I am powerless in the face of your vids. Must upvote, must upvote....

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Sifted Tina Fey, just for you

"resident racist" isn't much of a title. I'd much prefer Resident Racist/Sexist/Capitalist. I'm not doing a very good job....

Thank you for reminding me that THE PRESIDENT has attacked private citizens like Rush Limbaugh. That is far less sanguine than a private citizen calling out the president; criticism comes with the job.

Observation about the Presidency itself. Observation about Obama's failure--IMO--to maintain the dignity of the office.

RACISM: NONE

Thurston hasn't yet learned that in America you define who you are, no one else. If he wants to play the role of victim, that's his choice, there's a whole political party dedicated to winning his vote by defining him as one.

RACISM: only from the patronizing left

Leftists need victims/oppressed to get votes. When there aren't enough victims, they make them. This is born of the foundation of liberalism: powerlessness at the hands of life's lottery, with anyone not a random winner an exploited loser.

If Baratunde "puppies on a hovercraft" Thurston wants to specifically address Blackness in America, shouldn't he be far more incensed at the 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, a literal blueprint for cultural and economic failure?

YES IT'S UNPLEASANT, BUT FACTS ARE FACTS. LOOK UP THE STATS. Btw, the overall illegitimacy rate in America across all races is now 40%. Also nothing to celebrate.

AND I call bullshit on BT's "outrage". He's the host of a TV show as well as a paid comic. He may be somewhat upset, but I don't buy for a second he's this thin-skinned; he'd never have made it in the entertainment industry. His potential for happiness is his choice and problem, not yours or mine.

And while we're on the subject, this collective phony "outrage" every time something is read or heard that you disagree with is tiresome. For fck's sake, there aren't enough white sheets in the world to cover everyone the left has accused of racism. Don't you have ANYTHING else to talk about?

RACISM: NONE

@Xaielao It's not Republicans who are frightened, it's conservatives, peeps who understand the Constitution and the assault it's under.

RACISM: NONE

If Trump is a "Klansman" (an outrageous charge) that would make him a democrat.

>> ^Crosswords:
Secondly, and more importantly, why the fuck do natural disasters have to have a human reason?

I've met a few people who's thinking is something like "God says he protects us, therefore if anything terrible happens it's because 'He' intentionally caused it for a good reason." Some people just don't like (or can't handle) the idea that very bad things can happen for essentially no reason and that we're powerless to stop them.

I don't know what Beck actually believes, but given his style I'm sure he'll find a way to tie this event to some ideology he disagrees with. "Japan implemented <random policy> and look what happened; God obviously dislikes <random policy> and people who support it."

Skepticism is a virtue, to me. Ignorance is not.

Things are bad with the corporations quickly taking over in our society. At some point in our lives most of us will work for a large corporation as there will be very few small businesses left. And these corporations use the apparatus of government to create legislation and regulations that help them grow, increase profits, but most importantly they use it to stifle competition. And a lot of these corporations are profiting from the war, particularly the oil companies. Gas prices just rose here in LA to over $4 a gallon. And what gets me is how surprised people act when they see the new price hikes. I can't wait to see how they'll react when it goes over $5/gallon.

And we all think voting once every two or four years will fix all the ills of society and somehow magically contain the corporations and spendthrift politicians and bureaucrats. It's a bit of a joke when you think about how powerless we really are. But, before things turn for the bleak, I can say I believe what Joseph Campbell once said (and I paraphrase) that the world is as good today as its ever been and as bad as its ever been. In other words, it will always be getting worse and better, and we each participate in it.

So, yes, we should question everything the government does, and if we don't give in to cynicism we should participate in changing it as well.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Typical dumb fuck truther comment right there. You know, it's easy to belittle those on the fringe. Always has been. When the majority believes in something, how dare the minority challenge it or have an opposing viewpoint?

Someone once told me that history was written by the winners. He was referring to those who win the major battles in history writing it so the "facts" are favorable to them. Somehow I feel like that probably happened a lot over the course of human events, and not just after conquest and war. I cannot help but wonder what in my school history books was true and what was fabrication.

Unlike science, history cannot be tested and proven. It just exists as an unchallenged retrospective.

What I find funny about anyone who challenges the "official story" of 9/11, is how many people come out of the woodwork on here to scoff them. And they all somehow allude to themselves as being scientists or people with scientific knowledge of events surrounding that day. I don't know, it just seems so damn fishy, doesn't it?

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

You know, I have been thinking about what you said, and not only is it not being a dumb fuck, or a nut job to question. Isn't It our duty as American Citizens to question things our Government tells us that don't make sense? I mean, the whole GasLand thing going on. And Inside Job. This shit is getting out of control. They are getting away with anything they want and are not being held accountable for any of it...

As @VoodooV put it:
"To me it's a moot point. Even if it was proven that it was a conspiracy. America simply doesn't show any willingness to prosecute anyone anymore. No one was prosecuted for the lies that led us to the Iraq war, no one is prosecuted for Wall Street destroying the economy. America simply doesn't care about justice anymore. Justice is inconvenient.

Of course, one could imply that because of America's inability get much done these days, that it's a strong argument for it not being a conspiracy. It actually takes competence to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. We're too busy fighting with each other."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Powerless to resist 2 of my favorite things smooshed together.
In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Thanks for the promote dag.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Nerd chocolate and peanut butter. *promote

Yes, don't try to fight it. Give in to the kitteh and it will be easier. Resistance is futile.
>> ^taranimator:

powerless against the cuteness!!! muuuuust vooooote for ram-riding cat!!

powerless against the cuteness!!! muuuuust vooooote for ram-riding cat!!

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

If he's not talking about you, it's your civic duty to make more money so you can pay more taxes. I mean, really. Give back some.
FWIW, I'm a small business owner that keeps twelve people employed and provides them the best benefits money can buy. Between my employees, they have 14 children who are also taken care of. I also volunteer my time and give charitably to a number of humanitarian organizations.
Personally, I'm just of the mindset that we don't need the government to tell us to do well by others, save for our retirement, and waste 80% of the money they collect in the process. I'd rather see the government use money efficiently for things that make sense at a federal level: Defense, Infrastructure, Energy, and gasp Insurance.
Let the states figure the rest out.

He is and I do. I'm not going to argue against govt. waste because I don't have a leg to stand on, but the fact of the matter is that the economy will continue to stagnate as long as the acting conservatives continue a policy that is pursuing a definitive division amongst classes. Due to the current political climate it seems to me that hiking taxes on the ultra rich is our only achievable option until to attempt to prevent the ultra-rich class from buying so much influence in our democracy that it is rendered permanently powerless to serve the majority. I don't see this as a long-term solution, but as a stop gap until we can hopefully culturally evolve to see this class warfare for what it is. The states are potentially as useless as the federal govt, so I don't see much hope there. In theory the states should be closer to the people they serve, but that's being co-opted as well. See: http://videosift.com/video/Wisconsin-Governor-Prank-Called-By-Billionaire-Tea-Party

We must stop the systemic buyout of our government and the destruction of the middle class to survive.

I think we're much more similar than you may think. From my perspective the ultimate question is "what will this system look like in 30 years"? I've got kids that I'd like to inherit a U.S. that is on the way back up instead of down. If anyone has a good idea as to how to dis-empower the rich in this country then I'm all ears.

Swedish to English translation by Google (Google is so Metal)

Among shadows rides a beast. Like a black tree.
Grips tightly on a mighty hammer. Looking for weak Christian blood.
TROLL HAMMER! TROLL HAMMER!
The troll hammer sweeps again! Cut down, brother again!
Hear the last shout - Magic Hammer is here!
TROLL HAMMER!
He is not human. Not fragile and weak like you.
You will be powerless. No eyes see you nevertheless.
TROLL HAMMER! TROLL HAMMER!
Since the darkness took over. Fears that frost's cold fingers.
That take hold and kill. During the coming winter.

Wow. This is even better than TROGDOR!!!!

>> ^srd:

For those of us that haven't played starcraft 2 yet, what just happened?


Excellent question. I haven't played the sequel either, but I did play the original. Here's my take: The Terran player debo uses a single Banshee (the flying/cloaking attack helicopter thing) to bypass any frontal defenses of the Protoss player in order to directly attack the player's drones in the back of the player's main base. Consider these drones to be the army's worker bees, collecting resources (crystal and vespene gas) in order to fuel the player's war economy. A direct hit on those drones cripples the Protoss player's economy by slowing/stopping resource income and forces the player to react. Worse yet, whatever attack units the Protoss player has already built in the early game are powerless against the Banshee because the Banshee can cloak and avoid detection.

Thus, not only is the Protoss player collecting income at a slower rate than the other players, but the Protoss player is now also forced to spend additional money to rebuild drones and to build Observer units that can reveal the cloaked Banshee which would allow the already-built Protoss attack units (who are lingering by the resources in the back of the base) to open fire. The Banshee continues to harass those units while Observers are built.

Meanwhile, debo's masterstroke is to send conventional infantry units through the front door of the base while the Protoss units are amassed in the back trying to locate and remove the harassing Banshee. This is a tactical win in terms of superior positioning, where the general infantry are guaranteed to do significant damage on the base's main buildings before being possibly defeated by the returning Protoss units, but also a strategic/macro/'long-view' gaming accomplishment by having forced the Protoss player to deplete his slowed economy on non-fighting Observer units due to a single Banshee, which opened the economical and physical door for the conventional frontal attack that the player is ill-equipped to handle.

TL;DR SEVEN KILLS, N*GGA, EIGHT KILLS, N*GGA

Oh look!
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Immigration-by-the-Numbers-Counterintuitive
(no star cos I am powerless )

Changing the subject is not an answer.

In a democracy, regulations prevent crime. The United States government ended American slavery in 1862 and enforces legal consequences for theft, murder and sexual abuse, thus detering would be criminals and imprisoning actual criminals. These regulations prevent crime.

Without regulation, what is to prevent one person from enslaving another? or robbing another? or killing another? or raping another? or molesting a child? or destroying the environment? or exploiting labor? or exploiting the poor?

Belief without evidence is faith. Belief derived from evidence is wisdom.

Quantify your magical thinking.

>> ^blankfist:

You want an answer. Okay. We have those things you listed now under your perfect big government system. Let's go through SOME of this list.

1. "Slavery". We have slavery or servitude thanks to compulsory taxation (aka theft), so I guess your system hasn't proved capable of stopping that.
2. "Robbing another". What does your system do to prevent robbery? Strict penalties if the assailant is caught is not preventative.
3. "Killing another". Same as robbery above. Your ideal system does nothing to prevent murder. Your ideal utopia would make killing easier as people are stripped of their rights to self defense (gun laws). They'd instead have to call 911 and hope the cops show before they were murdered.
4. "Rape" and "Child molestation". Again. Same as robbery. Your system is not preventative.

And so on. The point he's making, I think, is that we already experience all the evils of man right now in our current system, and it was powerless to prevent it, and what's worse it's created more tyranny than justice in the process. We still have servitude, robbery, rape, murder, etc. And on top of that we have less personal liberties and less avenues to protect ourselves.
By the statist calling our voluntaryist viewpoint religious you're using the same tired semantic argument theists use when calling atheism a religion.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Without regulation, what prevents one person from enslaving another? or robbing another? or killing another? or raping another? or molesting a child? or destroying the environment? or exploiting labor? He makes it clear that he does not like government, but he provides no evidence for his own utopian belief system, and belief without evidence is the definition of faith.


You want an answer. Okay. We have those things you listed now under your perfect big government system. Let's go through SOME of this list.

1. "Slavery". We have slavery or servitude thanks to compulsory taxation (aka theft), so I guess your system hasn't proved capable of stopping that.

2. "Robbing another". What does your system do to prevent robbery? Strict penalties if the assailant is caught is not preventative.

3. "Killing another". Same as robbery above. Your ideal system does nothing to prevent murder. Your ideal utopia would make killing easier as people are stripped of their rights to self defense (gun laws). They'd instead have to call 911 and hope the cops show before they were murdered.

4. "Rape" and "Child molestation". Again. Same as robbery. Your system is not preventative.

And so on. The point he's making, I think, is that we already experience all the evils of man right now in our current system, and it was powerless to prevent it, and what's worse it's created more tyranny than justice in the process. We still have servitude, robbery, rape, murder, etc. And on top of that we have less personal liberties and less avenues to protect ourselves.

By the statist calling our voluntaryist viewpoint religious you're using the same tired semantic argument theists use when calling atheism a religion.

It's a distinction that offers room for interpretation. Some addicts identify with their addictions, and therefore, by definition the "addict" is powerless over their lives inasmuch as their lives have become unmanageable by the addict. The individual may regain power over their lives inasmuch as s/he identifies with being in recovery (inclusive of surrendering to a higher power). As with anything of this sort (in which "belief" in one form or another plays a role), there are levels and degrees of "big book" thumping that will determine that person's success in the program. The trick is not to assume (as you admit to have done) about an individual something that you haven't personally undergone.

...

The point you made about the difference between "hoping for" and "getting" a job is well-taken, however, and is something I raise repeatedly with my clients: about the specific steps to take each day (by day) to approach particular goals.

>> ^blankfist:

Word. I could tell you were talking about "actual" people. But my comment you quoted and responded to was about the 12 steps, and your response started off with: "the 'powerlessness' over one's addiction in AA does not presume one's powerlessness in one's life in general."
That sounds like you were commenting about the 12 steps to me. Well, if you were and forgot that you were, step 1 says alcoholics are unable to manage their life and step 2 says only a higher power can restore them. So, AA does presume alcoholics powerless over their own life if they're powerless over their addiction, it would seem to me.

>> ^Trancecoach:
You're right.. You're reading about the 12 steps, and I'm working with actual people.


Word. I could tell you were talking about "actual" people. But my comment you quoted and responded to was about the 12 steps, and your response started off with: "the 'powerlessness' over one's addiction in AA does not presume one's powerlessness in one's life in general."

That sounds like you were commenting about the 12 steps to me. Well, if you were and forgot that you were, step 1 says alcoholics are unable to manage their life and step 2 says only a higher power can restore them. So, AA does presume alcoholics powerless over their own life if they're powerless over their addiction, it would seem to me.