search results matching tag: regurgitate
» channel: weather
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (16) | Sift Talk (3) | Blogs (0) | Comments (295) |
Videos (16) | Sift Talk (3) | Blogs (0) | Comments (295) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Sh*t Mitt Says
>> ^nintendcore2:
yeah money is evil we should let the government tell us how to spend our money and how much we get. We should just stop striving to be successful because if you become wealthy we become evil.
Yay Obama and Socialism I want to work hard then give half my earnings to some lazy asshole because that person deserves it
Welcome to the Sift!
Spewing Rushisms and random repug nonsense like it's the first time it's been regurgitated instead of the millionth just comes off as shrill and paranoid. You sound like Victoria Jackson.
Rick Santorum Eloquently Debunks "The Science"
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^NetRunner:
Did their teacher not teach them anything about science in their science classes?
Bingo! School is not about learning; it's about memorizing. If you can regurgitate the teachers' talking points, then you can pass the teachers' tests.
Outside of math class, where they pretty much have to teach you how things work, I learned almost nothing in school. The vast majority of what I know, and I'm a pretty knowledgeable person, is stuff I learned on my own after school was long over.
That gives me hope that the human race can survive the idiot onslaught, if only we can improve education.
On second thought, we're all doomed.
Rick Santorum Eloquently Debunks "The Science"
>> ^NetRunner:
Did their teacher not teach them anything about science in their science classes?
Bingo! School is not about learning; it's about memorizing. If you can regurgitate the teachers' talking points, then you can pass the teachers' tests.
Outside of math class, where they pretty much have to teach you how things work, I learned almost nothing in school. The vast majority of what I know, and I'm a pretty knowledgeable person, is stuff I learned on my own after school was long over.
The Ending of "Capitalism: A Love Story"
@lantern53
There isn't a single country in this world that is purely capitalist. Capitalism and socialism operate hand in hand in most (all?) first world countries, including the USA. Only an ignorant fool would declare them incompatible and hit the "submit new comment" button. I would normally take pity, understanding that you are simply regurgitating the shit you've been spoonfed, and try to help you understand your gross conceptual error. But, since you aren't paying me to educate you, that would just reek of Socialism. So, I guess you're on your own, Capitalist. Good luck.
Everything I Learned In Film School In Under 3 Minutes
>> ^Quboid:
@therealblankman - or anyone else - can you name anything specific that Citizen Kane did? How was lighting different?
I've heard that it was the first film to use camera angles to portray power (e.g. looking up at someone dominating) which seems obvious to me and I've never made any films. Also I've heard it was the first to have ceilings on sets, which would go hand-in-hand with more camera angles. Before Citizen Kane, cameras were just placed at the normal approximately head height? That seems incredible.
I assume these weren't actually the first, like in 3D gaming (my forte), Doom is generally considered the first 3D game when it's not and Quake considered the first true 3D game when it's not - they were just the first to really bring this to the forefront.
Edit: Damn, that Touch of Evil shot is impressive. That must have been hell to organise.
Well I could babble on, but really I'd mostly be regurgitating Wikipedia so have a look for yourself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Filmmaking_innovations
And I'm glad you agree about Touch of Evil. You should really see the whole movie of course. It's not a "chore" like Kane, the only challenge really is suspending disbelief and accepting Charlton Heston as a Mexican police chief!
The Louis Experiment - What does it mean? (Standup Talk Post)
Oh sorry, I thought you were having a conversation, not masturbating.
Now that we all know how great you are for doing the wrong thing even though you're kind-of-sort-of against it, maybe I could just chime in to clarify:
First of all: I can read as well. I know you see a picture from a bad movie when I post. But that doesn't make your regurgitated diatribe about intellectual property rights that can be found anywhere on the internet where there is a dialog about torrents any more intelligent or original than what anyone else has to say.
Second: In no way am I deluded about the concept of intellectual property. I did not ever imply that Louie C.K.'s work has no value. In fact, I called it "stealing" to download it. I also closed my comment by saying that I probably wouldn't download the show.
And I am not under the impression that just because I can't hold something in my hand, that it has no value. All I said was that it's "silly" to think that experiencing someone's comedy can be a crime. The thing about the T.V. is merely to point out the insubstantial nature of the subject. When I go to buy a T.V., I can negotiate sometimes based on whether or not it's a floor model or still in the box. I can't ask a website for a discount if one of Louie's jokes is bad. And with a T.V., I can keep it for a while and then change my mind. Maybe I decide I don't like it and I want to sell it and use the money to pay for part of the next one. Or maybe I've decided to go to Thailand, and I sell the T.V. to my friend Bob for papaya-salad-money. The point is, the two things are different, not that one is worthless and the other isn't.
And you know what the biggest difference is? Someone should not be punished in anywhere near the same way for stealing five bucks worth of Louis C.K.'s material as they should be for breaking into a person's house and stealing their T.V.
Third: Louis C.K. is probably a multimillionaire. I wasn't trying to justify my behavior as much as correcting Kymbos for saying that he wasn't. But now that you mention it: I see that you steal based on DRM and other issues, but (and call me crazy if you want) when I steal, I take into account the financial status of the person I'm stealing from. It might not justify my behavior but it helps me sleep.
Fourth: I
stealdownload things a lot of the time based on whether I think they are fairly priced. I loved the original Conan the Barbarian, mostly for it's kitsch-factor, but I still own the VHS. When the new one came out, I said to myself "that looks like a giant piece of crap taking a crap." So I downloaded it and you know what? I was right. Fuck them. I'm glad I didn't pay twenty-five dollars for ten-cents-worth of soda, two-cents-worth of popcorn and zero-cents-worth of nap time. And all just to grant some Hollywood producer his million dollar reward to play it safe.One of my favorite things I've ever gotten for Christmas from my wife was the Criterion Collection edition of "Seven Samurai." I love it. It's got this great cover art that looks almost transparent even though it's printed on cardboard. I think it looks so good because it's taken from the original cellulose of the title screen but I don't know. It's also got a great supplemental book, a great CD of special features and anytime I want, I can sit down to three whole hours of good solid movie. I think it cost around sixty-dollars at the time we bought it and it was totally worth it. Meanwhile, somebody gave me the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" DVD and the ugly yellow text on the menu alone is enough to make me want to burn it for the insult it does to people who paid good money for it.
And you know what else? I doubt that if Louis C.K. were to meet me, that he would hold it against me that I downloaded his show.
I guess I've rambled long enough. I just wanted to make the point that the issues involved with intellectual property are complicated but the concept is something that little children can grasp. So it might not be beneficial to the conversation to write off someone's point that you might disagree with simply because you want to sound righteous. Especially when in the end, you admit that it's all just stealing anyway.
PS: The last book I bought was the hardcover edition of "A Dance With Dragons". I paid the extra money because I find physical copies more satisfying, and I couldn't wait for the paperback.
Opposition to Paying for Capitalism's Crisis
I learn so much about what I believe when I talk with you. And here I thought I wanted to reform our election system so that corporations could not so easily subvert the democratic process. And here I thought I wanted to reform our economic system so that corporations were held responsible for their actions and not allowed to siphon and hoard societal wealth. Who knew that I was such a fan of the global corporate empire? And who knew that removing all barriers to corporate wealth and power would result in liberty? It sounds so unintuitive and absurd on it's face that I would not have believed it had I not learned it from someone in possession of such formidable mental prowess. Your advanced wisdom is truly indistinguishable from magic. Expecto Patronum Mano Invisablo!>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^The more we deregulate, privatize, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut services for the rest, the worse things get. Unregulated capitalism has become its own worse enemy. If we want to save capitalism from itself, we need regulate it, so that it can not be used as a weapon to subjugate the working poor, the middle class and labor. The economic reforms you call for are the same reforms called for by corporatists and plutomists like the Kochs, The Scaifes, Luntz, Norquist among other corporate elites. How is it that you can rail against crony capitalists and regurgitate their propaganda in the same sentence? In my opinion, it is be you are being manipulated to put for an agenda that appeals to your base nature by people who could not care less about you.
Unregulated capitalism has brought us:
-Vast Income Inequality
-High Unemployment
-Wage Cuts while productivity continues to rise
-Endless War for profit, oil
-Massive political corruption at every level of government
The 'free market' you dream of is a pie in the sky, no different from St. Peter and the Pearly Gates or 72 Virgins. "Free" Market ideology has been at work in American Government for over 30 years, and it has resulted in the creation of a global corporate state that is anything but free. Stop making excuses for failure. It's OK to admit you were wrong. Being wrong only becomes problem when your foolish pride hinders you from assessment. Pull your head out of the sand. @marbles
Good Job. I link an essay that specifically identifies the problems and you respond with hollow partisan talking points that ignore the problems. Nationalizing risk by the big banks and privatizing profits is not free market capitalism, no matter how much you claim it to be.
Free market ideology didn't create a global corporate state. Putting our economy in the hands of a select few did. The Federal Reserve is an above the law private banking cartel. And whether you believe in a free market or not is irrelevant. Believing that Wall Street politicians are going to solve the problems that they help create is the real delusion.
Banks have taking over the government. Your solution: Support Wall Street puppets and regurgitate their talking points.
Banks have taking over the regulatory agencies. Your solution: Pass more Wall Street written regulations.
Government uses our tax money to bailout corporations and wage war around the world. Your solution: Give them more money to funnel to the top and fund more death and destruction.
So who's really being manipulated here? The corporate shadow government is erecting bars around your glass house and you're busy parroting their talking points. Good job pal.
Opposition to Paying for Capitalism's Crisis
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^The more we deregulate, privatize, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut services for the rest, the worse things get. Unregulated capitalism has become its own worse enemy. If we want to save capitalism from itself, we need regulate it, so that it can not be used as a weapon to subjugate the working poor, the middle class and labor. The economic reforms you call for are the same reforms called for by corporatists and plutomists like the Kochs, The Scaifes, Luntz, Norquist among other corporate elites. How is it that you can rail against crony capitalists and regurgitate their propaganda in the same sentence? In my opinion, it is be you are being manipulated to put for an agenda that appeals to your base nature by people who could not care less about you.
Unregulated capitalism has brought us:
-Vast Income Inequality
-High Unemployment
-Wage Cuts while productivity continues to rise
-Endless War for profit, oil
-Massive political corruption at every level of government
The 'free market' you dream of is a pie in the sky, no different from St. Peter and the Pearly Gates or 72 Virgins. "Free" Market ideology has been at work in American Government for over 30 years, and it has resulted in the creation of a global corporate state that is anything but free. Stop making excuses for failure. It's OK to admit you were wrong. Being wrong only becomes problem when your foolish pride hinders you from assessment. Pull your head out of the sand. @marbles
Good Job. I link an essay that specifically identifies the problems and you respond with hollow partisan talking points that ignore the problems. Nationalizing risk by the big banks and privatizing profits is not free market capitalism, no matter how much you claim it to be.
Free market ideology didn't create a global corporate state. Putting our economy in the hands of a select few did. The Federal Reserve is an above the law private banking cartel. And whether you believe in a free market or not is irrelevant. Believing that Wall Street politicians are going to solve the problems that they help create is the real delusion.
Banks have taking over the government. Your solution: Support Wall Street puppets and regurgitate their talking points.
Banks have taking over the regulatory agencies. Your solution: Pass more Wall Street written regulations.
Government uses our tax money to bailout corporations and wage war around the world. Your solution: Give them more money to funnel to the top and fund more death and destruction.
So who's really being manipulated here? The corporate shadow government is erecting bars around your glass house and you're busy parroting their talking points. Good job pal.
Opposition to Paying for Capitalism's Crisis
^The more we deregulate, privatize, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut services for the rest, the worse things get. Unregulated capitalism has become its own worse enemy. If we want to save capitalism from itself, we need regulate it, so that it can not be used as a weapon to subjugate the working poor, the middle class and labor. The economic reforms you call for are the same reforms called for by corporatists and plutomists like the Kochs, The Scaifes, Luntz, Norquist among other corporate elites. How is it that you can rail against crony capitalists and regurgitate their propaganda in the same sentence? In my opinion, it is be you are being manipulated to put for an agenda that appeals to your base nature by people who could not care less about you.
Unregulated capitalism has brought us:
-Vast Income Inequality
-High Unemployment
-Wage Cuts while productivity continues to rise
-Endless War for profit, oil
-Massive political corruption at every level of government
The 'free market' you dream of is a pie in the sky, no different from St. Peter and the Pearly Gates or 72 Virgins. "Free" Market ideology has been at work in American Government for over 30 years, and it has resulted in the creation of a global corporate state that is anything but free. Stop making excuses for failure. It's OK to admit you were wrong. Being wrong only becomes problem when your foolish pride hinders you from assessment. Pull your head out of the sand. @marbles
UC DAVIS Occupy Protesters Warned about use of force
i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.
now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.
Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street
Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.
you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.
I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.
then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.
I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.
Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376
They even had maoists:
again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.
then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.
your argument is a contradiction.
The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.
one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.
What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.
Luke 11:28
But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Luke 18:8
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?
so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.
UC DAVIS Occupy Protesters Warned about use of force
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?
so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i know many see you as a troll who only wished to instigate and provoke for the sake of provoking.
i do not hold that opinion and i may be totally off the mark but i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
but what i find in your response is an ignorance pertaining to politics and history.this not necessarily a bad thing,we are all ignorant to some degree or other on certain topics.ignorance is curable.
i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.
you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.
now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.
you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.
then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.
again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.
then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.
your argument is a contradiction.
one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.
Patriotic Millionaires Debate Grover Norquist
As usual, reality disagrees with QM. As usual, he contributes nothing but regurgitated talking points he knows aren't true.
Waste, fraud, and abuse are not unique to the public sector. It happens just as much, if not more it's just covered up better in the private, so you can stop pretending there isn't a double standard.
People like you, QM have no moral ground to be talking about who has moral grounds or not.
The wealthy use and depend on gov't services more, so they should be charged more. It's really as simple as that. I've heard both left and right agree that corporate loopholes should be closed. But as usual, QM misses the point. It has nothing to do with left and right. Our corporate masters have their hooks in both the left and the right so while both the left and the right will pay lip service to closing loopholes, it will never happen unless there is enough public backlash to happen.
Businesses thrived in the past with higher tax rates. They will continue to do so.
Ideaology is worthless. History and countless evidence has shown that higher taxes are not job killers and that the 1 percent are just fear-mongering and attempting to hold the country hostage so they can be even more rich than they already are. You want to fight terrorism? There it is.
Rationality and reason, not ideaology and myth will always win in the end.
Operation Fox Hunt - Anonymous vs Fox news
>> ^bobknight33:
And MSNBC isn't on it knees slurping OBAMA juice? Give me a break.
No, they are not.
Maybe they're not frothing at the mouth to regurgitate any half-baked horseshit conspiracy BREAKING NEWS story about muffins or cigarettes or secret UN camps like FNC, but MSNBC has close to as many negative stories about Obama as Fox does.
You probably won't read any of these statistics, since the little "liberal media" fantasy world you've created will crumble around your feet, but here you go:
(this is a study from August 2010, but it's no diff today, and maybe worse)
• During the past 90 days, MSNBC has run a total of 1,193 stories about Obama with only 44% being positive while 55% were negative towards the President. The positive to negative ratio is -11%
• In the past 90 days, FoxNews has run 2,064 stories about President Obama, 46% were overall positive and 53% overall negative. The ratio of Positive to Negative stories is -7%
Also, how the fuck does Anon expect to "shut down" Fox? I don't get it
>> ^bobknight33:
And MSNBC isn't on it knees slurping OBAMA juice? Give me a break.
>> ^TheFreak:
>> ^fuzzyundies:
Their comeuppance should be delivered by ... the power of free, informed markets.
Yeah, you let me know if you ever find any free and informed markets.
Fox is nothing but the proganda wing of the republican party preying on week minds. Take them down.
Media Reacts To Conan's Same-Sex Wedding News
Corporate media talking heads.. they all regurgitate the same message with nearly the same words. Try doing that yourself elsewhere and you'll probably be charged with plagiarism.
Judge William Adams beats daughter with cerebral palsy
@longde, I'm not going to shrug my shoulders and regurgitate the relativist bullshit you seem so fond of. Much of our quality is defined by how we treat others. I don't care whether this man is the girl's father or a complete stranger. Anyone willing to act in that fashion towards their own child is a piece of shit.
And to say otherwise, and to say we may not judge him, that we've not the right to be disgusted by his cruelty simply because it's his house and his child... To say any of these things makes you a coward.
She disobeyed and got an asswhuppin', indeed. Children are neither the slaves nor property of their parents. And if this is William Adams' method for dealing with a vulnerable young woman in his care, he's not fit to be a father.