thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

Right-wingnut douchebags like this make it hard to like christains (as though it wasn't hard enough already).

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Meaning, that government gets its power from the people. Further, this power comes down from the Most High God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Has the government strayed far from the intentions of the founders? The answer is a resounding yes. It is most certainly becoming a police state. This is the broader trend in the world, that will eventually coalesce into a totalitarian one world government.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

I agree that our government is corrupt and acts contrary to our interests. However, I am not an anarchist. If a government is infringing upon our inherent rights or direct commands given to us by God, then yes I think we have the right under God to disobey them. Protesting rich people doesn't appear to fall under that category.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.

No, I say that if you receive an order from authority you can expect to be forced into compliance if you disobey that authority. My comment is about the way this incident was portrayed, as if the protesters were just arbitrarily sprayed without any warning.

As far as the occupy movement offering a redress of grievances, I hardly see how a bunch of marxists, and socialists waving communists flags, defecating in the streets, and shooting up in their tents addresses any relevant issue this country is facing. It started out with a point, and was quickly taken over by hippies, anarchists, and every other far left wingnut with a pet cause and a bucket for handouts.

Comparing this sad menagerie to the civil rights movement? Come on..

because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

This is just a shadow of what is to come. The future rule of the antichrist is going to make Nazi Germany look like candyland.



>> ^enoch:

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peacef.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

wingnut and *wings

Moving this video to wingnut's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Moving this video to wingnut's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^critical_d:

photography
evil
psychedelic
fantasy
techno
boats
protests


techno = #electronica, boats are in #water, and evil is crazy subjective. Just imagine the resident wingnuts putting every Dan Savage video in it because gay = sin.

Everything else is added.

To me, it's not whether or not the government was involved; it's whether or not the official story is correct. Some of the gathered and reviewed information contesting the official story is intriguing. Not sure why people are called wingnuts for wanting to learn more or challenge current held beliefs.

Do I think Dubya was behind some conspiracy? No. Do I think there could be more to that day than what the government tells me? Absolutely. Do I like to wear lady's underpants? Like a fucking boss.

Yes. I was trying to reinterpret the "God-hates-fags-so-he-gave-them-AIDS" line with something just as scientifically rigorous in light of the new evidence, and which stays well within religious wingnut logic.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^messenger:

Can you see now, homophobes? God didn't create HIV because he "hates fags". Rather, these people are God's chosen ones to finally deliver the cure for cancer. Suck on that, haters!

You know gay people didn't invent HIV, right?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Why would an entirely hypothetical, fake alien invasion lead to life-loss?
Like I said, it's a silly, nerdy way to make a point. Why are you pretending it's something worth getting even slightly upset about?
Is it any worse than Perry talking about Texans roughing up Ben Bernanke or accusing him of treason for doing the job the previous Governor of Texas appointed him to do?


Krugman thinks wars are excellent ways to stimulate the economy (even jovially alludes to it with his comment about WWII). The bigger the war, the bigger the stimulus. He's kidding about aliens invading, but follow his logic here. What's bigger than a war against another nation? Answer: a war against another planet.

Krugman doesn't care about the casualties, it's about the numbers. To him war is good because it creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Peace is bad.

This is why Keynesian economics is such bullshit.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.


Why would an entirely hypothetical, fake alien invasion lead to life-loss?

Like I said, it's a silly, nerdy way to make a point. Why are you pretending it's something worth getting even slightly upset about?

Is it any worse than Perry talking about Texans roughing up Ben Bernanke or accusing him of treason for doing the job the previous Governor of Texas appointed him to do?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?


No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.

>> ^blankfist:

Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.


Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^hpqp:
Ha, this is the first thing I thought of as well.
>> ^blankfist:
Krugman is Ozymandias from Watchmen. A central planner.
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/08/15/watchmen-paul-krugman-a
lien-invasion/
[thanks to @gwiz665 for the link]


That's actually the whole reason I sifted this clip.
I didn't really expect people to come and talk about the actual economics, I expected people to blather on about Ozzy and Watchmen and the NWO and Agenda 21 and the NAFTA Superhighway...


Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.