Indeed, however with small exception I thought we were being fairly civil. That said, we all know what to expect from the 'little f*#king thing'. It's why the admins are constantly on his ass, and he may be banned again.

My point about veracity was that one has to trust the 'reporting' by others who may have an agenda to further. Without first hand knowledge, it's difficult for some (like me) to give full trust in ANY reports. I tried to read the first link you provided, but it started with a 'letter' to Saddam and I admit I didn't go farther.
As I recall, the numbers were more in the 1-300K dead from the ethnic cleansing (I have 175K in my head, but I don't know if that's right). I was old enough to watch the reports live when it happened in the 80's-90's and worry I might be drafted. I have not intended to imply Saddam wasn't terrible, only to imply he was not as bad as possible.

What I've seen so far from ISIS were hundreds if not thousands of 'prisoners' marched to their execution after surrender, even after swearing allegiance to ISIS, reports of mass rapes, village destruction, 'warnings' to all those not in line to leave or die, takeover of 1/2 the country in weeks (or less), all by 5000 people. Reports are that they are gaining members, allies, and massive amounts of money and arms. For their size, they appear to be worse than Saddam, who had hundreds of thousands, if not millions at his disposal. If you multiplied the videoed crimes of ISIS in just the last week by 200+, you would understand my point that they seem worse than most weeks of Saddam's rule....when you consider their respective sizes.
I'll hope you are correct, and ISIS is soon to be wiped out, but it's certainly not happening yet. No matter how it plays out, you are certainly right that ugly times are ahead for Iraq.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

I had a problem with this in just a conceptual way. First of all there's no way in hell the American government would let that stand for even a day, they'd destroy the entire fucking city and have no problem doing it. Which makes me wonder, couldn't we have it be two movies and have Bane own the city without it being a hostile takeover with guns and outward aggression? I mean Bane would be the strong man absolutely, but his handler would've done better to create a criminal utopia instead and try to drive it into the ground through corruption. You could make allusions to Chicago or Baltimore, it could get seriously deep.

Spreading it over two movies would be essential to tell a more complex and weaving tale. It would've been the greatest series of movies ever made if they had done it the hard way, I think they were just trying to get it done or something.

A case of winning the short term battles but losing the wars....

I am still deeply pissed off at Newt Gingrich for how he singlehandedly dismantled our political process with two things. (1) His Contract with America, where he browbeat all Republicans to always ALWAYS vote the partyline, instead of their conscience and (2) His List of Words that he taught to all Republicans -- positive words to describe themselves and negative words to describe their Democrat opponents, regardless the truth of them.

His soundbite tactics led to a Republican takeover -- and to the end of compromise, negotiation, across the aisle deal making.

It also led directly to Romney's defeat. Enough of the people are sick of these tactics.

I know lots of people get upset at the idea of the dreaded "compromise." But this country is made up of a variety of people with different interests. I figure a law is pretty good if it vaguely annoys everyone. If one "side" crows victory where there truly is a difference of policy and opinion, then we're in trouble. In my opinion.

That's kind of interesting. Considering that from what I understand the chestburster popping out was a much delayed change to the story done by the studio takeover after Fincher left. I still think the "david fincher" cut is really interesting and my preferred way to watch the movie now.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare, if you check out the channel of the people who created the video there is a clear agenda vs Obama (when there isn't flat out parody going on). It's cool that this hospital is doing this, and it sorely needs to be done, but let's point fingers in the right direction. The health care system has been driven by greed and money for decades, and goes back for many Democratic and Republican administrations. Government is less to blame here (and certainly no single president), but the takeover of the healthcare system by capitalism and people who are more interested in making a buck.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
bring on the corporate take-over of the industry and watch the quality diminish.

Well that's probably not true. A large corporation isn't going to risk their money with takeover from the federal government. I imagine what you'll have is something like wine. Small operations and small businesses who have been growing weed before but now can do it out in the open. Hopefully that won't force the product to dip drastically, and also it will inspire competition between growers due to more public and allowable advertising. You can try different peoples stuff and maybe it'll be your thing.

They have only legalised possession so far though. Growing/distribution still seems to be illegal for the moment right?

Anyway, its not as if budweiser is the only option when it comes to alcohol. Plenty of smaller businesses making different varieties. Look at Amsterdam coffee shops.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
bring on the corporate take-over of the industry and watch the quality diminish.

Well that's probably not true. A large corporation isn't going to risk their money with takeover from the federal government. I imagine what you'll have is something like wine. Small operations and small businesses who have been growing weed before but now can do it out in the open. Hopefully that won't force the product to dip drastically, and also it will inspire competition between growers due to more public and allowable advertising. You can try different peoples stuff and maybe it'll be your thing.


i never thought about it like that, with the whole "free economy competition" aspect of it. or advertising. very good point.

also i chuckle every time the guy at :48 says "one ounce of marijuana" and holds two fingers an inch apart. obviously has never seen an ounce of weed in his life.

>> ^Trancecoach:

bring on the corporate take-over of the industry and watch the quality diminish.


Well that's probably not true. A large corporation isn't going to risk their money with takeover from the federal government. I imagine what you'll have is something like wine. Small operations and small businesses who have been growing weed before but now can do it out in the open. Hopefully that won't force the product to dip drastically, and also it will inspire competition between growers due to more public and allowable advertising. You can try different peoples stuff and maybe it'll be your thing.

Unless Darken is signing my paycheck, I answer however I damned well please. And my side business selling straw men, well, I didn't build that, Obama did.

Many on that list are Obama 'accomplishments' only for leftists.


Ears didn't end anything in Iraq, it was already happening when he took office.

He had nothing to do with Moammar and would support whoever came out on top.

The stimulus, particularly the bank bailouts, did nothing except put us in greater debt.

The Chevy Volt is a failure.

Government takeover of healthcare?...I only wish ALL the new taxes Obamacare will hit us with would happen at once, so the oblivious can experience the rotten deal and betrayal of Constitution.

FDA regulating tobacco? Another step backwards from ending Drug Prohibition.

The two UNqualified affirmative action judges added to Supreme Court.

Billions lost to green jobs scams/putting the kibosh on the Keystone pipeline.

...and so forth.

Obama running on his record? Go right ahead. It's why he's where he's at today.


>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^quantumushroom:
An "enraged" Maddow doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor is her blather worth commenting on.
It's just nice to see the left dick-punched with their own tactics, the righty version of lib lies like "trickle-down" and "tax cuts for the rich" (and calling everyone a racist).
You all think Obama has a record worth running on? Let him know. Cause even he don't believe it.
"Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama's claims about "creating jobs" with one plain and inescapable fact — "there hasn't been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office." Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost."
>> ^DarkenRahl:
Do you EVER respond to the actual video and/or discussion? You must have a side business selling straw men.
>> ^quantumushroom:
The FORMER big three networks were all liberally-biased for decades (and are still in denial about it).
It's a miracle there are as many righties as there are, with leftists controlling government schools and hollywood.
The internet has saved this nation from the former "fourth estate" who betrayed and murdered real journalism to stump for taxocrats.
There's something wrong when FOX holds one point of view but ALL THE OTHER networks parrot the same line of socialist claptrap.
Oh, I almost forgot. Man-made global warming--or even plain global warming, continues to be a sham.
And fk castro.
THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE RIGHT HAS SPOKEN!



So the answer to @DarkenRahl 's question is...no.
It cracks me up that the right thinks Obama isn't or can't run on his record. He's been running on his record since day one. The right continues to pretend to live in an alternate universe. I know you listen to fox news and they're demonstrably mis-informing people on a regular basis, but you've either missed or willfully ignored his many accomplishments
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma
gazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

I know an older Christian that I greatly respect who blames the recent collapse of conservatism on the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was in seminary school when it happened. The fundamentalists moved in and started a wave of ideological contraction that has become the basis for the social side of modern neo-conservatism.

In that regard I blame fundamental Christianity for the general stupidification of the US.>> ^RFlagg:

Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

>> ^Deano:

That's quite likely.
I might liken it to some glass-blowing videos. There must be some out there where the technique is flawless but perhaps the end result isn't that showy or interesting. And the same with martial arts. The bottom line is I do need to apply some sort of filter even if it's only my gut judgement.
>> ^ghark:
>> ^Deano:
>> ^chingalera:
>> ^Deano:
Well what precisely is skillful about this clip? Looks like a guy doing interpretative dance - slowly.

Thia guy pretty much single-handedly fast-tracked western cultures on the road to Chinese martial arts development-As well as being an extremely fluid practitioner of Wing Chun, he was able to transmute the art across time and space in his lifetime to what we know of today as the evolution of Kung Fu.
It qualifies dude, take my word for it.

Like some other submissions the problem is the skill is implied but not shown. I'm sure the dude is awesome but we need to see him doing something awesome.

I think in this case, to be the judge of whether he is doing something skillful you'd need to be versed in the forms he is displaying.



Ahhhhhh! Thaks mate, I agree whole-hardheartedly with your self-composed criteria. It is, after all, a subjective judgement that moulds any course or ruling. If you watch this with a limited background in the history of the Chinese martial arts it does look as if this old codger is lilting around his flat practicing some form of mime or interpretive dance.
This cat kept the torch burning on the southern Shaolin art of Wing Chun-The system was developed during the Shaolin and Ming resistance to the Qing Dynasty and has been passed-down exclusively through direct transmission from practitioners until this last century, when his student, Bruce Lee (who makes it look so skilful as to be psychedelic at times) who was able to transform the art by making it available to the entire world. Quite a feat for an old Chinaman who survived the Japanese occupation and the Communist takeover, both some very hellish times and experiences in the "against all odds" category.

The mans' a legend and that feeble-looking dance translates into his 90-yr-old ass clearing a room full of thugs with hammers, knives and sharp sticks!

>> ^VoodooV:

I sorta agree with that. But the thing is, he knew he'd get booed. It was a ploy. It's not like he went in there thinking he could honestly convince them that AHCA should be repealed. When he said that, he wasn't talking to the crowd, he was talking to the people who already agree with him.
That's the thing with the degradation of political discourse these days. Very few politicians actually attempt to convince people that their ideas are better, they merely try to rally people who already support them. It's far easier to rile up people who already agree with you than it is to convince someone who doesn't agree with you.
It should be obvious that health care as it is now is in need of reform. We keep spending more but we get less and less in return. We can't keep doing this. It was originally a Republican idea to reform it. I don't pretend to know much about AHCA so I can't really comment much on specifics, but I think everyone even on the left acknowledges it's not a perfect program. So let's correct those issues? My far right-leaning uncle who was a pharmacist complained all the time about the increased paperwork and red-tape because of AHCA. OK...that's a legitimate complaint. Let's DO something about that. Let's actually fix the problem instead of playing political games.
You want to repeal it? fine, but show me a better plan that you want to replace it with instead of returning to the status quo. I haven't seen anyone doing that. I want to move forward, not backwards.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't think this was a bad moment for him at all. He calmly waited out the booing, didn't back down, and tied Obamacare to his economic message. Overall, I think he handled it pretty well.



Do you buy the liberal talking point that Romney deliberately mentioned he would repeal Obamacare so that it would "jazz up" racist conservatives in the republican base? Because he gave the NAACP the same speech he gives everywhere else, so if you're saying this speech was for someone else, then who, and why is this different in front of a black audience, if you aren't charging Romney with playing to racists?

There is so much divisiveness in this election. It's rich versus poor, men versus women, and black versus white. This country is more divided even than it was during the bush years. I think there is a lot of merit to the charge that since the president cannot run on his record, he is making this election about anything but a referendum on his job performance. Don't get me wrong, because I pray for the president and his family, but this shows such an intellectual dishonesty on his part. For someone who ran on hope and change in 2008, promising to fundamentally change the discourse in Washington, he has shown a willingness to say or do anything to keep his job; in other words, he is no different than any other politician. Washington has become much more divisive and sanctimonious since he took office, and I think this shows a failure of leadership.

I agree with what you're saying about healthcare. We should have some kind of system in place, and if the republicans are going to repeal Obamacare, they should have an alternative idea (preferably with far less government involvement). I don't think it's a bad idea in principle, but honestly I think that a government takeover of our healthcare system is never going to be anything other than a total nightmare. It's projected cost is already nearly 3 times what it was said to be originally, and it hasn't even been implemented yet. It is also going to cut medicare hugely. My mom is going to lose her health insurance directly because of Obamacare. It is a juggernaut and no one really knows how this will all play out. I simply do not trust the government to manage this; I think government management of our lives to that extent is a big mistake, especially for individual liberties. The nanny state will always lead to fascism in the end.

Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, Mali. I'm sure there are others. I have traveled extensively in Malaysia and Turkey, where mosques are as numerous as churches in the USA, and the people of those countries belie every disparaging remark posted in this thread. >> ^messenger:

@chingalera
Well stated. I agree with your comparison of the two religions, but I think my point also stands that Muslims (or anybody) in countries without basic freedoms, especially freedom of speech and a free press are bound to be a lot more screwed up than those living under democracy and the freedoms that we enjoy. I think the corporate oligarchy is a red herring here. Sure, it's real, but that doesn't mean our democracy is zero. We have lots of freedom and power, even if our governments aren't as much "by the people" as they ideally could be. Could you imagine if elections were taken away altogether, if our leaders had no accountability whatsoever, and we didn't have a free press? Muslim or Christian or atheist, we would be a lot less civilized and a lot easier to manipulate to hate the "other". I mean, does anyone have any fears of attack or takeover by Muslims from Indonesia, Mali or Malaysia? Not that I've ever heard of, yet they're Muslim majority countries. The difference: democracy.
In a nutshell, you can't impose Iran- or Saudi-style Islamic rule on an existing democracy. Western Europe might change, and sure it'll cause discomfort and conflict, but nothing even remotely approaching deserving any of the comments cited in the video.

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

Ok thanks for that. Damn. I'll try and sort this out.
In reply to this comment by CrushBug:
In reply to this comment by dag:
Possible I could get a screenshot?

In reply to this comment by CrushBug:
Chrome. It is some sort of Facebook takeover, because if I click on either of the border images, it takes me to Facebook. It is pretty messed up.



Let me know if this works:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3843702/VideoSift1.png
This is what I see when I first go to the 'Sift. Then, about a second later:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3843702/VideoSift2.png
this shows up on the sides. If I click on the fireworks on the side, it takes me to Facebook.

Seems to only be on the main page and does not show up on this profile page.