the difference between Matt Damon in this, and say, Sean Penn, is that he is probably doing this interview on an unrelated manner. He doesn't consider himself a world leader, like that jackass Sean Penn, he is just giving his view when ASKED about his view in an interview.

if a family member of my was killed, yes i would want the person sentenced to death. But thats personal revenge, should we really have an official government policy of revenge?

It's extremely frustrating to read youtube/digg comments on this, to hear people talk about QM where they have no idea what an electron is. An electron has no physical properties, by definition it's a single point, you can't just photograph and shoot a photon at a single point and get any sort of detail.
I am pretty much just reiterating Sineral's great post, probably without as much knowledge on this as him, but I am just glad that Videosift is not the same as digg/youtube.

real further "progress"?
On one hand, I agree with what you said. A society going for happiness, pleasure, and just working all the time, is completely pointless. These people working on their spreadsheets, and reading gossip magazines, what is the fucking point?
But on the other hand, what is the fucking point of anything else? Do you want people to sit around and worship? And be spiritual? People are doing exactly what they should do, which is go for their own selfish goals. It's fucking pointless, but so is everything else.

"Huh? If you're talking about the fact that they're better at being "big brother" and over taxing, you're right."
I am as libertarian as any other guy on here, but you can't say regulations like this are "big brother". There needs to be rules on the uses of these trucks on public property, and this is for sure a valid regulation

how is Simpsons plus Nirvana not an instant front page

I don't think Ron Paul is saying he is against relations with Mexico/Canada, he is just saying he does not believe in a union because he feels America needs to keep it's complete sovereignty. A union, something like the European Union, might end up having control of some of the policies of each individual country, without their complete sovereignty.

They don't give any evidence, they just say there is evidence.
The media is a group of corporations doing anything they can for money. This does not result in the best way to educate the masses, this just results in giving people what they want. What bothers me about Chomsky always complaining about this, is that he is supposed to be somewhat of a libertarian, MEANING, he should respect that the market decides the product, not a single group or person deciding what the masses should be told. If a media organization is not giving the people what they want, then they will not last, something else would take their place. It's not the best way to educate the public, but any other way would mean there would be some asshole like Chomsky telling people exactly what they should feel.
This is why you can not complain about certain candidates not getting on the air. They are trying to put whatever is popular on the air, to receive the best ratings, judging by the polls. It's not as if the media has decided to avoid Ron Paul or Mike Gravel because of their politics, it's that they are not a good source of revenue (or for Ron Paul until recently)

deedub81 wrote:
I think that last line sums it up. Ron Paul supporters are "a bunch of liberals pretending to be republicans."

I agree with this entirely. He is not saying that Ron Paul is a liberal, he is saying most of his new found fans are liberals that are attracted to him just because of his stance against the war and his attacks on other republicans. And thats entirely Ron Paul's fault, where his focus is too much on the war and not enough on actual libertarian policies in the debates.
The media is not ignoring Ron Paul, it is not some corporation conspiracy, they simply want to give air time to whoever has the most popularity, and most of them would base this off of the polls. I have seen way more of Ron Paul on CNN, and various talk shows like Daily show/Tonight show than I have ever seen of both Huckabee or Thompson.

What he is talking about should not be seen as a problem with Western media, it's his misunderstanding of human nature.
When you have people choosing what they want to watch, it's true that most people will not give time for radical ideas and will not want to hear things that they do not agree with. Nightline or whatever, has to be competitive, and what they go for is ratings entirely, which is exactly what they should go for. What is on TV is what people want to watch, you can't complain about that because it's not what you feel people SHOULD watch, thats not a free market. Thats exactly what Chomsky is doing here, he claims to be about freedom when the solution to the problems he is talking about implies we must CONTROL the media.

I can't stand Chomsky just because he is not a libertarian as he claims, he another leftist political activist, only complaining about what he sees as the lack of morality in world politics and problems with equality.
This is said a lot about him, but all he does is talk about problems, he never gives solutions. The solutions that are implied require someone controlling the media, or controlling democracy. The problem is he has the wrong idea of human nature, and doesn't realize when you give people complete freedom, THIS is how the world is, it's not perfect, it's not moral, and it's not equal.

"Anti-smoking laws, for example, are put in place to protect the rights of non-smokers not to limit the rights of smokers"
Anti-smoking laws for restaurants you mean? I support that restaurants have the option of not allowing smoking, so if a person wants to go into a smoke free restaurants they can, or if a person wants to build a smoke free bar. But according to the canadian laws, if I wanted to go build a bar in the middle of nowhere, allow smoking, and put giant signs everywhere saying 'PEOPLE SMOKE HERE', I can't do that. How is that not taking away rights? How the hell is that enforcing rights? People who don't smoke have the option of not going into a smokers bar.
Or do you mean the sin taxes? Because how the hell is charging smokers more protecting non-smokers rights? Or how is it doing anything but charging more because in the end it will cost the health system more?
And seatbelts? Maybe you don't live in a country with a full health system, but they do justify increasing seatbelt laws because it hurts the health system

I live in Canada, and they justify increasing laws like seatbelts regulation, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, general health /safety regulations, because of public health care. It takes away your rights.
Because I am forced to go under the government health care system, I am forced to go under their rules of how I should live. I can not have the freedom to be an idiot, and do things that might risk or harm my body, because if I am an idiot then that costs the society.
If you make health public and socialized (which would be the only option if it was not profit driven) you make it other peoples business how you live your life, and in the end your rights are taken away.
For example, if I wanted house insurance I have the option of going with several companies and their rules. Maybe one company demands I get certain type of roofing, maybe another charges more but lets me do whatever I want with the house. I have the option of going with whatever rules I choose. Once this insurance becomes national, and the only option, I no longer can choose how I want to live. If I want to go into health insurance plan that lets me smoke and do drugs, I should be able to.
I understand the US has seltbelt laws and such, and smoking/drinking is sin taxed, but not NEARLY as much as in Canada, and the reason is our health care system.

Socialized medience keeps the majority happy just because they don't directly see what they get charged (most income tax goes to health care in canada), and they don't care about rights unless it affects them (and in many cases, only care about the exact rights that affect them, rather than overall rights, for example the divid with people who want drugs legalized and the people who want less gun control, they are both going for more civil rights but have become two very distinct groups).
I am not trying to be an economist and to convince people that a free market is more profitable, all I am saying is that I want to live my life as I choose.

I've realized I can't stand Moore, he seems to find it so ridiculous that anyone would disagree with them he doesn't even try to have a reasonable arguement, rather he just falls back on the same morals about having profits in the health industry.