Climate change-The hot-topic for a new age of ineffectuals...something for the insects to rally-around and discuss which produces nay but fodder for the same passive-aggressive types who are being seduced by their desire to trade practical action (whatever that could be) for polemic intercourse with themselves and others like them on the internet....

....people who are passionate to a fault and use forums like this to espouse their anger and frustration with tomes of keystrokes AT and not WITH others they deem unworthy, those ignorant and simpering few with opinions or observations dissimilar to theirs (and lower than 130 I.Q.'s....*cough), who know they are helpless to act to stop the high-speed train of planet-fucking (wage-slave-required and dutifully induced through the programming by adepts of semantic mind-fucking).This delusional empowerment, with all the invisible superpowers of new 'information' gives them the license and ability to do absolutely nothing to correct or marginally disrupt the pace of the so-labeled change while becomming better dicks in doing-so.

This fan-driven subject of climate change they use not only to deride those with any dissenting opinion and doubt regarding the mechanics and unfolding of what our big, blue marble is handing the creatures onnit, but also and most evidently obvious, to bolster their own superiority and self-satisfaction in their ability to process the distraction of disinformation/information/datum-ad-nauseum, and then condense it into how clever they can be in being complete assholes without breaking rules of accepted decorum so they can hear themselves bark, howl, and foment.

Smug, helpless, and irritatingly predictable in their helplessness to do anything more effectual than to add more used motor oil to the bonfire of their own vanity.

I would ask these irritating bugs what ARE you prepared to do to alter the course of the 'changes' in the 'terminal climate' described above? Recycle and drive a hybrid? Sacrifice anything but another trip to a polling-station? Oh I know, sit at your computer keyboard and grow more incensed while going-on with your business of spouting and shouting from a mountain of trash that you add-to daily by converting oxygen to more life-giving C02 and buying shit you don't need with paper you are forced to trade for 'bads and disservices??'

Thought so.

Fuck global warming in it's ass and let the planet shake and quiver with change as humans and/or their own slave-like actions continue to feed the earth-furnace. The bigger fish to fry and serve head-on have you by the short and curlies and we're all bio-fuel for future generations

Says the man whose active community involvement is wielding the flaccid ban-hammer and talking smack to people he despises by MAKING SHIT UP AND SPREADING HIS BRAND OF BILE (and continues to do so) IN ORDER TO STIR UP SHIT AND CAUSE HARM WITH A VIEW TO SELF-JUSTIFICATION OF CONTINUING THESE DYSFUNCTIONAL ACTIONS. PERIOD, SIR. Don't think for a second that it's not as transparent as Scotch, fucking tape. It's seems it's the only fun you have here as an internet bully, your only purpose for continuing your script seems your own self-satisfaction and twisted aggrandizement with similar ilk....

Notice always, the brown-nosing closing salutatory back-pats to anyone who inhabits his camp. Again mate, trans-fucking-parent.

The only bacteria here in human form resides and is fed by similar folks unwilling to see pulp-forests for sturdier trees.

You people are all believers in euthanasia, aren't you?
If a person is unwanted, just kill them.

Why not have abortion to the 19th month? or more? The mother decides she doesn't want the child, she should be able to terminate it, right? It probably is not participating to her satisfaction.

why do we prosecute such women for murder after the child has exited the birth canal?

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'are, we, not, men, rolling, stones, satisfaction, devo' to 'are we not men, rolling stones, satisfaction, devo' - edited by Grimm

Devo - Satisfaction (live on SNL in 1978) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Devo - Satisfaction - Music Video has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Devo: Workin' in a Coal Mine has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Devo: Through Being Cool (1981) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Devo: Whip It has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stones, cover, Mothersbaugh, robotic, jerky, i cant, get, me, no, 70s' to 'stones, cover, Mothersbaugh, robotic, jerky, devo, satisfaction' - edited by eric3579

Gee, @Yogi. Did you expect the state to work on your behalf?
That's not what the state does! The state is a tool that those who control it can use to impose upon those who don't. I suspect that you don't control much of it at all. So you don't get to impose. You get imposed upon. That's how it works. The first lady (who you seem to think is somehow being mistreated) on the other hand, is being handsomely rewarded, if her tax returns are any indication... but whatever. Believe what you want. However much you rant against it, you won't change the intrinsic nature of the state.

You can't do anything about those who control it, so you seem to feel like you have to take it out on me, as if what I post made any difference whatsoever...

If you want Australia's healthcare system, why not take your issue to your "representative," or to the President, and see if they care about what you want.

(But somehow, I think you realize how powerless you are, and so you're trying to get some satisfaction from complaining about what I post. You'll "destroy" etc. But, honestly, what can you really do that has any impact?)

@newtboy

> "You are welcome to disagree, thanks to thoughtful men voting to guarantee you that right."

Yes we disagree. But I do not owe my right to disagree to anyone, thoughtful or otherwise. That is my natural right. Some may want to violate that right, but that's a different issue. No one can take away my right to disagree or force me to agree/disagree.

> "It worked for them, it can work again."

Who are you talking about? The slave owning "founders"? Politics often (though not always) works for the elites, sure. But again, I wish you good luck with that -- and in making it work for you.

> "Being satisfied that the process can give good results is not the same as satisfaction with the current results."

I know. You have hope/faith that the process can and may at some point give you the results you like. I say, good luck. It may or may not happen, depending on what will satisfy you or not.

> "The convincing I suggest is convincing those that already think like 'you' to vote the same (and put up reps to vote for that truly think the same). Easier said than done."

I think it's virtually impossible. If you prove otherwise, I may be the first to congratulate you (if you let me know about it).

> "I'm not dismissive, I'm still discussing it with you"

I'm not sure what you mean by "not dismissive". You are telling me what you believe, I understand that. I'm still responding.

> "and never said you're not worth the discussion or 'it's time to ignore you', that was you to me."

Good, I guess.

> "I am argumentative."

I can tell.

> "I have admitted crippling personality flaws in the past, and will again."

Crippling? Wait, I'm not about to get into a therapy session here...

> "You misunderstood, my idea is to put people in that are going to fix the system, not dismantle it, and not just feed it."

Go ahead. Do it. Put the people in that are going to fix it. I know you don't want to dismantle it. That's my preference, not yours. I get that.

>"I would like people that want to fix the campaign finance system and get out, that's one main tap root of the problem in my eyes, one that's easy to fix with enough push."

We each have preferences and opinions. Go ahead and do it. I have little interest in that so I'll leave it up to you. We can't all be focused on the same things. And you should probably be happy that I have no interest in politics since I would work to dismantle the system. Not what you want. So my not being involved, not even voting, works to your benefit (in this sense).

> "True enough, I'm not finding those people to vote for, usually. I can clamor for them though, maybe they'll turn up. (as I said before, my candidate rarely wins, I'm poor at finding the like minded.)"

Like you said, and I agreed, you can dream. Nothing wrong with that. Carry on. Good luck.

Where do you live?

It may not work as well as one would like, but compared to the alternative, no input in the process, it's pretty good! You are welcome to disagree, thanks to thoughtful men voting to guarantee you that right. It worked for them, it can work again.
Being satisfied that the process can give good results is not the same as satisfaction with the current results.
The convincing I suggest is convincing those that already think like 'you' to vote the same (and put up reps to vote for that truly think the same). Easier said than done.
I'm not dismissive, I'm still discussing it with you, and never said you're not worth the discussion or 'it's time to ignore you', that was you to me. I am argumentative. I have admitted crippling personality flaws in the past, and will again. That's one. I try to do it respectfully (until intentionally insulted, then it can be ON!).
You misunderstood, my idea is to put people in that are going to fix the system, not dismantle it, and not just feed it.
It will never be perfect (there is no perfect), it can always be better, unless it's no longer existing. That's when there's no hope of improvement.
I wouldn't want clones of me in office, nor would I (they) want to be there. I would like people that want to fix the campaign finance system and get out, that's one main tap root of the problem in my eyes, one that's easy to fix with enough push. True enough, I'm not finding those people to vote for, usually. I can clamor for them though, maybe they'll turn up. (as I said before, my candidate rarely wins, I'm poor at finding the like minded.)
"My delusion", and who's dismissive?

I would hasten to guess that most prayers made by the devout fall into the category of meditative exhortations on behalf of others with a view to their well-being or similar sentiments-That the effects of such contemplative meditation can't be codified to satisfy another individual's satisfaction is completely meaningless.
Rigorously shown to whose satisfaction? Who but an egoist or some faithfully obsessed compiles such 'statistics' or would take the time to prove, falsify, or invalidate the actions or motivations of another individual, but some delusional autocrat? Probably some asshole I most certainly would never want to sit down with and break bread with.

The problem is that stores promote this nonsense. Instead of making it a chaotic free-for-all, why not require people to reserve what they want to buy and then pick it up at their leisure? You could still give people the satisfaction of believing that they got great deals while avoiding unnecessary violence and destruction.

Then we have the issue of holidays existing solely to promote excessive spending, all because arbitrary dates on a calendar say you should give people gifts and expect to receive them in part.

not since the Barneystein mod have I felt so much satisfaction.

@Yogi
im gonna go out on a limb and guess you never dealt with the courts and CPS.

i have and this mans experience resembles my own.
i realize this is not conclusive proof of anything.my evidence would be anecdotal.

i had children with two women,
feel free to judge me,i dont care,the courts and CPS judged me plenty so i am used to it.

my two oldest boys were with a woman who i remained friendly with which translated to a fantastic relationship with my boys.i never experienced the courts nor CPS in any negative fashion.

conversely my two youngest boys were with a sociopath (no hyperbole here)
.we have no relationship.in fact we are totally enstranged.
tragic in all regards.

she used the courts to punish me.
she used CPS to harrass me.

and the attitudes of CPS were so much like this purple chick.
that somehow THEY knew better and they NEVER questioned the mother.
in fact one CPS "counselor" went as far as trying to force me to relinquish my parental rights.

when you get caught in this system you realize a few things very quickly.
1.fathers are the enemy
2.they know better than you
3.you know nothing
4.if the mother makes an allegation then it MUST be true
5.if YOU make an allegation you are just being contrary and bitter

the one CPS counselor was terminated due to falsifying records.
no shock here.

i have sat through interviews almost identical as what this man is experiencing.
the difference is i am a much more adept debater than this poor dad is.

i do not suffer fools lightly and when in regards to my children i am unrelenting.
i also realized fairly early that the CPS workers never had my nor my boys best interests at heart.
they spoke in legalese and authority but it was evident it was all about control.
to control me and dictate how i was as a parent.

ah...i remember those schoolings with fondness.a certain satisfaction in putting an arrogant,self-important knowitall in their place.

but in the end i still didnt get to see my kids.
so who is the loser eh?

goddammit.now im depressed......

I think maybe, much more simply. It might just be commentary on what would *really* happen if someone was given super powers.

Even the most fair and ethical person in the world would have a REALLY HARD time not using powers for personal gain or petty satisfaction. That's assuming you didn't just flat out commit blatant crimes such as this flying man.

Even if you chose to "do good" with your powers, when you no longer have the traditional limitations us normal mortals have, the temptation to do petty shit, even just harmless pranks with your powers would be insanely tough.

@coolhund brings up an excellent point. blue-collar crime, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't a huge problem anymore. white collar crime, however, is a larger concern for most people these days. Little bit harder to swoop in and save the day in that sort of situation. Not very exciting either.

And when it comes right down to it, crime fighting really isn't all that fun or easy.