>> ^ChaosEngine:

Remember when Hitchens got into trouble for saying that women aren't funny?
These two are not proving him wrong.


Crap in a hat, I upvoted your comment only to realise there was a "not" in it. I think Harto is pretty funny, and Jenna can be too. But there are way funnier women, that's for sure.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Remember when Hitchens got into trouble for saying that women aren't funny?
These two are not proving him wrong.

In other news; all opinions are equally factual.

Try finding it in a volcano!

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
Now that she brings it up. Water...it really is everywhere. What's up with that?

Your video, How to Trick People into Thinking You're Jenna Marbles, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Jenna Marbles, My Drunk Kitchen, parody' to 'Jenna Marbles, My Drunk Kitchen, parody, Hannah Hart, harto' - edited by calvados

She's way funnier than the real Jenna Marbles.

@marbles, the most powerful psychological weapon being deployed on us right now is the simplistic idea that you can classify an entire category as universally "bad" or "good".

Signing statements are not all bad, nor are they all good.

Similarly, "targeted killing" is a pretty icky concept. But Obama's trying to emphasize that as an alternative to the full scale war the Bushites preferred. I'm not sure where you come down on war these days, but IMO I'd have preferred just drone strikes on Al Qaeda's hideouts to the full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wish both would stop, and moreover I wish that military force was never necessary in the first place, but since this is still the real world, I'm willing to settle for our military reaction to national security threats returning to being somewhat proportional to the actual threat being presented.

Where we fit this into our concepts of rights and laws is an important question, but the present law passed by our duly-elected representatives in 2001 in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is what codified this as being a "war" where the President could kill people whenever the fuck he felt like it, in accordance with the Constitution's definition of war.

Keeping people in prison is a similar matter. Technically, the people in Gitmo are "prisoners of war" and not really charged with any sort of crime, beyond being combatants for the other side in this "war".

Now, to your specific comments about "section 1031" -- that section (in the original Senate draft of the bill) is titled "DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO". Originally it specifically excluded U.S. Citizens from being legally classified a detainee at Guantanamo.

Now, IANAL, but I looked at the rest of the bill for references to "individuals detained at Guantanamo", and it doesn't say anything about how people become detainees at Gitmo, just a long list of restrictions on the President's ability to release those detainees (like, you can't turn them over to non-military personnel, you can't move them onto U.S. soil, you can't let them go to their country of origin, and there's a list of conditions countries must meet before they can receive custody of them).

But the God's honest truth is that ever since Bush insisted on this being legally defined as a war, it hasn't mattered what the fucking laws say, because in a war there isn't any real rule of law. There's the Geneva conventions, but that's international law, and seriously, which country out there is gonna try to enforce those against us?

I don't think Obama likes any of this. It's another fucking mess the Bush administration made, and Congress is definitely not helping him out in trying to fix things. Moreover, Congress is responsible for passing the AUMF, and allowing something like Gitmo to exist (and now essentially refusing to give Obama any legal avenue to close it down, either), and now apparently they want to make sure to enshrine in law the legality of keeping something like Gitmo in operation indefinitely.

Nothing about what Obama's done makes me think he's changed his mind about this all being awful. But I think he's trying to do the best he can given that there seems to be no appetite in Congress for repealing the AUMF, or even allowing the detainees at Gitmo trials in Federal court.

As with many things, I think Obama could and should be making a big principled stand on the issue, but as I've come to accept, Obama just doesn't do that kind of thing. I think that's a pretty big flaw, and ultimately it's the only reason why he's not gonna cake-walk to re-election, but I don't think that's the same thing as actively supporting the things Congress is foisting on him.

>> ^marbles:

You know who's the biggest fan of socialism? Corporations.
You wanna punish those evil "capitalists"? Make them actually have to compete in a real free market instead of lobbying congress for special interests. Let them suffer the consequences of leveraging their business with 30 to 1 bets. Hold government accountable for colluding with them and giving them trillions in free "loans" to manipulate the market. Hold government accountable for ignoring and refusing to go after banking fraudsters, the same fraudsters that are "donating" millions to election campaigns and special slush funds for government officials.
Socialism always has and always will be a deception. On multiple levels. You give power to one group of people (government) to plunder from another and you think this group of people is going to be fair?
And if any government around the world does practice something closer to true socialism (like Libya for example), then we're going to bomb the shit out of you. And all you so-called progressives will be leading the cheer for it.


There is never a "free market" and "free maket " as a saying is redundant and useless people use it all the time to counter socialisum but it makes no sense.

for example say you removed governments from the markets compleatly and just let market forces dictate everything , who do you think would win out ? the people with the most money would and the people with the most money would use that money to advertise more and more so regardless of the actual value of there product or service they would still make money.

the deregulation of the markets is specifically what lead to the sub prime fiasco , and ethor way raw consumption based capitlosum is fundimentaly floored when there are finite resources and ultimately things have to be managed by what makes things better for people and not whats the most profatable thing to do.

I would be intrestead to know what you would define as "free market" because I'm prity sure that people using the term "free market" in reality mean highly regulated capitlisum but with the regulation coming from the general population and scientific consensus instead of what we have now where the regulation comes from cooperate interest.

If that's the case you are basically talking about a socialist society with capitlisum balted on not a "free market" capitlist society.

Permanently discarding this video - kill requested by marbles.

The only common factor in all that ignoring and downvoting is you and your snide, passive-aggressive and sarcastic comments in this thread. We're ignoring you. You haven't made any contributions to the discussion, just attacked individuals, or kinda implied a disapproval in some backhanded way. The only things you have said that were on topic show you are two steps behind, like in researching the context of Harris's remarks on nuclear attacks, for example. The best way to kill a stupid argument like that is to ignore it, and the best way to still show disapproval is to downvote.

Just because you say something in a thread doesn't mean people are obliged to engage with it. So take this opportunity to look back at your comments from the beginning and try and imagine why anyone would want to answer them. For starters, people don't like answering sarcasm, indirect criticism and personal insults. So if you want your comments to get some attention, start with that.>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.

>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.


Marbles, it's been quite a while since many critical thinking sifters and siftettes have ceased to take you seriously (re: conspiracy theories). The downvote is, at least in my case, a quick way of saying "your argument is bunk but I don't wish to waste my time on you". But if you feel better turning downvotes into a sign of your rightness, feel free, although you should probably pay royalties to your fellow TRUTH-teller shinybee, he's been using that pathetic line for a while now.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Gallowflak:

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about how the new Atheist movement is full of young mature independent astute free-thinkers. They take criticism in stride and are open to opposing views and opinions. The responses to my comments here certainly reaffirms my position.


I think that most people absorb into groups that resonate with them because of highly tenuous bullshit, rather than a genuine ideological or intellectual kinship, and pay lip service to the ideas of the clan which is most convenient or comfortable for them to "be" in. So I think that a movement based around critical thinking and secular humanism has a hard time from the get-go, because most people aren't critical, or reasonable, or rational, even if they fancy to pretend otherwise.

Honestly, I never really expected many of those in the new atheist movement to be up to scratch, even before going into it. And there's a serious problem with some rather douchey and stiff figureheads.

These are all things we can talk about, though! There are people here genuinely interested in having a conversation, even if they forget that, sometimes. But you don't seem to want a conversation.

Maybe you feel embattled, and you'd probably have good reason. But making quips and then taking people's legitimately pissed reactions as a kind of vindication of your point, a point you haven't actually made, isn't a good way to get anything done.

It just seems like, rather than having an argument, you have an attack, and there's no real response to that other than rejection. And that's what you got. It isn't groupthink or hivemind activity, it's just that, here, you're not part of the dialogue, you're just offensive white noise.

If you have something to say and a case to make, there's at least one person who will actually fucking read it. But I've not seen it yet.

>> ^enoch:

uh....ok.


Interesting. You delete my comment and don't bother to quote it either. Ashamed of something? Don't let that stop you from upvoting a comment calling me autistic though. Nice job buddy.

>> ^marbles:

@dystopianfuturetoday
Oh, this about respect? Did you get your feelings hurt that I pointed out your hypocrisy once again? LOL
You pay lip service to getting along and then act like a petty child. (At the grown-ups table, no less!) LOL Bravo.


What are you talking about?

Yeah, I think he might be autistic. I'm going to go easy on him.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
this marbles character is starting to get on my nerves.
i truly think he has something to say if he could just get the fuck over himself.
this is like the 5th thread i have watched him derail due to his pettiness.