9 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Auger8:

Can someone give me a hand here. Much appreciated.
>> ^siftbot:
Invocations (isdupe) cannot be called by Auger8 because Auger8 is not privileged - sorry.



You should use this embed I like the additional info.

Can someone give me a hand here. Much appreciated.
>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (isdupe) cannot be called by Auger8 because Auger8 is not privileged - sorry.

The question I'm annoyed they didn't pursue in sufficient depth was the one alluded to on a baseline of social services. I think it's all well and good to argue that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Certainly, especially if you're talking about easily traversable state lines in a country like the US, that there is migration to lower tax levels may say nothing more than that states overall benefit from the government spending (say R&D) around them and thereby there is an incentive to mooch off the collective spending and yet employ a lower tax rate in your own state to enable more jobs to be created.

The crux of the argument when you start talking about replacing social security solely with a mandatory super scheme (which by itself as an addition is good policy, we have it here in Australia at 9%, soon to go up to 12%) is not which one generates more income in the long run, it's whether you are fine with entirely replacing it and facing the prospect that someone down on their luck, perhaps mentally or physically handicapped in some way, stuck in a place of low social mobility is allowed by society as a whole to die because there is no scheme in place to assist them. At that point I think you expose the morally callous argument that he's making.

Yay for handicap sex ballet!

Shaga... when you consider things like speed runs, no kills, or other handicaps that are chosen by the player rather then the game, it definitely hits a nitch because most people would call it boring and tedious. Some people like this form of challenge, and it may have nothing to do with public appeal or recognition.

>> ^chilaxe:

If being a decent human being is based on how much we contribute to humankind, the round-the-clock Silicon Valley work schedule I advocate makes me comfortable with that equation.
I don't see any way to argue that liberalism doesn't on average reduce career outcomes for its followers.
I'm open to changing my mind, though. If Rachael Maddow or TYT started devoting an entire 1% of their on-air-time to knowledge on how to build great careers (one of the most interesting areas of intellectualism), I'd applaud them.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
Anyway, it still seems fair to say that if liberalism had successfully trained him to blame others for his problems and reject careerism, he would probably still be living in the impoverished environment of his youth.

You really should try to learn something about liberalism. Might make you into a better, almost decent, human being.



Being a decent human being, as far as I see it, is largely about empathy, sympathy, and compassion.

Saying "I work a job that I think is awesome" doesn't give you license to say "everyone who makes less than me is lazy and worthless". Decent people instinctively understand that.

Decent people have some basic sense of humility. They realize that while they have some control over whether they make the most of the opportunities they're given, they have very little control over the opportunities that get made available to them. In other words, life isn't fair.

You should know this, given how often you talk about how much genetics factors into people's successes in life. Nobody chose their genes. Nobody chose to be white or black. Nobody chose to be born a man or a woman. Nobody chose to be born in America or Afghanistan. Nobody chose to be born to rich parents or poor parents. Certainly nobody chose to be born into a society where their race, sex, or class is treated badly.

Now someone could choose the other way to look at life. They could say to themself that life is completely fair, and everyone who struggles with it is just inferior. They could resent any and all schemes designed to make helping those inferior people automatic -- they want to choose whether to help or not, emphasis on the not.

Now someone who thinks that way might also believe that the people who think the other way are ipso facto inferior. They might even proclaim, without a single shred of evidence, that having a more grounded view of reality is in fact some sort of detriment to their success.

But personally I think harboring such petty notions only serves to handicap you, in all aspects of life.

After speaking with her, her reply is that she has been in speech therapy all her life.
She does have the deaf kind of speech more so in person than you can tell on the video


>> ^artician:

That is awesome. Makes me very happy to see this.
Question - why can she speak clearly, when most people I know of who are born without hearing do not develop enunciation and spoken language without a lisp?
Either way, that video made my day. Nothing is better than seeing a person who is in love with life itself. Nothing makes you appreciate that more than a handicap (and having it returned to you in some way).

That is awesome. Makes me very happy to see this.

Question - why can she speak clearly, when most people I know of who are born without hearing do not develop enunciation and spoken language without a lisp?

Either way, that video made my day. Nothing is better than seeing a person who is in love with life itself. Nothing makes you appreciate that more than a handicap (and having it returned to you in some way).

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^Yogi:
Yes there's no chance that during a catastrophic never before experienced event that there would be "False Reports" or mistakes and misinformation. Human BEINGS making the observations and reporting them to other humans and making mistakes is not a good example of an organized conspiracy. It happens, in every facet of life.

Because NORAD clearly is not, and has not ever prepared for or trained for such events, right? ROTFL You apologists crack me up. I mean really, a hijacking? Come ON! It's never happened before.


NORAD is in Colorado and STILL reliant on other peoples observations. Is it possible for them to make a mistake based on faulty intelligence...ask anyone here who's been in the military.

Yeah I'm an apologist, look at all my posts on this site I love our government and our country and what we do around the world.

From YT: Now folks don't be so hard on Jake, it's not easy being retarded. (no offense to the mentally handicapped).

NORAD on 9/11: Ordered to stand down

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.

So after watching, I thought this was stupid, that it was only something that people with money to waste would buy - but I had completely forgotten this technology's appeal to the handicapped. People with missing or functionally impaired arms, hands or fingers could use this to have a nice tight shoe simply and independently. As of right now, I have no idea what kind of footwear I'd use if I could no longer tie laces. Flipflops aren't exactly safe nor are they socially acceptable everywhere. *promote