there's a lot here and i just don't have the time/attention to give to this, but I too took issue with Brand's notion of "all profit resulting in deficit." I believe he's using the word "deficit" colloquially, and not as an economic descriptor. But then, who knows what that fast-talking performer really "means."

Funny, as I recall it was Retardicans that took a huge budget SURPLUS and turned it into deficit and debt. They only started caring about debt and deficit when it was no longer under their complete control.
My suggestion...0% incumbents in the next election...and 0% Teabaggers. And I think it's incumbent on all of us to viciously ridicule anyone supporting them or their current methods.

*promote


They say they care about debt and deficit? THEN PAY IT OFF WITH TAX INCREASES.

Liars liars liars. I can't hardly stand the lying.

http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-the-National-Debt-and-Budget-Deficit

Quit complaining about debt ffs.

Debt is not bad. Debt you can't pay back/afford is.

Congratulations to both Dag and Lucky for fostering one of the most devisive and vindictive assholes to the highest echelon of the VidoeSift community.

As much as I actually get along with BF, the fact that someone can cause as much shit, as many sock puppet accounts, and attack as many people in this community is the absolute #1 reason why VS has become a back, back, back, back burner for me when I'm incredibly bored and looking to waste time when even TMZ, which is a repository that I find incredibly dull, has been exhausted.

I guess the 10bucks a month or whatever is now a great reason to allow users to abuse other members and the guidlines themselves, over and over and over again.

So, have fun VS.

And before anyone can jump in, yes, I'm really sure I'll be such a big deficit for this community going forward. So, save it, folks. We all come and go and noone's important to any community unless you're devoting your own time for free, or actual money. So, whatever.

Later



-me

@NinjaInHeat IANAL, but isn't a loophole the exact definition of legally circumventing a law?

My statement doesn't imply concern for Apple, but with our obscene tax burden. Sure, Apple is avoiding taxes, but would paying them make any difference to our hideously massive deficit?

I'd rather see Apple use that money researching a better iPhone, than have government waste it on incompetence, war, and corruption.

Also, what's up with wanting corporations to be heavily taxed? Do you think Apple's profits are obtained at the expense of society? Don't they provide anything of value (like, you know, Apple products) to justify those profits?

If you think they should be punished for being so successful, what kind of message does that send to other businesses, "if you're successful and you grow, we will award you with higher taxes"?

Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how people sometimes uphold the most blatantly anti-capitalistic views and practices, only to accuse capitalism of being a failure.

I know the people in this group. Frankly, I'm kind of disappointed. I think the general idea is that there is some neural process, colloquially called attention, that is fundamental and possibly indicative of intelligence in general. Many people haven't thought about it carefully, but really attention has as much to do with suppression of irrelevant information as it does spotlighting relevant information. In the visual domain, it's often thought about as masking, or background subtraction. The finding here is supposed to tap into that relationship. High IQ people found it much easier to see the motion of the smaller target, and actually showed a deficit at detecting the larger (backgroundish) object. Frankly, I think it's squishy as all get out. The correlation was relatively strong, but I felt it relied heavily on a couple of subjects. In the end, my problem is really with the whole enterprise of trying to assess an ill-defined concept like intelligence. It would be interesting if a similar finding held across other perceptual modalities however. Even I would have to bother to listen at that point.

Of course, you are right that there are other components to health, however, I think the majority of our health is accomplished by what we do to our insides with a minority of the benefit coming through exercise.

I find it compelling that the heart patients too sick for bypass surgery are sent to Joel Fuhrman for fasting followed by a plant-based diet in order to get them safely back to health. In your own back yard, Joe Cross came out with "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead." and was healed to health through a plant-based diet. The evidence for health through proper nutrition is now overwhelming. From Dr. John McDougal's, "The McDougal Plan," through Dr. Neil Barnard's, "Reversing Diabetes," we are seeing that the western diet is the main reason for the burden on our healthcare system.

My own story is this: Several years ago my blood pressure was 210/120. I was on 4 medications and had edema in my legs and was, at 54 years old, feeling that I was on my way out. The doctors were so concerned that they continued to recommend additional drugs and tests to see what was going on. At that point I went to an old friend named Richard. He is a nutritionist and he and his 10 children have NEVER been to a doctor. (He claims it is because he didn't poison his family with sugar and white flour among other processed foods). Through natural foods and supplements, he healed me. Last year I completed two rounds of P90X. That was the benefit of the internal healing. I was able to do that.

All that being said, a plant-based diet doesn't necessarily mean no meat. But if people choose to do a no meat diet, I suggest strongly that they plan on figuring out their protein requirements and making sure that they can eat a broad enough range of fruits, vegetables and legumes in order that they don't run a protein deficit. That is different, in my way of thinking, from a protein deficiency. It is possible to get all of some of the amino acids needed and lack some of the others. Trust me, that results in some weird side effects.

I believe the huge problem with discussing this issue with people is that it seems everyone has something to protect. So I normally don't talk about it unless someone comes to me who wants to get well. Even then, I am just a resource and offer no medical advice personally. I do, however, have a story to share with regards to improper nutrition.

I will add this beautiful tidbit : Linus Pauling's protocol for reversing heart disease is, in my mind, a remarkable piece of work. One doctor, when asked what he thought about it, said that he wasn't too sure it would work, but then again he hadn't won two Nobel Prizes either.

I've heard of her, and I've heard of the initiative. Also have heard of the online democratic voting system. I am someone who'd support this more than 100%.
Was incredibly dismayed that at the time of my signing, only ~1300 people of the 100k necessary had given their vote.
I signed, but for someone who's "faith" in the US is already well in the deficit, that's not doing much for me.

Still signed though! At least....

10/10 for trolling. You got me. Responded to my comment where I said, verbatim, "NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THIS," to ask for number-clarification. This put distance between my comment, and then you could accuse me of saying that I think we should do that. Mad props.

Or maybe you weren't trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and very politely explain the discussion, assuming you just forgot.

QM said something silly and hyperbolic:

If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.

At least get your math right, man. No one is suggesting this, but if you seized 100% of the top 1%'s income, you'd get around $1.2T more from them than now, and that would just about cover 2012's deficit.

And $250B would cover 24 days.

In short, LEARN TO MATH.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you took all of the top 1%'s wealth, (which is what *you* said), you'd get $16T, enough to pay off our national debt or fund the federal government for 4-5 years.

Where did you get your figures? I don't believe.

http://videosift.com/video/The-National-Debt-and-Deficit-Deconstructed-Tony-Robbins

Where did you get your figures? I don't believe.

http://videosift.com/video/The-National-Debt-and-Deficit-Deconstructed-Tony-Robbins

False. First of all, the top 10% aren't rich, most of them are middle class. Second of all, the top 10% don't pay 70% of "the tax" per your own link they pay that high a percentage of the INCOME tax. What percentage of the payroll tax (40% of federal revenue, and equal in magnitude to income tax) do they pay? If we count their capital gains as income, what's their effective tax rate? How about if we count all taxes (e.g. sales), and break down the effective tax rate?

I'm fine with cutting spending, so long as the spending getting cut in lieu of tax increases comes entirely from the spending funded by the income tax which you are apparently complaining is too progressive. That means slashing the defense budget exclusively because frankly that is the only significant contributor to the deficit paid out of the general fund (other than interest on your party's debt, much of which is owed to the Social Security fund). Medicare and Social Security are both financed by FICA which is not the unfair tax you seem so concerned about.

Any dollar cut from Social Security and Medicare should be repaid by a dollar of payroll tax cuts, not income tax cuts.

One would have to be absolutely clinically insane or severely Serotonin deficit (but would that not be the same as clinically "insane"?) if they did not enjoy MDMA / MDA. I can understand why people would not be interested in DMT. It shows one just how little they & we (the general world) know. Comparing MDMA to DMT is like comparing a catholic preacher to a Quantum Mechanics genius that lives on another planet we haven't even visited yet that has lived for millions of years and thinks your ignorance (Not you personally TC, I know you know) is fucking hilarious.

Serious research must be done. The fact that such an extreme divide even exists should be reason enough. I think the American institution must be pathologically insane for even having done so little in the field or else they have and KNOW that society would change for the better and we obviously can't have that happening, now can we?

If everyone starts smoking DMT, now, humanity might evolve to harbor the first generation of telepathic children. Who fucking knows? Whatever the fuck it is, it has been used for ages, it is not Earth like, and it feels like the real "reality", it feels like the future. Though it is apart of everything and every time that has ever existed. It looks a way that I would never ever be able to describe with puny, puny, puny, puny human words. And I used to think LSD was beautiful. PSH!


SMOKE DMT NOW. LOTS OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! POUNDS OF IT

I've said it before, conservatives only bitch about deficit spending when it's a democrat in the white-house.

At least get your math right, man. No one is suggesting this, but if you seized 100% of the top 1%'s income, you'd get around $1.2T more from them than now, and that would just about cover 2012's deficit.

And $250B would cover 24 days.

In short, LEARN TO MATH.

Edit: Oh, yeah, and if you took all of the top 1%'s wealth, (which is what *you* said), you'd get $16T, enough to pay off our national debt or fund the federal government for 4-5 years.