>> ^lantern53:

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

This is just one from a whole page listing stupid things obama said, per good ole google


That article reported 10 dead initially, the text of the article now says 11, and it turns out maybe 12 died now. There is a big difference between misspeaking the data you hear from your earpiece or PR guy (or even brainfarting and saying 10k when you mean 10), and not understanding why windows don't open up in airplanes.

Daily show has it right though, Obama is the luckiest man right now...he's not doing anything right to win it, but most likely will, because Romney "blew out his ACL".

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Oh, Hank.
For this whole video he speaks as if Voyager II is not doing anything. They Both are still functional and--although Voyager II is on a different path--they are both examining the heliosphere and they will both continue into interstellar space for billions of years.


Like finding the "edge" of the heliosphere, no small feat. Even though neither are the most advanced tech we have nowadays, they're gonna find out first!

Oh, Hank.

For this whole video he speaks as if Voyager II is not doing anything. They Both are still functional and--although Voyager II is on a different path--they are both examining the heliosphere and they will both continue into interstellar space for billions of years.

"what...i'm not doing anything!!"

yeah..and they worried about Obama indoctrinating the kids.

if making a kid, who isn't old enough to make an informed decision do a video like this isn't indoctrination, I don't know what is.

keep kids out of politics assholes

I like how they have him pose in front of their gas-guzzling shit kicker as if they're proud they're part of fucking up the environment. What's that? I have an excess of wealth that I'm not doing anything with and you want to help the less fortunate? COMMUNIST!!

Why do we have so many police sympathizers here? It is obvious that this sort of conduct goes on ALL OF THE TIME and no one is doing anything about and in fact it is illegal. I present KILL PIGS as more of a slogan.

I am not anonymous here... many people here know my voice and my face. Some people know where I live! So, shut the fuck up and Fuck the pigs. If you don't agree then you do not have firsthand experience with the way America actually is, right fucking now.

I was confronted with this sort of totalitarianism many times. One time most colleges let students out to protest unjust wars and we were faced with militarized police, I was taking photographs and I was batoned. Who won in court? I FUCKING DID MOTHER FUCKERS. I can't even tell you the amount of brutality I saw to people who were not doing anything in an illegal situation that the militarized pig fucks put us in. It's a tactic they use to break up just political uprisings and they get away with. Wake the fuck up! This AMERICA not 'MERICA.

>> ^lantern53:

Why do I always have to be the adult here?
In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.
And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".

@renatojj making a distinction between bad and no choice is a very fine line to walk on. It will always be arbitrary, as what for one is only bad, for another is no choice. An example: our Spanish friends have the option to work for a shitty fee (the bad choice) or not work at all (and possibly starve, arguably no choice). As there is only 1 choice (work for a shitty fee) is that a choice? Even if that choice was good, 1 choice means there is no choice. And in most cases, due to the same principles as apply to free markets, if there is only 1 choice (or less) that choice will be bad. Is this a case of free markets or should we have done something about the lack of choice? You can argue that policy makers did not do anything in Spain, and you are right. But again, they had their chance (and have a chance every day) to do the right thing. Having an opportunity to make things better is better than knowing 100% that things will go wrong in the end (total free market) even if in some cases human stupidity still F$^&& up the chances.

BTW, in your examples on Uganda and the homeless man, both are not situations of power. As in the giver has no power (or relation) over the receiver or vice versa. It is charity. There is no real economic reason to do it. An employer however does have power over a worker in various ways. You cant compare those examples. Coercion only happens in cases where there is an imbalance of power. Student to teacher, employee to employer, citizen to police. Those are exactly the moments when you need to make sure the ones with more power are scrutinized and can be stopped.

I agree that a free market wants to reduce "the choice remover" aka rules. The rules are however making sure there is balance and that the ones in power cannot remove all the choice from the ones without power. Creating good options for one side in free markets, can lead to bad options in the other, again, no choice. Rules can do the same, however the entire idea of the rules is to balance it and make sure the amount of good options for everyone is maximized.

I just read a great parable. Ill copy it in the next post as it says a lot about free market policies.

Your right it's not Twain it's Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, but the saying is used to describe freedom of speech being used in a way that is dangerous. These men clearly were not doing anything dangerous. Thus there was no reason for the cop to arrest them. And since the Lt.'s override his decision and released the men, which can be seen at the end of the video, then clearly the officer was in the wrong. And I guess it's not that you "didn't" say there were doing something wrong merely that you defended the cops decision to arrest these men for doing their job. This isn't even about freedom of speech anyway it's about the fact that you Legally Film ANY Public Official on ANY Public Property something a lot of cops have started to take offense to for some reason. And unless men like this stand up to them it will continue.

Never drank, never smoked, never did illegal substances....and I don't feel superior to people who drink and some illegal substances. I actually admire them if they can balance it into their life and it brings them some happiness.

I can't stand smoking, I grew up around it, had all but one grandparent die because of smoking giving them lung issues that either ultimately killed them or prevented them from getting procedures done to stop heart problems. Weak lungs would have guaranteed their death during surgery and no one would operate. So, I don't feel superior to them, but I'm an asthmatic it smells horrible, so I just can't be around them. Hell as I got older I had to quit hanging around with a friend of mine until he quit smoking because he just smoked more and more and I couldn't take being around him. Allergies, etc. Plus anytime he smoked I had to be away from him, so the more he smoked the less point there was to trying to hang out.

Illegal substances, mixed bag. Marijuana, not really a huge deal to me...I know too many functional people who use it. However I have a brother who is absolutely obsessed with marijuana, and it's obviously not beneficial to him due to that control it has over him. Cocaine, meth, heroin, etc....just seems like pissing money away for health issues you'll have to deal with later...plus a lot of substances age you prematurely or make your teeth fall out, etc. And teeth falling is something I've had nightmares about, so why the hell would I want to do that.

And I *KNOW* I have an addictive personality, this is why I don't try these things. Not because I feel superior, in fact I don't like not being able to try alcohol in particularly. I just know I would slowly slide into over-use on it. Plus most of it smells horrible, so as long as it smells horrible to me and I don't develop a taste for it...Im set.


I don't like Penn yelling/ranting like that to make his point, but I do think that they need to re-examine their drug policies. Because they seem less about drug control and more about people control, especially non-influential and poor people control. If it were about drug control, I think they'd be telling you that if they catch you on substances while driving you are out of a license immediately. Or if you commit a crime while on them, it's worse punishment. While if you're just on them and not doing anything of note.......then that's what you choose to do. I do get the argument on having to treat people who use substances.....but it's similar to people who overdose on scripts or over the counter stuff.

Rehabilitation does not happen anymore AFAIK, not like it used to. Now they work them for pennies on the dollar instead of paying minimum wage to regular workers. It's more for profit now than anything else, which I think is the real issue...they will find any law to enforce to get their populations and numbers up for profits.

Haha, gotta love the "I'm not doing anything" sidestepping at 1:44.

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

Here's something....

Every time the n-word gets used on this site, I'm going to post this vid in the comment stream.

This is great. This vid tells the honest truth.

I agree with packo's point that the best defense against harmful language is to disempower it. But did you listen to this speaker? It is NOT for us to say that black people should do or not do anything.

And @packo, that is BS about "thrusting reponsibility from the past into the present's lap." What do you mean "past"? This is the present. It's happening right now. Are you not aware of that fact? That racism is alive and well in America and around the world?

This is a great vid. Thanks for posting.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Obama is the one bailing everybody out.


Bush is the person who bailed out Wall Street. Or were you not watching the news that day? Obama just continued the bailouts. It's not really fair to blame a problem that was snowballing for so long on the person who became president right after it happened. Bush had eight years. Not only did he not do anything about the housing bubble, but he set us up to spend six-billion-dollars-a-month on the fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only to have Obama catch Bin Laden.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that the Democrats are responsible for our predicament as well. But focusing on the left-right controversies is exactly what the people in power want us to do. Because it prevents us from discussing the real issues. We can just sit around blaming each-other forever as far as they're concerned.

When my father graduated high-school, he learned the floor-covering trade. (carpet,vinyl,etc...) His first job paid him three dollars an hour and it was enough to support a family of four. Back in the sixties, three dollars would get you a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes with a dollar left over. Now, three dollars won't even cover the gas I spend to get to work, not even one way.

And people can spin the numbers and facts any way that they want. Just as I've done here. But no matter how you spin it, the fact that there is a problem is glaringly obvious to most people. Even if we don't see it the same way. You obviously think there's a problem as well, but I just can't buy that we live in a society where working hard brings success, not anymore.

And you know what? If people keep protesting in numbers like this, they're going to make a change for better or worse. You don't need to be organized or even "right" to have an effect. The power lies in the numbers, not the message. It's the same for the Tea Party. Wouldn't it be great if we could come together and use those numbers for something positive?

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Special cleaning crews are being brought in to clean up after the trash messes left all over by the "99%" costing the city $$$.


And one last thing: Who do you think was responsible for cleaning up Boston Harbor in 1773?

Happened to me too on March 20th, 2003. I posted a doc on here called "We Interrupt This Empire" and there's a scene in there that captured it. They blocked us in (I was just taking photos) and the cops started randomly hitting people, I looked the cop in front of me in the eyes and said "don't do it - I'm not doing anything" and then he hit me in the stomach with his baton and I flew into four other people who all fell to the ground. People don't forget shit like that. I was 20 and it was the beginning of my anger towards corporations, the pigs, the government & the fact that "we" are no longer in control of anything except the fight to take it back.