>> ^Sagemind:
A teacher's place is not to inspire anger in kids but to invoke creative and critical thought.
By debasing this student, both directly and publicly, he is only building more walls in the kids brain and causing him to close down even more. This is shown by the way the kid closes off and reverts to finding it all a joke.
I don't know what ever lead up to this debacle of events, as it is not shown, but the teacher should have found a more creative way to educate and inspire this student to evolve his thinking and maybe to give a dam!


What a bunch of hippy bullshit. This kind of thinking is what leads us to today's world people. All hail the new god - he travels under the guise of well-meaning. When a parent is pinned for shouting at or delivering moderate physical punishment to their child, he smiles, and another child grows up believing that they are right in all things and must regret nothing - because there are no real consequences.

When a man is jailed and sued for defending himself, his family and his home from intruders, he laughs, and another generation set out on their career choice of 'criminal' - because apparently crime does pay.

And when we tie our teachers hands so that they cannot shout at a child or give them a lengthy detention without a week's notice, when we prevent them from getting the respect (mixed with a degree of fear) from students, then we end up with apathetic under-achievers.

This man has passion and god love him for it. By rediculing this kid for idolising a bunch of fucking losers and law breakers, he might have just turned this kid into something worthy of society.

I've seen the effect that the kind of teachers you hope for has on a school. You've no idea what you're talking about. If you think that this teacher's vehemence and words were not inspiring, you're more scummy than the kid that got the ear-bashing.

A thousand upvotes for dystopian's comments. Preach it brother.

Okay, a founder-off then. Here's what Hamilton has to say:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

Alexander Hamilton

In any case, the limits of "government" laid out in the Constitution weren't supposed to be a proclamation that no government shall intrude, merely that state governments were to be the sole arbiter of those matters.

To take Madison's side is not to say that no government shall mandate things like a universal health care program, it's to declare that the national government has to rely on state governments in order to do it if they want to.

To push states' rights in such a way is just silly, unless you seriously think we need to go back to some sort of highly Federated system where we're supposed to identify with our State more than the nation called the United States. Actually, we'd have to go back to thinking of the phrase "United States" as being plural -- call it these United States.

It also means you really have to declare that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, since obviously that's a matter for the states to decide on...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
then you should be in favor of the US enforcing its own border laws, should you not?

Since I have no interest in starving to death while the agricultural production of California rots in the fields, no, that would be a stupid idea. They subsidize our economy, not the other way around. If we did not need them so badly your argument might make sense, but reality intrudes on your little tirade.

You're wrong when you say you can't afford insurance. You are paying for car insurance right now. Therefore you can also buy catastrophic medical care coverage. It's cheap - less than $60 a month. Anyone can afford that.

So I could pay $720 a year, and have a deductible of what $20k? Sorry that's more than my entire monetizable net worth. I can't reach the deductible, so the insurance will never kick in, so its just throwing money away, and we are, of course, assuming that they would actually cover me if anything happened, which is a dubious proposition in itself.

Your (and everyone else's) problem is you mentally treat medical insurance in a completely different way than you treat any other kind of insurance. Life insurance, car insurance - you don't expect them to pay for routine, day-to-day crap.

I expect them to pay what they claim to cover, health insurance routinely does not. My GFs cousins was hired to deny coverage claims, she sits at home, gets folders full of medical records, and without seeing the patient or their physician comes up with an excuse for the company not to pay. That's not how I expect car insurance to work, I have legally mandated coverage, not some company bureaucrat sneaking loophole after loophole into an "insurance" contract which can deny just about any claim.

You accept that those insurance policies kick in only for extreme emergency situations. But for some bizarre reason you don't think that way with medical insurance.

You pulled that right out of your ass. I have no problem with the idea of emergency only coverage, I have a problem with the fact that they don't actually provide it...and then they want to charge more than getting actual service costs in countries with full service universal.

Well it is time you grew up and stopped treating medical insurance like it is some sort of special exception to the insurance biz.

Why not car insurance is? I am required to carry it, and the gov makes sure it actually covers something, that seems pretty reasonable, especially compared with the scam that is the US medical system.

It is an emergency plan to be used only in dire need. Basic day to day medical expenses should be paid out of your own pocket.

That is one option, an option which is more expensive, and less effective.

Face facts, it is simply pragmatically stupid to pay more money for worse product, and that's what the health insurance companies offer. You are free to be a fool and buy it, but don't try and keep others from buying the superior, cheaper product just because you have an ideological issue with the government actually doing something useful.

I could argue that Mass Health has been a tremedous success from a accounting perspective. Next year's health cost in Massachuseets is 1/3rd of 1% of the total budget. That's right folks, 2010 for MA, is $27 BILLION. The Cost for Mass Health: $88 Million.

I’ll have to see your sourcing on this, because I haven’t found a single source that can verify your claim about health care in MA only costing 88 million in 2010. Regardless, that’s quite a change from 2009 when the MassHealth budget alone was 1.3 billion…

http://www.pnhp.org/mass_report/mass_report_Final.pdf

Now, considering that MA is running a 1.4 billion deficit, that’s a pretty high ticket item. If your health care costs with MassHealth are so cheap, then why this?

“Among the areas particularly hard hit by cuts are public health programs, education grants, MassHealth coverage, and unrestricted local aid…”

http://www.massbudget.org/documentsearch/findDocument?doc_id=681

Those insurance companies Mr. Pennypacker is defending…

I am not so much defending insurance companies as I am dismissing misinformation about public health care being ‘superior’ or ‘necessary’. There is no evidence that moving to a public option will be cheaper, or provide better health care. There is no evidence that it would provide more care for more people either in volume or population. HR3200 is a shell game that funnels money and power into Washington. Frankly, I’ll take a private system – warts and all – any day over a public system that gives the government power over my health care decisions.

conspire with your health and more profit for them, and there's NOTHING you can do about it

The exact same statement can be made about public health care coverage, and with far deeper and wider scope.

We wouldnt dream of privatizing it and have an insurance company deciding what to pay and not pay for (after having spent years paying insurance) and watching them do everything they can to avoid a payout

You let your government do the exact same thing and you have no way to redress your wrongs. As Massachusett’s proves – the government quite often will decide to cut cut cut cut your care in order to balance it’s budget. Then you have an unelected government bureaucrat deciding what to pay for and you get to watch them do everything they can to avoid a payout. I'll keep my personal and financial freedom any day, thank you kindly.

provide Free, universal, government-sponsored healthcare for EVERYONE, stop paying insurances, and STILL SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY

You, Weiner, and Obama have yet to supply a single shred of factual evidence to support this fantastical, imaginary claim. Your words are opinions, and nothing more. While your opinions are passionate sir, they do not convince. I’m not prepared to sacrifice my personal and financial freedoms based on your unsupported opinions.

why shouldnt the government take care of its citizens??

Because this is America, and the Constitution does not state that it is the government’s job to ‘take care’ of citizens. In fact, we fought a few wars to make sure that government DOESN’T ever intrude into our personal lives. Our Bill of Rights is designed to stop the government cannot interfere in our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You'll still be hard pressed to find someone in a country with public health care trade it, for the American system

Tired of hearing this logical fallacy. SO !FREAKING! WHAT? We aren't asking other countries to trade up. This statement is irrelevant and annoying. What is actually happening is that you people in OTHER COUNTRIES are asking us to trade our system for yours. You'll pardon me if I don't give a rat's @$$ whether someone from another country would trade his system for ours or not. That isn't the issue.

But let's play the game, shall we? When polled, the American people overwhelmingly state that they are happy with thier current health care insurance and coverage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/obama-pushes-national-health-care-americans-happy-coverage/

89% of the insured are satisfied. 70% of the UNINSURED are satisfied. 93% with recent illness - satisfied. 95% with chronic illness - satisfied. Sounds like we're pretty happy with our system. Now - using your idiotic logic - that means YOU should abandon your public health care system for our private one right? No? Well WHY not? After all - you guys keep saying that 'we wouldn't trade our system for yours' as if you're justifying why we should change our system. Therefore I'm going to use that same line of reasoning on you. Since we're happy with our private system, you should switch to our system.

Don't like that kind of logic? Then PLEASE stop making equally stupid statements about 'we wouldn't trade ours for yours'. It's moronic.

To modify the Constitution is extremely difficult and the Amendments must be ratified. You're talking about an incredibly difficult process that has very little to do with the democratic process. But, yes, there is a way to change the Constitution. I just wanted to stop you before we started going down the road of "the Constitution is a living document" shit that is a tired and laborious argument.

Hell, Jefferson wanted government, laws and debt to be generational and change every 19 years or so. Good thing he was in Paris at that time and Madison was his buffer to the Constitution.


"Nobody can deny that gun ownership is a right which can (and from time to time does) harm others - can you? One may argue the extent and potential of this, but I thought even libertarians (actually, especially libertarians) had the principle that the government can't intrude on an individual's rights UNLESS they are in violation of other people's right to live."

51% of the population cannot vote your right to bear arms away. The government cannot take this right away, either. But, if an individual takes his gun and shoots someone, he has used his right to encroached on another person's rights which makes him wrong. What is it that you're not getting? Sorry, that sounded harsh. Let me rephrase. What is it I'm not properly communicating.

Also, I have no idea where you live. And, yes, I wouldn't presume to know anything about your country, because I most likely do not know anything about it. Civil discourse is great. I welcome it. I apologize if I'm sounding snarky. I just feel like Sisyphus pushing a rock of Libertarianism up the mountain of Leftist Authoritarians and it gets very, very tiring.

>> ^blankfist:
Regardless, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, because we have the right to bear arms. No manner of democratic process can remove that right...


Wait a sec, you're not saying there are no ways to change the Constitution, are you? I was under the impression that the Congress can draw up and pass amendments (even if they're amendments of amendments, right?), and, at the very least, the people should be able to vote on their rights.

All that aside, you're confusing me now. Nobody can deny that gun ownership is a right which can (and from time to time does) harm others - can you? One may argue the extent and potential of this, but I thought even libertarians (actually, especially libertarians) had the principle that the government can't intrude on an individual's rights UNLESS they are in violation of other people's right to live. That's a sound and a logical argument from where I'm standing right now, so feel free to poke any holes I'm not currently seeing in it.

P.S. Let's not do the "you know jack about my country routine", please. There are MANY areas for which you could provide valid and valuable criticism about the way my country is run (because my country is run almost exclusively by stupid greedy cunts), just as I can about yours. And civil discussion is always valuable - I know I've learned much from you, blankfist. And VS as a whole has provided me with valuable insight into US politics - like I've said before, I've met Americans who confessed knew way less about USA than I do. So I'm sorry for my lack of humility in this department

While the host is being rather rude, and I do not really see the canidate being that worthwhile to vote for (for the moment), I do think the host should let the man speak. Speaking up, shouting, or just talking over the person, is so 'O'Reilly-ish'.

The issue of Capitalism vs Goverment, is so simplistic of a arguement, as to compare an orange to an apple. In a pure capitalistic sociality, monolopies would eventually win out. And the more well financed companies would control other companies. A good example (that's recent for you kids), is Microsoft. At one point, in the early '90s, The Microsoft Corp. had a 97% usage of all computer operating systems in the US. If goverment did not intrude, Microsoft would hold a strangle hold on ALL companies in the USA. Every software, would have to pay royalities and 'protection' money to Microsoft, every company would fully comply with Micrsoft's wishs. And Microsoft, through sheer scales of economy, could buy out all its competitors, and in to other related industries within 15-20 years. Along the way, the company purchases financial companies, with media (like CNN or The New Yourk Times), and sports teams. Now, if this sounds like a conspiracy theory of monolopies, you are starting to get the idea. Monopolies do not increase creativeness, but seek to destroy it.

Capitalism does not have an inherent mechanism to self-correct itself, as those who promote it, would have you believe. If the rule of law, for business was pure capitalism, the USA would quickly be turned in to a technocracy, as an extreme small group of extremely wealthy individuals changed the laws, to better suit their wishs. You, the reader, are simply an irrelevant peon, meant to exist only for your master's pleasure. Your life, and deathy would be absolutely dictated by someone you will never meet, nor speak to. But that person would own you as a slave. You would be enslaved by financial debt so deeply you could not get out of it.

This is not even a conspiracy or sci-fi novel. This stuff has happen in the past. Companies in the railroading industry, financial, texile, defense, and others, have employed tactics to garner more wealth. Crack open a history book on American business 1790-2009. Look for the Sherman Act. Look at laws that require someone to make 1.5 times their hourly wage after 40 hours. Back in the Texile mills of New England (1820-1920_, a person would be required to work 70 hours, or be fired. This stuff is not made up. THIS, IS, what capitalism is REALLY about. So if you wish to be a fool, and want completely open capitalism, and ignorant to its dangers, then do yourself a favor, and live the rest of your life as a monk, making $2/day.

>> ^blankfist:
Why are dogs so racist?

"Legend" has it these dogs were bred then brought to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and used as hunting dogs. Supposedly, lion hunting dogs. Well, since hunting for sport was primarily a white person's past time, they were primarily owned by white families. They probably also had used them for protection and quite possibly trained them to be biased based on the color of a possible intruder's skin. Now, I don't know if racism can be bred into an animal, but I do know the amount of alert that dog would have depending on a new person's skin color was noticeable. Of course after introductions, Ella would be keen to that person and only tell jokes about their race when they weren't there.

I think it's hilarious that they say this NOW instead of when "Washington" was intruding on their rights, ie. the last 6 years..

Personally, I use a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense. It was cheap, but good construction, easy to fire and very clearly tells intruders whats coming for them. My first warning for intruders is yelling "Who's there?" My 2nd is chambering a shell. That is a truly universal sound in this day in age.

Most burglars focus on empty houses, having a gun in your home is no deterrent, it just puts the gun into their hands. You have a better chance of shooting a loved one than ever using it to defend yourself against an intruder.

As for the situation in the video. You have a prepared assailant against an unsuspecting "hero". The training level of the "bad guy" makes no difference in this situation, they've the upper hand as soon as they walk in. You'll notice the "bystanders" flee, usually covering their head, or try diving on the floor to use the tables for cover. The "heroes" all went for their weapon, an action that draws the attention of a shooter, seeing that everyone is wearing a hood and are basically anonymous. They shouldn't have tried to immediately take out the shooter, but rather take cover, get out of his line of fire and try to find an angle that doesn't expose them to the shooter.

I'd love to see this same scenario play out with a few dozen conceal-carry permit holding, "I needs mah guns fer protekshun" hero wannabees and see how well they'd perform under stress. I'd be amazed if they would fair any better.

You yell to them through the door, "I refuse to consent to your system! Please leave, this is private property!"

An hour later your door is kicked open and you are being wrestled to the ground by a bunch of gun wielding officers. Thinking they're intruders, your dog barks at them and takes a slug in the face. He dies instantly.

Click here if you resist.

Click here if you wish to comply.

*dishes out more paranoia powder*

That's right, we'll not have this round these here parts. He is definitely an intruder! Just listen to ac, she knows what shit's goin down!

Thanks for your answer. indeed I did work under the misconception of cult as obscurely classic.
cheers!

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I found this one to be especially un-funny. This meme, in my opinion, has long since run out of gas and now marches on in spite of itself... something that all memes seem to do and the primary reason I abhor them.

#cult is for religious cults according to the channel description. I'm guessing any Watchmen videos tagged as such were due to a "cult-classic" misinterpretation. I'd have removed the others as well if I'd seen them; either they are videos I haven't watched or I just wasn't paying attention to the channels when I did.

No need for all the apologies; questions are always welcome.

In reply to this comment by neuralnoise:
hello xxover,
sorry to intrude. you got me a bit curious, so I´ll have to ask - out of sheer cat-killing curiosity, what you disliked about this specific last installment of "hi i´m a marvel...", possibly the n-th to get sifted, but the first to earn a downvote.

Also, as there are a bunch of watchmen related sifts at the cult channel, I´d be curious as to why you decided this particular one doesn´t belong there.

Again, sorry to intrude like this on your day
cheers

I found this one to be especially un-funny. This meme, in my opinion, has long since run out of gas and now marches on in spite of itself... something that all memes seem to do and the primary reason I abhor them.

#cult is for religious cults according to the channel description. I'm guessing any Watchmen videos tagged as such were due to a "cult-classic" misinterpretation. I'd have removed the others as well if I'd seen them; either they are videos I haven't watched or I just wasn't paying attention to the channels when I did.

No need for all the apologies; questions are always welcome.

In reply to this comment by neuralnoise:
hello xxover,
sorry to intrude. you got me a bit curious, so I´ll have to ask - out of sheer cat-killing curiosity, what you disliked about this specific last installment of "hi i´m a marvel...", possibly the n-th to get sifted, but the first to earn a downvote.

Also, as there are a bunch of watchmen related sifts at the cult channel, I´d be curious as to why you decided this particular one doesn´t belong there.

Again, sorry to intrude like this on your day
cheers