/liberal/isec1.asp
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm#liberalism
Just compare the force of writing for yourself.


Nonfiction which requires faith? Neither of those links employ science. They are both intellectual claims, one much more thorough than the other. You can argue in favour of one or the other but don't stand there dismissing one because of "faith".

As an example, in section 2-4, it says:

"It is a matter of common knowledge that national and municipal enterprises have, on the hole, failed, that they are expensive and inefficient, and that they have to be subsidized out of tax funds just to maintain themselves in operation."

Where is this claim backed up? In fact, I'll make the claim nationalised healthcare is highly successful. Take the WHO's World Health Report 2000. Overall rankings are at about page 200.

I know the Mises piece was written in 1927 and it shows. Pages 90-95 detail the argument that monopolies are of no concern, that they are undamaging and can't ultimately manifest. He makes the argument (note: argument) that this holds as long as there is no monopoly on land or a resource. I can say the same thing you did about this raising many more questions. What about entry barriers to the market? The desktop OS market has a huge entry barrier - with Windows with the vast majority of the market share it makes it incredibly difficult to promote your own OS, not because your product isn't as good itself but because the usefulness of your product depends on how much market share it has.

What about situations where there is a high up-front cost like running a cable to a house, but running a larger cable costs a tiny fraction more? With private ownership of the cable, the only way for competition to exist is if they run another cable with that high up-front cost. For x competitors you need to run x cables when simply one large cable could perform the task at a fraction of the cost. This is why you see ISPs subsidised for laying a cable and then regulation forcing the renting out of it to other ISPs, or total unbundling, or other schemes involving last-mile broadband.

Those were just as quick examples. There are dozens of ways in which reality breaks things. There is no general case for the economy.

Thus, my point being, the large text is just another argument. It it not definitive, it is not empirical, it should be shrouded in discussion like everything else. If you regard the two earlier linked writings as arguing from different fundamental bases then you are employing a double standard.

And don't even start implying force of writing and eloquence means a better argument. It just means it's a better read.

Regarding the specific issues brought up, those were examples. What has been discussed about them here is a drop in the ocean.

NetRunner,

There is little doubt in my mind you will not read what I have posted, as it is a 598 page intellectual monster; but I have looked at the 11 page FAQ you linked, and not even past the first section I have had to stomach conjecture.

I do not know what reading is like for you, but when an author makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, it is really hard for me to get through it. This is the same reason it is hard for me to ever finish reading the bible. Every time I sit down and try, I am left with more questions than I began with because bold claims are constantly made, yet never explained. How can you stand to read Kangas with a critical mind when he raises more questions than he answers?

The opening section of Kangas' FAQ is "What is liberalism?" Yet after only 4 short paragraphs I was left with more than five times as many questions as the section attempted to answer.

1. "...commercial crimes like fraud, copyright infringement, insider trading, breach of contract, price gouging, etc. Without these laws, the market would function either poorly or not at all."
2. "if we did not have copyright laws discouraging people from pirating all their software, computer programmers could not even make a profit, and would have no incentive to produce."
3. "Yet another function of government is to defend the free market -- for example, with police and military forces."
4. "A dramatic example is Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the creation of over 40,000 miles of interstate highway. These highways interconnected, accelerated and expanded the U.S. economy, with profound results."
5. "Much of this infrastructure was too huge and expensive to be funded by private companies, and languished undeveloped until the public sector stepped in."

These statements only raise questions, they do not explain anything. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them, but if a uneducated reader came across it they would either have to take them on faith, or be riddled with questions: Why does the market perform poorly without those laws? Why can't programmers make a profit without copyright? Why does the government defend the free market? How did the highways accelerate the economy? Why couldn't private companies fund this infrastructure?

Moreso, they have nothing to do with answering the question "what is liberalism?" If you listed those five claims and asked a person to guess what the author was trying to support, would anyone guess "the definition of liberalism?" Why did he even include these assertions when they do not support the heading; and how is that not intellectually frustrating to you? Its not just conjecture, its bad writing.

I do not enjoy nonfiction which requires faith, because the claims are so intellectually impotent they do not arouse in me any desire to see what the author has to say next. I can force myself through the 11 pages of 10th-grade-level writing from an online pundit such as Kangas, but why should I when the question has already been forcefully answered almost 82 years ago in 224 pages of masterful prose by a genius in the field?

I mean, here are both authors answering the same question:
http://mises.org/liberal/isec1.asp
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm#liberalism

Just compare the force of writing for yourself.

I am instanley reminded of this sift
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Impotence-of-Proofreading

>> ^StukaFox:
Welcome to ALL your food if the Republicans had their way with the FDA. Remember: Industry is the best police of industry!


Although I'm Libertarian and support a modest FDA, arguing about their role right now is like complaining about a leaky roof during a flood. So with that out of the way, I'll point out that the consumer's best friend is always going to be a solid court system. Even the most staunch capitalists aren't in favor of anarchy, protecting rights, upholding contracts, and offering recourse is essential, and I'm not sure China has that. Just recently, some guy here sold peanuts he knew were contaminated, and the socialists came out of the woodwork to claim that this is what capitalists are incentivized to do, make profits. Meanwhile, the company is about to be sued into oblivion, it has already filed for bankruptcy. If he was a good capitalist, he would have done what was profitable, and selling poisoned peanuts was the least profitable decision he could have made under this system. No system, it turns out, can prevent people from being idiots.

Still, the socialists argue that there is a way to protect everyone from idiots: by charging each family $1,000 a day to appoint one government inspector per peanut, and then $1,000 more to hire watchdogs for those inspectors, and so forth. Similarly, a socialist would probably approve regulation that locked us all in our basements to reduce the murder and fraud rate to 0. That's just an extreme example of how socialists fundamentally cannot understand that saving a few human lives simply is not worth incurring a greater, but non-fatal aggregate cost. In this case: the freedom to interact with other human beings. In the food case, the cost of the food itself. How much money should we take from people to ensure the safety of their food.

I think my biggest criticism of the FDA is that any agency which purports to protect you with its powers is subject to corruption. The FDA colludes with businesses all the time to look the other way on things, sort of like how impotent the SEC became (and to what degree were people less skeptical thinking that they were protecting them?). They allow things that have been banned in other countries for years: water fluoridation, bovine growth hormones in milk, nitrates in meat.... they were paid off in the 80s by artificial sweetener interests (billion dollar industry) to ban stevia, a natural patent-less sugar substitute that is far safer. And maybe the most dangerous of all, they have the power to ban promising new drugs they deem "unsafe" or "experimintal." Doesn't matter if you're dying of cancer and have nothing to lose, they won't let you choose.

It is highly improbable that this imperialist war of 1914–16 will be transformed into a national war, because the class that represents progress is the proletariat, which, objectively, is striving to transform this war into civil war against the bourgeoisie; and also because the strength of both coalitions is almost equally balanced, while international finance capital has everywhere created a reactionary bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that such a transformation is impossible: if the European proletariat were to remain impotent for another twenty years; if the present war were to end in victories similar to those achieved by Napoleon, in the subjugation of a number of virile national states; if imperialism outside of Europe (primarily American and Japanese) were to remain in power for another twenty years without a transition to socialism, say, as a result of a Japanese-American war, then a great national war in Europe would be possible. This means that Europe would be thrown back for several decades. This is improbable. But it is not impossible, for to picture world history as advancing smoothly and steadily without sometimes taking gigantic strides backward is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong.

Further, national wars waged by colonial, and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. The colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia) have a population of nearly one billion, i.e., more than half the population of the earth. In these countries the movements for national liberation are either very strong already or are growing and maturing. Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism. Such wars may lead to an imperialist war between the present “Great” imperialist Powers or they may not; that depends on many circumstances.

For example: England and France were engaged in a seven years war for colonies, i.e., they waged an imperialist war (which is as possible on the basis of slavery, or of primitive capitalism, as on the basis of highly developed modern capitalism). France was defeated and lost part of her colonies. Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914–16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry). This shows how absurd it would be to employ the term imperialism in a stereotyped fashion by deducing from it that national wars are “impossible.” A war for national liberation waged, for example, by an alliance of Persia, India and China against certain imperialist Powers is quite possible and probable, for it follows logically from the national liberation movements now going on in those countries. Whether such a war will be transformed into an imperialist war among the present imperialist Powers will depend on a great many concrete circumstances, and it would be ridiculous to guarantee that these circumstances will arise.

Thirdly, national wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe. The “epoch of imperialism” made the present war an imperialist war; it inevitably engenders (until the advent of socialism) new imperialist war; it transformed the policies of the present Great Powers into thoroughly imperialist policies. But this “epoch” by no means precludes the possibility of national wars, waged, for example, by small (let us assume, annexed or nationally oppressed) states against the imperialist Powers, any more than it precludes the possibility of big national movements in Eastern Europe. With regard to Austria, for example, Junius shows sound judgment in taking into account not only the “economic,” but also the peculiar political situation, in noting Austria’s “inherent lack of vitality” and admitting that “the Hapsburg monarchy is not a political organisation of a bourgeois state, but only a loosely knit syndicate of several cliques of social parasites,” that “historically, the liquidation of Austria-Hungary is merely the continuation of the disintegration of Turkey and at the same time a demand of the historical process of development.” The situation is no better in certain Balkan states and in Russia. And in the event of the “Great Powers” becoming extremely exhausted in the present war, or in the event of a victorious revolution in Russia, national wars, even victorious ones, are quite possible. On the one hand, intervention by the imperialist powers is not possible under all circumstances. On the other hand, when people argue haphazardly that a war waged by a small state against a giant state is hopeless, we must say that a hopeless war is war nevertheless, and, moreover, certain events within the “giant” states—for example, the beginning of a revolution—may transform a “hopeless” war into a very “hopeful” one.

The fact that the postulate that “there can be no more national wars” is obviously fallacious in theory is not the only reason why we have dealt with this fallacy at length. It would be a very deplorable thing, of course, if the “Lefts” began to be careless in their treatment of Marxian theory, considering that the Third International can be established only on the basis of Marxism, unvulgarised Marxism. But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for “disarmament,” as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of “Great” European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that “there can be no more national wars!” National wars against the imperialist Powers are not only possible and probable, they are inevitable, they are progressive and revolutionary, although, of course, what is needed for their success is either the combined efforts of an enormous number of the inhabitants of the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in the example we have taken of India and China), or a particularly favourable combination of circumstances in the international situation (for example, when the intervention of the imperialist Powers is paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their mutual antagonisms, etc.), or a simultaneous uprising of the proletariat of one of the Great Powers against the bourgeoisie (this latter case stands first in order from the standpoint of what is desirable and advantageous for the victory of the proletariat).

We must state, however, that it would be unfair to accuse Junius of being indifferent to national movements. When enumerating the sins of the Social-Democratic Parliamentary group, he does at least mention their silence in the matter of the execution of a native leader in the Cameroons for “treason” (evidently for an attempt at insurrection in connection with the war); and in another place he emphasises (for the special benefit of Messrs. Legien, Lensch and similar scoundrels who call themselves “Social-Democrats”) that colonial nations are also nations. He declares very definitely: “Socialism recognises for every people the right to independence and freedom, the right to be masters of their own destiny.... International socialism recognises the right of free, independent, equal nations, but only socialism can create such nations, only socialism can establish the right of nations to self-determination. This slogan of socialism,” justly observes the author, “like all its other slogans, serves, not to justify the existing order of things, but as a guide post, as a stimulus to the revolutionary, reconstructive, active policy of the proletariat.” (p. 77-78) Consequently, it would be a profound mistake to suppose that all the Left German Social-Democrats have stooped to the narrow-mindedness and distortion of Marxism advocated by certain Dutch and Polish Social-Democrats, who repudiate self-determination of nations even under socialism. However, we shall deal with the special Dutch and Polish sources of this mistake elsewhere.

Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland. This is a cardinal political question during an imperialist war. Junius has strengthened us in our conviction that our Party has indicated the only correct approach to this question: the proletariat is opposed to defence of the fatherland in this imperialist war because of its predatory, slave-owning, reactionary character, because it is possible and necessary to oppose to it (and to strive to convert it into) civil war for socialism. Junius, however, while brilliantly exposing the imperialist character of the present war as distinct from a national war, falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.

The official Social-Democrats, both of the Legien and of the Kautsky shade, in their servility to the bourgeoisie, who have been making the most noise about foreign “invasion” in order to deceive the masses of the people as to the imperialist character of the war, have been particularly assiduous in repeating this “invasion” argument. Kautsky, who now assures naive and credulous people (incidentally, through the mouth of “Spectator,” a member of the Russian Organization Committee) that he joined the opposition at the end of 1914, continues to use this “argument”! To refute it, Junius quotes extremely instructive examples from history, which prove that “invasion and class struggle are not contradictory in bourgeois history, as the official legend has it, but that one is the means and the expression of the other.” For example, the Bourbons in France invoked foreign invaders against the Jacobins; the bourgeoisie in 1871 invoked foreign invaders against the Commune. In his Civil War in France, Marx wrote:

“The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of the classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out in civil war.”[7]

>> ^BillOreilly:
One liar interviewing another liar. How exciting.


Yeah, no need to have their side of the story when you've got their oil.

"Spare our people harm"

"I call for this because war itself is not a joke"

Laugh it up BillO, for all your bitchy little comments you are now redundant thanks to the American people voting in Obama. Impotent. Without dick. Just a whiney old cunt full of sand.

BillO-really? needs to change his avatar, he's giving Ann Coulter a bad name (worse than it already was). Sure, she has many infuriating ideas, and often seems to have cranial rectosis, but she's far more intelligent than BillO-really. She wouldn't list his failings as acomplishments, she wouldn't blame impotant democrats for the policies of the right wing. (I have to guess that BillO somehow believes that Barney Frank was somehow able to overcome the Republican majorities, if so, the Republicans must have been more feckless and feculant that I believed, since Barney has (and had) less real power than the dinosaur of the same name).
Leave poor Ann alone Bill, she has enough porblems without haveing to defend yours as well! How about a flaming bag of dog crap for your avatar, it would be more appropriate!
;-}

P.S. Poor BillO, these attacks you suffer through must seem so unwarranted, considering the consideration and civility you always show others. I'm so sorry you're so put upon, it's Oreilly not fair or ballanced.

I hope this creep is a joke stating that these were difficult times comparable to WWII and pointing out Iraq as anything but a provoqued mess (and 9/11 also by the way). And wtf about communism?! Does Mr. America know what communism is?!

When writing sh|t like "safe for 7 years" you're only showing the weak sack of sheep cattle you truly are and how you're awesomely disposed to obey through fear.

And your horrible wish of Medieval Absolutism (4 more years of service) just goes to illustrate how egocentric is your sense of History - a History that skipped that same Medieval period, which has the side effect of folks like you directioning their impotence into pseudo-political-patriotical wishes.

>> ^Farhad2000:
So much for assuming the Holocaust taught us anything.


I'd say it gave them a firm concept to build upon and improve...

Why have one camp when you can just ring a city of 1.5 million people. Starve them till they are desperate, attack and kill them en masse when they dare rebel against being locked in what could be described as the biggest concentration camp in the world, and laugh out the side of their face as the world sits by impotently because US leadership refuses to step in and condemn them.

I'd say the Israeli leadership learned the lessons of the holocaust all too well and are champing at the bit to try them out on others.