>> ^dannym3141:
I'd just like to say i installed this just now and searched for "pink floyd - comfortably numb" and various alternatives.
This program failed the litmus test. That's a pretty staple song really, by a huge band. It only had covers and versions done by individual members of the band and no original full-band version.
That's a pet peeve for me - any search return that doesn't have the original right at the top is an absolute shambles and an insult, if you ask me. Scissor sister's terrible cover version smiling at me from the top and no original.
So i did another search for "pink floyd" and got absolutely nothing. No music by pink floyd. Lots of covers though!!!!!!!!
Uninstalled


Blame Pink Floyd's record company, not the program itself.

*edit* added the mac link for you mac users (god have mercy on your souls you blasphemers)

I'd just like to say i installed this just now and searched for "pink floyd - comfortably numb" and various alternatives.

This program failed the litmus test. That's a pretty staple song really, by a huge band. It only had covers and versions done by individual members of the band and no original full-band version.

That's a pet peeve for me - any search return that doesn't have the original right at the top is an absolute shambles and an insult, if you ask me. Scissor sister's terrible cover version smiling at me from the top and no original.

So i did another search for "pink floyd" and got absolutely nothing. No music by pink floyd. Lots of covers though!!!!!!!!

Uninstalled

^Why must you lower the level of discourse, rougy? Name calling and labeling are a bit childish, don't you think.

You're being outclassed and out-debated by a university student in her early 20's (and everyone else involved in this thread) while you, a self proclaimed "smart person," lament the fact that you haven't yet left the most wonderful country in world. As far as I can tell, the reason you feel you should leave is because people exist in America with views that oppose your own. I don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless so, I'll just site MLK on Socrates: "Socrates felt that it is necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal."

In short, debate is good for you, rougy!


MOVING ON...

To me, one of the most important things to remember in regard to civil disobedience is that authority is given to all to make the world the place that we want it to be. We are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Remember that Socrates, Gandhi, and MLK had no formal authority. They were able to impact the world through MORAL authority.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws...

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He also said, "An unjust law is no law at all."


While we may have cushy jobs that we don't want to risk losing at the moment, it is OUR responsibility to keep our government in check. When the time for action comes, not a job nor jail time will dissuade me from "nonviolent direct action." Our governments continue to pass legislation that slowly whittles away at our self reliance and personal freedoms, and if we keep on this path we will one day wake up to a nation in shambles.

Two things come to mind when talk of real "change" or discussion of a "revolution" comes up: 1.) There has been a trend away from self-reliance in this country and increasing dependency on social programs. Are the social programs the cure for the dependency or are they the cause? As the citizens become more and more dependent on the government, they become less and less motivated to defend the common good. We are ever more selfish (hence the rise in mental disorders and depression, in my opinion) and 2.) Living in America (or in the affluent nations across the world) is becoming a spectator sport. We feel it is inconvenient to have to: research something for ourselves, become self-reliant, read a book, get out of debt, study history, engage in thoughtful discourse, be a good neighbor, take responsibility for our own actions and situation, etc. We are so "connected" to television, the internet, MP3 players, and mobile phones that we are becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.

What am I getting at?

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were willing to give their lives for religious freedom. Socrates gave his life for the law. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. devoted their whole being (and ultimately their lives) for the cause of freedom and equality. Change takes a lot of hard work and dedication. I mean, it takes EVERYTHING from at least one man. If we want policy change, we write letters to the editor, we start a website, we knock on doors, and so on. When it really matters (such as what the world protested against in2003, civil disobedience is in order. Anything worth civil disobedience is absolutely worth our cushy jobs. But, we'll need moral justification and moral leadership. I don't think that we're past that as some have said. I DO, however, think that wading through opposing propaganda would be more difficult today than it has historically been, but I digress.

The question I have is, "Which modern day issues/hypothetical scenarios would require civil disobedience to be solved?"


>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
It's just not worth it any more, to me.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week.
Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.

We have a failing economy, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and *cough here at home in the US, North Korea threatening to "weaponize their plutonium", an ailing infrastructure, an auto industry in shambles, a banking system that still hasn't been fixed, high unemployment, out of control health care costs, and, um... how about we throw in a flu pandemic for shingles, and this is what gets air time? really?

Winnie was perhaps the greatest man of recent generations, though he was not without fault in many aspects of his life. I think we can all agree on that at least.

This was the most severe beat down i've seen. The only shame here is that fox news, the presenter, and the reporter/expert were not brought forward and forced to answer for the bullshit that they spread under the guise of truth. And of course, even if they were, they would twist their way out of it using the verbal equivalent of flashy hand gestures to make you look elsewhere. They would spiral the argument further and further away from the original points WHICH THEY GOT WRONG, citing other examples and completely different situations (which would also be wrong) until eventually you were talking about something completely different and they could claim that you misunderstood them originally.

It's a huge shame that winnie isn't alive today to make a libel claim, that'd be a huge embarassment. But in many ways i'm glad he's not alive to see what a shambles the entire world has turned into after he fought so hard to uphold the things he saw as right.

What a genius, and what a waste.. the lunatics end up running the asylum in the long run no matter what you do to prevent it.

>> ^Pprt:
>> ^vairetube:
you wanker you know what you meant.
You've digressed but I'll reply in consideration of the effort applied to the above posts.
Absolutely... I meant that work ethics differ across cultures. It so happens that much of the third world is not conscientious or considerate about their occupation.
And when you've got a large portion of individuals (San-Antonio is 60% Hispanic) who do not always share strong American work ethics, the quality of professional services rendered is in direct correlation to that culture.
If Detroit were 80% Japanese, I'm quite certain the area would not be in shambles.


I have worked in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries. You are simply generalizing way too much. Just because there is a range of degrees in business ethics among different countries does not mean you can assume 'that much of the third world is not conscientious or considerate about their occupation.'

At least back up that premise with some sources

>> ^vairetube:
you wanker you know what you meant.

You've digressed but I'll reply in consideration of the effort applied to the above posts.

Absolutely... I meant that work ethics differ across cultures. It so happens that much of the third world is not conscientious or considerate about their occupation.

And when you've got a large portion of individuals (San-Antonio is 60% Hispanic) who do not always share strong American work ethics, the quality of professional services rendered is in direct correlation to that culture.

If Detroit were 80% Japanese, I'm quite certain the area would not be in shambles.

The GOP can't support anything Obama's administration does. Politically they have to distance themselves. The party is in shambles. If they vote yes, and the plans work.. then its over for them. They're hoping for failure so they can make a comeback.

I hate politics

hey, can you tell me why this clip is in the gay channel? cheers.

Wow...WTF...LMAO....never heard of such a concept i am so stealing that.....

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
good thing he's not a Charger's fan...that shit happens every year. I save my crying for in bed after I make my girlfriend wear a Charger's jersey, pads and a helmet while we make love. Or as I call it, "make touchdowns"

^MaxWilder

My posts are almost always more biting than I intend. It gets me into trouble all of the time, so no worries.

I think I can safely say that I understand where you are coming from, and your logic is right on based on what Christians have lead you to believe about salvation. But that is just the thing about most Christian churches that I dislike. They teach salvation as if it is some sort of checklist. But I think that if you assume God is perfect, you must assume that he is perfectly just. That is, if there were a final judgement, God would make up for all of the inequities of this world and forgive you for things that you could not help. My foster sister lived with us for many years after being taken out of an extremely abusive situation. We did the best we could to help her, but her life is in shambles and will probably never fully recover. Her life is full of what I would call sin. Do I believe that she will be eternally damned? Absolutely not. She is not accountable for her parents' actions.

That is not to say that God overlooks everything. To be religious, you must truly believe in agency and that all or most of your choices are truly your own. Even if it is hard for people to make good choices, they still could have made them and God will judge them accordingly. It's called accountability. Obviously this depends on if the person knows they are sinning or not. Children are not accountable. Insane people are not accountable. I'm not God or anything, but I would think that a trained and indoctrinated terrorist would not be as accountable for murder as I would be, because I have grown up in a healthy society and a good environment.

As for being skeptical and not knowing which religion to choose out of thousands, that may or may not be your own fault. If the right thing has never come your way, of course it isn't your fault. If you have done your best to do what feels moral and correct, you're not going to be eternally damned. If Christians believe that, you don't really believe that God is just and merciful and loving. If I'm right, God does love us. He is not waiting in the shadows to catch us in the act and then throw us into hell.

As for picking and choosing, I don't really believe that I do that. These "opinions" that I speak of do not include important points of doctrine. Most of the stuff Christians "ignore" is the Law of Moses, which I explained was thrown out by all but the Jews after Christ's birth. If you would like to point out something specific from the Bible that you think we (or I) ignore, I would be happy to explain to you why I think it isn't relevent or doctrinal.

Also, I believe in prayer, personal revelation, and modern-day scripture and prophets and all of that, so that always helps with Bible interpretation. I'm an odd duck, though. Most Christians believe that God stopped communicating with us on that level at some point in the past. Don't ask me why he would do that. I guess he doesn't love us as much or something.

I know you guys probably think I'm off my rocker, but I just hope that you realize that there is more to Christianity than meets the eye. Logical thought and theism are not always mutually exclusive.

>> ^jwray:
The United States federal government is not paying for its deficit spending by printing excessive amounts of money. It is borrowing instead. Inflation is at 3.66% and falling. It peaked at 5.6% in July, before the economic upheaval.


Oh really, is that why it takes 3x as many dollars to buy an ounce of gold today than it did ten years ago? Of course the government is printing obscene amounts of money. Stop picking and choosing little short term windows of time where the trend is not apparent, nothing goes in a straight line. Do you even know what monetization of debt means? If foreigners are no longer interested in buying our government debt (bonds) that the treasury issues every year, the Fed has to raise interest rates to lure them in, because that's the yield on their loan to us. But they're LOWERING THEM. Yields are NEGATIVE. You loan money to us, you will be paid back in depreciated dollars that buy less than what you had before you loaned. So now that foreigners aren't doing that, guess who has to step in and buy those bonds? The Federal Reserve. Except that money isn't someone's savings, it isn't backed by a product in the world. It's pure inflation, pure funny money. That's what's coming, their balance sheet is going into the TRILLIONS.

This is the symbiosis that enabled government excess. A tax is an honest appropriation, people see it and are far more likely to resist it. Inflation is arbitrary money creation in a back room that siphons value from existing dollars. You can pull a curtain over that, lie about how much you're doing it, and watch as people see prices go up 10% in health care, food, per annum with absolutely no idea what hit them. After all, the government weatherman says that prices only went up 3%.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

The calculations are a joke, after we left the gold standard in the 70s, they kept changing them to understate real inflation and welfare obligations so they could spend more and more without it being easily noticed. They no longer include homes, energy, or food. Also, they introduced a subjective concept called hedonics adjustment, which negates price increases as inflation by discounting an assumed increase in quality.

The most galling result of this Keynesian nonsense is it blinds people to where inflation is going. Keynesian economics is the equivalent of teaching astrology instead of astronomy. First, they change the definition of inflation to mean prices instead of money supply. The correct definition of inflation is an increase of the money supply with the common RESULT being higher prices. After doing this, they then categorize inflation (to them: prices) into "asset-based" and "goods-based," and tell us that they don't fight asset-based. But asset-based inflation is what causes bubbles in assets like homes and stocks. We want things we own to go up and things we consume to go down, of course, but we don't want our assets to go up from artificial demand created by inflation. That's an illusion. So when inflation goes into tech stocks or homes, nobody sees it as inflation. Not the Keynesian Fed Chairmen, not the Keynesian financial managers, almost anyone with a degree in economics was less reliable than A COIN FLIP. That's when you know when your "science" has a problem. And then boom, when it starts going into commodities futures after the implosion, it exposes the inflation at all once that people were previously blind to.

And then here's a guy like Schiff, Ron Paul's economic advisor and Austrian economist, who was warning the whole god damned time since 2000, telling people to get into gold when it was $275 and getting laughed at by every confused Keynesian educated retard on television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDkoqwflF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

>> ^dtmike07:
Austrian economics has about as much credibility as scientology. They don't even believe in empirical evidence, for crissakes. Mainstream economics does't have a much better theory - essentially its an extended and mathematized version of Austrian economics. But at least mainstream economists know what the data says and use statistical techniques to analyze it. You know, like real scientists. And regarding the Austrian "theory" of the Great Depression - they pretty much pulled it out of their asses. Its just an attempt to blame the whole thing on the government, and exempt the free market. Austrian economics is a religion - the free market is God and government is the Devil.

You are 100% dead wrong on this. Keynesian "empirical data" is bogus, I've only scratched the surface on how they try to complicate simple concepts into a symbiotic swindle by redefining inflation, making up new terms, and it keeps blowing up in their face no matter who's in charge because that's the whole point. For you or Stukafox to even compare this problem to the firecrackers of banking panics (from fractional reserve lending, a legalized form of fraud that persists to this day with government backstops, an entirely different debate) is unbelievable, there's no proportion to a decade long depression and a bunch of shitty banks going under to remind people not to carelessly deposit all their money in banks.

Second of all, economics is a study of human behavior. Keynes was an idiot whose theories arose from a complete misunderstanding of what caused the great depression. He basically threw classical knowledge out the window and decided that economies needed central direction and stimulation by government. See, like the dumbfucks in this video, most people thought letting the banks fail was what caused the depression. It wasn't. It was what came before and after it. The inflation of the 20s was what caused the crash in the first place, you don't have a crash without a Fed-created bubble. You don't have withdrawal without being high on drugs.

But while withdrawal symptoms suck, they're actually the solution to the disease of the high. Hoover and Roosevelt saw the hangover as the disease, and began administering shock therapy. Over the course of many years, they raised tariffs, raised taxrates, and nationalized industry. The economy would have recovered, capital and jobs would have reallocated on its own. Instead, anyone who had any money after that crash had no incentive to invest or employ anyone, because now government was promising to take 90% of your profits if you made any. So unemployment got worse. The tax revenue the government did manage to appropriate, it used to pay for new government jobs that were extremely inefficient (being immune to bankruptcy, financed by theft, and having no competition tends to be an unproductive business model, ask the soviets). FDR also ordered livestock slaughtered and fields plowed under because he believed falling food prices were bad for farmers. No, I'm not making this up. Deflation being bad is another Keynesian myth, they think more efficient production lowering prices makes people sit on their money rather than invest it. Which is totally untrue if you look at the computer sector where prices fall IN SPITE of inflation and have never had problems raising capital or selling well despite falling prices and obsolescence. FDR is the same asshole who allowed Pearl Harbor to be a massacre and issued unconstitutional orders to confiscate gold from the poor, hungry citizens who had just seen the banks absolved for destroying their savings. The man was a fucking monster, it took four terms to get rid of him.

What got us out of the depression was a just war and FDR's death. WWII had the entire country up in arms because we were attacked by another country. People were willing to sacrifice their wants and contribute to the war effort, this was no pushover on a third world country, it took everything we had. People were buying warbonds based on patriotic fervor alone. Massive amounts of infrastructure was built to produce wartime materials. That manufacturing base remained after the war for private industry, taxes came down, trade resumed, and we emerged as a leading producer of wealth in the world. By default. Because the rest of world was in shambles, only the Soviets were left to compete and their socialist economy eventually crumbled. We didn't plan it that way, it just happened. We were also still on a semi-gold standard, we still had a savings rate, and we became the largest creditor nation. We've lost ALL OF THAT. It's all gone, we're the direct opposite now. No gold standard, negative savings rate, largest debtor nation in the WORLD.

Keynes main problem is, politicians have no precise idea what all needs to be produced and created to please everyone in a PEACETIME economy, it's impossible. The free market is millions of individuals with diverse wants and needs, there's no way in hell you can centrally manage that. But they think they can and want to spend, that's why they picked Keynes as a replacement for old models, because his theories completely justified what socialist academics had been wanting to do all along. They honestly believed they could spend money more efficiently than its earner. That's impossible, the earner has a stake in the money. If he throws it away, he loses the labor he spent to obtain it, so he has a natural incentive to be thrifty. A politician spending it loses nothing, they have no incentive to be thrifty. They're people motivated by self-interest, just like you and me, their only legitimate job in the economy was to make sure force and deception is not used when we are out here transacting with one another. That's what graphs and "empirical data" doesn't explain, and it's why history will show Keynes to be a failure.

Far from our free market roots, we centrally fix interest rates, we declare lending standards discriminatory with goofy programs like the community reinvestment act, we redistribute capital from good businesses to failed ones, savers to speculators, and pass all kinds of anti-competitive laws. That's what Ron Paul understood and was going to put a stop to. He was going to end the monopoly on currency that forced us all into accepting the bill for government excess. He was going to end the useless military expenditures overseas. He was going to eliminate the income tax and cripple the ability of politicians to engage in collusive campaign dealings, or "engineer" society by issuing special credits to certain types of marriages, incomes, families, or investments. He knew the enablements, he understood how seemingly innocuous program could change human behavior. Politicians are just lawyers spending and accepting millions of dollars to get a low-paying position of controlling other people's money. That's it. And if you think they should be controlling 50% of our money in life, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Your employers are all going to close up shop to avoid the tax, your education is going to suck, your welfare dollars' value is going to be pissed away on foreign entanglements and overpaid execs, your gold is going to get confiscated (again). It's all coming, comrades.

Reading jwray's stuff makes me want to hurl.

Absolute capitalism without any welfare, inheritance/gift tax, or income tax would become practically indistinguishable from the worst sort of absolute monarchy as the vasy majority of the wealth is concentrated in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

Actually, socialist policies have done nothing but increase, and the problems you describe have gotten worse. Still waiting for that socialist idea that actually increases the wealth of the bottom. Prior to 1913 we never had an income tax. Special tax credits as a form of anti-competitive subsidy were thus impossible, and charity was at its highest in American history. Actually, the funniest part is just the idea that increases taxes on the rich helps in some way. All it does is incentivize those people to sit on their money, or move it into a tax haven, or leave the country altogether. Precisely what happened when Hoover raised marginal rates to 63% and FDR to 90% succeeding him. Would you go through the trouble of running a business if government is taking 90% of what you make if you make anything? Didn't think so.

Whoever owns all the means of living could dictate the terms of their use down to every detail such as what you're allowed to read in your apartment.

Epic fail. In a republic, a constitution prevents rights from being infringed, regardless of how much money one person has over the other. You can't even vote it away with a majority, that's the difference between a republic and a democracy. Who is responsible for electing politicians who follow it and punishing those who don't? You. You are the regulator for the regulators. 98% of the public didn't vote for Ron Paul, therefore 98% of the people don't believe the supreme law is important or should be followed. The end. You have no one but yourself to blame. You've chosen the benevolent dictator route, no law, no concept of barring certain powers under any circumstances. Good luck with that.

Ayn Rand fails to consider that if her pure capitalist system were followed absolutely, someone with enough money could have the same power over everyone as a fascist police state via owning all the media, owning all the land upon which the food is grown, etc.

In order to make that kind of money in a free market system that protects rights, the person to whom you're referring would essentially have to create every product and service with the utmost quality and awesomeness. Remember, with small government, he can't bribe a politician for forcibly appropriated money because the politician doesn't have it. He can't get an anti-competitive tax credit, because income taxes don't even exist for anyone, just like pre-1913. Fraud isn't an option because he would be taken to government courts and lose. False advertising either. Theft either. Rights are protected. What the hell does this person do to get wads and wads of money? Well... they essentially have to create a product or service that millions and millions of people will buy. Need workers for that. No problem, let's hire some workers for a penny a piece. What? They won't work for a penny because someone else is offering them a nickel? Shit, we'll offer them a quarter and still make money! WHAT YOU SAY, HE OUTBID ME ON THAT SKILLED LABOR AGAIN. CHRIST, THIS IS GOING TO TAKE FOREVER, MY PROFIT MARGINS ARE GETTING KILLED BY GODDAMN COMPETITORS TRYING TO DO WHAT I'M DOING AND BIDDING UP WAGES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFdj103G60

Anyway, Ayn Rand's brand of libertarianism is not the popular brand. You're dreadfully confused to be building up this kind of strawman in your fearmongering of capitalism. I think this Milton Friedman link ought to clear it up for you, as well as some other things, such as how dirty technology invariably contributes to its cleaner successor, and how government cannot possibly spend other people's money with as much thrift as people would spend their own. This stuff seems so obvious once you hear it, but you'd be amazed at how clueless most people are at these basic fundamental behaviors. They assume that because 100% capitalism doesn't work, that the optimal system must be 50% or even less capitalism. In reality, just a little bit of government force is necessary and it should require no more than 10% of a people's capital in order to exercise the functions of defending rights and offering courts. It was never intended to appropriate 50% of our money for undeclared wars like Vietnam and Iraq, or subsidize industries in exchange for campaign financing, or fund pet projects, or forcibly manage retirement and health care via unsustainable ponzi schemes.

Remember, outside of nominal appropriations (taxes), the government inflates with a non-market determined money that it is capable of duplicating at no labor or material cost. Even a poor family not paying any income tax and getting welfare payments is having their wages and purchasing power diminished by the inflation tax. This is the key. This is the root cause, it's how despite everything they are getting with the left hand, government is taking more from the right via inflation. This is how our economy came to be in shambles, how markets distorted, how wealth started to transfer from the bottom to the top, like every fiat economy before it. Because those who use the money the Fed is creating increase their bidding power with it while those who have no money can't get their themselves because their wages and savings are being perpetually debased by it. How do you accumulate so much money that you can live off interest on stock for a living when your cost of living continues to rise faster than your wages? Bingo, you've figured it out. Congrats. Inflation is how government finances most of its activities today and this is how our economy has been destroyed. We let go of the gold limit in 71, we had one decent Fed chairman that took away the punch bowl to wipe the slate for another bull run, and that was it, the inevitable collapse of our fiat money is assured from the current hole we've dug. We now abuse our reserve currency status of the world gained under gold to export our inflation worldwide, which is why the problems today are so global. 10 trillion national debt, 70 billion a month trade deficit, 60 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a negative savings rate, two income households barely making ends meet, and an economy that since the early 90s has depended on perpetual credit extensions from the savings of the world to consume imported products that those creditors make in exchange for paper interest that they can recycle back into us or lock in a vault. They get paper, we get products. Yay for them. Yeah, don't delink from the dollar, don't use those savings to invest in production, keep loaning it to us to consume products you can't afford because of it.

These, of course, are policies you support. Libertarians don't want government to have the ability to inflate, because it makes no sense. You can't give government instant access to every person's purchasing power and expect them not to mortgage it. That's precisely what fiat money enables. And chances are that some lawyer spending millions of dollars to get in a low-paying position of legislating and distributing other people's forcibly appropriated money isn't going to be a very honest or incorruptible individual. Not sure why you haven't figured this out yet or why you think this is more efficient or moral than an individual trying to convince you give him your money in exchange for a product or service you want and think might improve your life.

The threat of starvation is just as effective as the threat of violence.

Where are people most starving today and throughout history? Exactly in the types of places where people are least able to keep and spend their own money as they see fit. Did China have to build walls to keep people from going into Hong Kong, or did Hong Kong have to build walls to keep people from going into China?

Many brilliant choices here. For a far less brilliant choice, but your best shot at DIY rockabilly sci fi shambles (with good musical numbers), please check out The American Astronaut.

socialist policies on both sides are leading this country straight into bankruptcy.

Clinton balanced the budget. It's not socialist policies, it's war and tax cuts for the top 1% that are bankrupting the United States.


Let's look at how stupid and hypocritical this is:
1. Video implies that Democrats respect the constitution. Oh, really? Is that why Obama voted for the patriot act and gun bans, both violations of the Bill of Rights.

Since then both Obama and the Democratic Party have supported removing the most heinous parts of the Patriot Act. Obama also supported an effort against telecom immunity in the wiretapping scandal. Neither Obama nor the democratic party has attempted to ban all guns outright, just certain types of guns. Don't forget to read the first half of the sentence in the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is about maintaining a militia, and does not say you have to let every mentally ill person buy an M-249

Or how about joint support for easily inflatable fiat currency, in violation of Article 1, Section 10 which mandates gold backing.

Bullshit. It says: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

The states are not allowed to make their own fiat money, but the federal government is allowed to make fiat money.


How about going to war without congressional declaration in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo and others? All illegal under the same Article and section and all started by the Democrats.

Once again, Article 1 Section 10 is about restrictions on state governments, not restrictions on the federal government. You fail.



2. Video says abortion is about respecting a woman's right to her own body. I'm not even religious and it seems rather obvious to me that abortion is murder of inconvenience. Didn't want the kid? Why did you have unprotected sex? Furthermore, why is a being one minute apart, from womb to exiting, the difference between having no rights and having rights. That makes no sense. Life has to be defined at conception.

Which would you rather save, a conscious adult or a single-celled fertilized egg? The brain of a fly has 200,000 cells. Until the fetus develops enough of a nervous system to become sentient, its only rights are with respect to preventing suffering that might happen to it in the future after it becomes sentient. I.E., causing birth defects should be illegal but early abortion should be allowable for any reason whatsoever. Birth is NOT the single point where rights are granted; the supreme court has previously upheld a ban on late-term abortions (minus a few exceptional circumstances like saving the life of the mother).



3. Video implies that allowing drugs to be chosen immediately is a bad thing because they haven't been tested. Dude, that's against freedom. If you're dying of cancer, and you want to try an experimental drug, who the fuck cares if it's unsafe? YOU'RE GOING TO DIE. Government has no right to restrict you that opportunity to research and get advice from your doctor about it. And what about all the people who die during the delays that the FDA imposes on new drugs. How can those deaths ever show up in statistics?


You can get non-FDA-approved drugs by participating in the human studies required for FDA approval, which is exactly what you would be doing if you got an experimental treatment.

We need the FDA to keep the snake oil salesmen at bay. Selling bad medicine is not just fraud, it's often manslaughter.


4. Video implies that we should continue to block domestic drilling to prevent potential harm to some wildlife. This isn't a cartoon, drilling doesn't leave an area in shambles. Have fun trying to fly planes with solar panels and meeting our power needs without emission-free nuclear, recyclable nuclear, which you've blocked for thirty years with fear-mongering campaigns about shitty soviet reactors from the 70s. Have fun watching Bush starting insane wars in the middle east and begging Saudi princes to increase production because we have to import 70% of our oil from abroad because of these insane energy policies. Say hello to peak oil and $300 a barrel oil in the coming years.

Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants
The anti-nuclear fear mongering is lessening as people realize that it's better for the environment than coal. It won't do shit about dependence on foreign oil unless people buy plug-in electric cars, but it will reduce our dependence on domestic coal.


You can't lower the price by debasing your currency to pay for 60 trillion in unfunded ponzi scheme welfare promises started by FDR, blocking oil, and blocking nuclear.


Sweden's deficit is 0.01% of its GDP, and France's deficit is under 3% of its GDP, while the USA's deficit is 4% of its GDP, despite the fact that both France and Sweden have much broader welfare programs than the USA.

If Bush's tax cuts for millionaires were undone, and the Iraq war (and "homeland security" pork) never happened, the budget would be balanced. (do the math)