You had a somewhat decent argument @LiquidDrift ...until you said the words "Alex Jones"

It's pretty easy to cherry pick instances of cops behaving badly and ignore instances of cops doing good. This sift alone has a wide variety of videos of both types of cops. So you (not implying you personally) have a rather large burden of proof to meet to make a valid claim of "fascist police state" you need to prove calculated intent. Until then, you've just got a significant number of individual cases of people who are simply unable to use the power they are given wisely and ignore the responsibility they have. Something all of us humans have been guilty of at some point in our lives.

The internet is a great tool for communication to bring stuff like this to light, but it also breeds a massive amount of armchair quarterbacking.

Without a doubt, I would agree that the police are in need of some fundamental reforms to address these issues, which is a far more rational argument than the delusions of Alex Jones

Big surprise that the existence of a "state" is causing problems...

The Middle East, Ukraine, wherever you have war, you have a fight over which state institution gets to rule over everyone else in a particular geographic region. Or it's a (violent) fight over what institution (and those who control it) will have a legal monopoly of aggression and ultimate decision-making over that geographical area. Just like other forms of organized crime, the capos will periodically engage in these struggles (regardless of the cost to the innocent bystanders) over its perceived territory/jurisdiction.

"The people" participate in these struggles because they expect rewards from a kind of universal "spoils system," hoping to become beneficiaries/cronies once their chosen warlords win/take over.

Or even if they don't hope to win much of the spoils, they fear being on the losing end of it. And who can blame them, given the pervasiveness of such a delusion? (Well, their victims I suppose could "blame them," but little good it would do, I suspect...)

I've been seeing it more and more and I really don't understand. I've heard it explained before as something akin to Government power or Corporations. In essence it's not enough to get 90% or even 99% of your way. You need 100% or you're complaining about how unfair everything is. Especially people in power do this more than anyone, they believe that they are the protagonists of their story, so if they're not getting everything then they're getting nothing.

It's certainly weird but you see this most recently with the Bankers or Wall Street people complaining that they're being hammered by Obama or attacked by the media too much. When they get 90% if not more of their way done, which is why the banks are even bigger now than they were before and we're heading for an even bigger crash.

You also look to how easy it is to get a message out there. Those who have access to the media so readily don't see how they are dominating the headlines, they only see how much they've given up. It's a weird delusion.

Which flavor of Guyana Punch do you prefer? These politicians are pieces of shit and this ruse they perpetrate an actionable distraction from the crimes they willfully carry-out daily with approval from clueless boobs, some of whom may be your fellow drinking victims.

The government fed to the United States was taken by coop years ago and the culmination of the all they have accomplished is evidenced in your delusion and the coming shit-storm of jackboots enforcing the will of the criminal elite, and folks like you will line-up for more as long as you allow them to continue to suck air.

This is just a distraction. Obviously the attendees at Bilderberg are not doing anything about "climate change" one way or the other.

(The Roman Republic also had Tribunes of "the People" who could veto laws. It made no difference at all to the lifestyle and activities of the Patricians, Senators, and military men of the Republic. If you -- who clearly has no influence over what the state does or doesn't do -- think that you "are the government," then I have little interest in trying to "cure" you of that delusion (unless you're a paying client of mine). And, by some definitions -- that ultimately make no practical difference -- you "are" the government, then I have every confidence that you can and will "deal with these issues" yourself to your satisfaction. And I wish you the best of luck!)

Yeah fuck-all- and I never said any bullshit like that quoted above, someone put bullshit words and misquoted me and used a catch-phrase label to justify their own bullshit. I take full responsibility for the word, child.

You newt, continue to take anything I say and and formulate an opinion that satisfies yourself and your damaged ego, period. You have an uncanny inability to derive meaning or truth from anything I have to say motivated by hatred and self-delusion.

The comedian has the upper-hand here and this program lopsidedly and with an agenda-in-mind is using him as an example to foment their brand of delusion and hate, as they have been programmed from before their mother's mothers mothers were born.....Systemic and voluntary ignorance and robotic, scripted semantics.

Intelligence fucking itself.

JSing and Chaos made the two small leaps here that points to the interpreter as the responsible party to context. Meaning can be elusive to folks who have problems with critical thinking and with regard to 'racism' (the definition and intensity of this label range from arbitrary to anally-exacting considering the range of interpretation) there is no clear, consensual handbook...In the 00's, the word 'nigger' being so flagrantly abused and praised as it has become a filler-word in hip-hop and rap culture as well as a safe-haven for haters who love to toss the convenient label 'racist' around like skee-ball tickets, when they simply refuse to fucking think, or dislike someone, or are simply cunts, etc.

True racism exists but not on the scale imagined by the weak-minded and overly sensitive who both recoil from the very notion of certain words even existing (wouldn't the world be such a wonderful place if the word nigger did not exist and the world could all hold hands and blow soap bubbles and kiss puppy dogs?? Pretentious, American, WHITE PEOPLE have so abused both the concept and history of racism that the waters of it's essence have become murky. Chumps use the label 'racism' as if it were ranch dressing to refer to all manner of perceived evils of the world when their little cruise-liner of self-delusion drifts ever-so-slightly off course.

You're missing the forest for your own trees concerning these government agencies and how they are used by special interests, people-Lands declared federally-owned then 'managed' in this country have been historically for public use. According to the Sierra Club: "Public lands are used in the production of oil, gas, coal, hardrock minerals, timber, and livestock in addition to being used for roads, power and gas lines, and communication facilities just to mention a few. Likewise, the Public lands are an environmental treasure house for recreation and wildlife and scenic wonder from desert to seacoast, mountain top to prairie, grassland to forest -- a shared heritage for now and the future."

Most generational ranchers don't fuck-up the land, they don't abuse it , it's their goddamn livelihood. They know it's vibe way better than the feds and their little friends....

Bundy was paying to, and had a preexisting deal with Clark County and his damn family had been cattlemen on these lands for a few generations, living in harmony with the goddamn turtles, and not trashing the place like newtbox (god you think you know what the fuckit is you know nothing about except what the TV tells you) here and others use in defense of the encroaching and over-reaching bureaucracy whose ONLY goal is to save their own interests in the rights of this land for their nefarious personal good-ol' boy club purposes.

Urbanization and ominous government with peeps with votes never getting involved in righteous decisions during the process of being ASS-RAPED from behind tomes legislation with special interest laws piggy-backed within legislation has ALWAYS been the method of politicians, licking the asses of the money-men.

If people would get an ACTUAL clue abut how the government works to benefit these cunts, they'd start to sound like people who did their homework instead of self-righteous cunts trying to sound smart.

I am happy to accommodate the cries of 'ignorance' and 'fail', heard all this shit before, so go fuck yourselves unless you have anything else to spew but scripted 'what you think you know' horse-shit. I understand that certain types of dum-basses are quite satisfied with themselves to talk a lot and say nothing but whats fed them.

The United States government fucked the Native Americans, now they're fucvkng cowboys and ranchers......No digression with land and money drunk robber-barons, especially when they have dutiful putties to interpret history to suit their delusions.

Wanna fix the situation America? Stop eating their meat. Try turtle soup, the shits awesome.

Asshole is a dish best served raw, eh??


"The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion."
-Bodhidharma

choggieesque delusion speak

Motorcycles seldom kill car drivers, usually the other way 'round, but I think living with the fact someone died because they hit you is bad enough. The biker won't care any more, he's dead.

Personally, I don't see any reason for motorbikes on public streets. Litre for litre (gallon for gallon) they pollute more than a car. You can take the exhaust of any motorbike, hook it up to the intake of any modern car, and the resulting exhaust will be far less toxic than the bike alone. They are not environmentally conscious in any way beyond miles per gallon, so here's a preemptive "shut up" about that.

Bike riders fall into two categories, wannabe racers and wannabe Hell's Angels. They either get off on zigzag'ing high acceleration/deceleration or they think it makes them look badass. Anything else said is just an excuse and self-delusion.

Might we suggest that all good Canadians within range make an annual visitation to this asshole's grave, and piss on it as an expansionary excursion with a view to teaching your children how the world is full of people of similar ilk who lurk poised to destroy humanity for the sake of their own delusions.

Hi A10ANIS,

Could you please address the heart of my argument, that the principle of parsimony (occams razor) states that we should consider the theory of a Creator over the multiverse theory? Thanks.

To address some of your points:

Regarding your "fine tuner" argument; Such is the fine tuning of your "creator" that 98% of all life that has existed, is extinct. Which, apart from being incredibly incompetent and wasteful, points logically to random
selection/evolution.

It also points to a global flood which wiped out nearly all life on Earth around 4400 years ago. The speciation which occurred up until that time was lost, but new species have been created since then. The mass extinctions going on today have everything to do with human development and bad stewardship rather than any design flaw.

Also, your "a painting therefore a painter" point is a non-sequitur for if there were a "fine tuner," there would, by your own argument, have to be a creator of the fine tuner and so an inevitable regression.

We as Christians do not believe in created gods which are a delusion by definition; we believe in an eternal God who was not created. The infinite regression stops at the feet of the eternal God who has always existed. This line of reasoning is a problem not for Christians but for those who believe in the multiverse theory, because whatever the mechanism is which generates all of these Universes would be yet another Goldilocks zone, and so precisely finetuned as to be statistically impossible. You may as well posit a Creator at that point. I mean just ask yourself the same questions; what created the multiverse, what created it, etc.

No, Science has thrown off the shackles of myths and gods. Had they not, our lives would be controlled by theocratic dictators and we would still believe earth was the centre of the universe.

Interesting you would say this considering that in its infancy, pretty much all of the important discoveries were made by professing Christians. It was actually the environment of Christian Europe which nurtured science into what it is today.

Another point is, Christians don't believe in myths; Jesus Christ is not a myth, He is a real person who died for our sins and rose from the dead. He told us about who God is, because He was with God and He is God.

We no longer use the god of the gaps argument. We may never know all the answers but, just because we don't, we no longer lazily, ignorantly, insist that; "Hallelujah, God must have done it."

It is not a God of the gaps argument when the theory has greater explanatory power than what is being proposed. When even apparent fine tuning as been observed, which it has, the principle of parsimony would prefer the theory of a Creator to multiple unobserved universes.

It may not work as well as one would like, but compared to the alternative, no input in the process, it's pretty good! You are welcome to disagree, thanks to thoughtful men voting to guarantee you that right. It worked for them, it can work again.
Being satisfied that the process can give good results is not the same as satisfaction with the current results.
The convincing I suggest is convincing those that already think like 'you' to vote the same (and put up reps to vote for that truly think the same). Easier said than done.
I'm not dismissive, I'm still discussing it with you, and never said you're not worth the discussion or 'it's time to ignore you', that was you to me. I am argumentative. I have admitted crippling personality flaws in the past, and will again. That's one. I try to do it respectfully (until intentionally insulted, then it can be ON!).
You misunderstood, my idea is to put people in that are going to fix the system, not dismantle it, and not just feed it.
It will never be perfect (there is no perfect), it can always be better, unless it's no longer existing. That's when there's no hope of improvement.
I wouldn't want clones of me in office, nor would I (they) want to be there. I would like people that want to fix the campaign finance system and get out, that's one main tap root of the problem in my eyes, one that's easy to fix with enough push. True enough, I'm not finding those people to vote for, usually. I can clamor for them though, maybe they'll turn up. (as I said before, my candidate rarely wins, I'm poor at finding the like minded.)
"My delusion", and who's dismissive?