>> ^Yogi:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Fucking shit.
It should be legal for the family to go gun down this asshole's entire family now.

HOW The fuck was your comment upvoted and mine was downvoted! Fucking Cat favoritism!!!


Looks like now you have 4 and I have -1. You made people change their minds, like "OH SHIT YEAH!! That's totally wrong to want to kill someone's family for retribution!" kekeke... Silly internets and your overseriouslinesses.

I just upvoted yours to help make you feel better.

I'm glad I don't believe in divine forgiveness or divine retribution either one. I believe in karma and last I checked someone being Gay never hurt anyone else.
>> ^Riotgirl:

>> ^Yogi:
I hope that her God can find it in his heart to forgive her.

I am so glad that I don't have to wonder if MY GOD will find it in my heart to forgive ANYONE. I am absolutely sure that MY GOD will forgive you!

I thought this was a very clever trailer seeing it in a theater. It starts as a Sony commercial then you really do a double take and are pleasantly surprised.

I thought Resident Evil: Afterlife had some of the best 3D effects and scenes of any 3D movie released in 2010. I will definitely see Retribution.

I'm happy to hear this.

The police are basically crapping on their own people when they beat up OWS protesters.

I wish it wouldn't have come to this, but it has.

Faceless cops can no longer beat people, shoot people, and spray people without expecting some retribution.

The time to choose sides has come.

Look. Lets get this straight. There is an obvious smear campaign going on. Rather than airing, openly discussing, and trying to come to terms with the complaints of the many thousands of protesters out there all around the US and the globe, the new media decides to post smear articles about specific individuals.

The mainstream media doesn't want a dialog. They don't want to come to an understanding of what this movement is about. They just want to shut it down because the government doesn't like it, and the news media fears retribution by regulators when it comes time for them to renew their licenses. Its all about greed and self preservation of the corporate profit structure.

That woman should file a slander suit and kick that paper's ass. Facts are facts. If they had facts to back up their accusations. Fine. But they don't. It is bullshit. The reporter(s) and editor involved in the article should now be fired and made into a public spectacle. She then needs to hope whatever judge she ends up with isn't bought off or appointed by a political figure who is anti-OWS.

I should point out that the most recent unrest in cities around the UK weren't protests, it was rioting. It wasn't about making a political point, it started as retribution for a specific police killing and while it was certainly fueled by a feeling of injustice and malcontent I certainly don't want to be associated with those criminals in any way.

As for the protest @ wallstreet. I certainly hope it spreads and grows larger. The media might not be reporting on it, but information is spread easily by the people. Talk about it on your twitter/facebook and the message will get out.

Looks like someone downvoted this out of retribution. *quality to counteract

F!*@ that Shuac. Don't be so reasonable. I'm down-voting every new channel suggestion that anyone else makes from now on in retribution.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that Washington University, the school that created the Foldit program, is a public (that is to say, funded by the state; a.k.a. statist) institution.


Right, and I'm sure the researchers there are fantastic. Still, they opened the market to allow more people to work on what they themselves and others weren't able to succeed at.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that healthcare, up until very recently, has been privatized (excluding medicare and medicaid) for a substantial time now; yet the lifetime cost of HIV medications and treatment is roughly $385,000.


And available only from big pharma. And that's thanks to government regulations. Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine privately and offered it without patent. If he were to bring the same drug to market today by FDA restrictions he'd have to pay millions.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Shouldn't free market generic meds have landed in your local Wally World for $5 a month by now? Why is the free market dictating these insane prices where how much you can pay is directly relational to how long you get to live.


The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated. I think you're erroneously conflating corporatism with free market.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Now, as we know, if the market was not worthy, pharmaceutical businessmen would not get involved with it and essentially let the project die. The logical solution to these huge dilemmas in cost then is to create a larger customer base. All they need now is a furtive way to deliver the virus to a sect of the population that is either expendable and large or rich and small.


Again, you're claiming the current market is free. If it was, people like Salk could enter and compete (much like the gamers in the article above) without retribution from government. What you have today is a limited amount of pharma companies that can compete in the market, and because there's less competition, you have higher prices.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I don't see where the "market" part comes in. Just the "free" part.


The market is just a system of exchange. Look at my example of Salk above. He developed and released a cure to polio, but today the restrictions on the market makes this kind of charitable action illegal. But in regards to the article specifically, Wash. Univ. opened their system of exchange and asked the online gaming community to help in figuring out a complex structure of an AIDS protein. The exchange was charitable. That's the free market.

Now if there was a regulation against this sort of thing because the online gamers weren't "licensed" for instance, then that would be a restrictive market. Right?

Jesus and Robin Hood and Socrates, and any other popular figures from more than a couple of centuries ago, have their existence/non existence blurred with legends, stories and all sorts of stupid demented bullshit to the point where no one really knows what the story is. Anyone who claims to is lying.

You take the good stuff and kind of hope they were like that. Christianity is the selective filtering of some ancient stories from an uneducated diseased fearful superstitious population of people who rarely lived past 35, warped to suit the morality and power structure of a succession of morally dubious civilisations in which the ones with the big hats claiming to know more about what 'god' thinks are invariably FAR more like the self righteous fat ruling class who had Jeebs nailed up. If that actually happened. I mean , if Jeebs was real enough to drive a nail through - they certainly nailed up thousands in that time.

I mean what about the pope/nuns/monks/water into wine etc etc? That's not in the bible. People add, and remove, whatever they want to suit their purpose. They don't seem to be afraid of retribution for it, so either they have a HUGE ego (god will agree with me!) or they don't really believe in any of that shit. The pope sure as hell doesn't, or he'd clean up the Vatican bank sharpish.

Shiny may be bonkers but at least he's not wearing a silly hat in a golden city tricked from the poor and desperate, shouting at Africans that the fantasy god he has violently imposed on them will hate them for using Jonnies to stop Aids.



>> ^hpqp:

Well considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.

I actually can't think of any other time in over two years when I've *unreservedly* agreed with something you've said. Can we have an argument to settle my confused head?

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. The past suffering of women does not justify current women jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of minorities does not justify current minorities jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of Palestinians (or Jews) does not justify current people jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of retribution & fairness.

See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.

It isn't funny to tell a racial joke just because it is about whites. Racism is racism. It isn't funny to joke about mutilating a man. Sexism is sexism. It isn't funny to lump all the Tea Party into one bucket and pretend they are all Timothy McVeigh. Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.

I would not say that one action, or even multiple makes an evil man.

Additionally, I will say that if one group tolerates a growing corruption, a festering if you will, within, then they are the ones propagating "racism" or "sexism" within their group. Not those who "prejudice" against them. And besides, prejudice is a natural instinct, a safety mechanism of sorts. Without it, we would all be dead.

Hatred, however, is counter intuitive...

But, upvote your comment because despite the trivial distinctions in definitions I make, you are on point.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. The past suffering of women does not justify current women jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of minorities does not justify current minorities jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of Palestinians (or Jews) does not justify current people jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of retribution & fairness.
See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.
It isn't funny to tell a racial joke just because it is about whites. Racism is racism. It isn't funny to joke about mutilating a man. Sexism is sexism. It isn't funny to lump all the Tea Party into one bucket and pretend they are all Timothy McVeigh. Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.

As many times as we've disagreed in the past, I couldn't agree with this more.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. The past suffering of women does not justify current women jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of minorities does not justify current minorities jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of Palestinians (or Jews) does not justify current people jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of retribution & fairness.
See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.
It isn't funny to tell a racial joke just because it is about whites. Racism is racism. It isn't funny to joke about mutilating a man. Sexism is sexism. It isn't funny to lump all the Tea Party into one bucket and pretend they are all Timothy McVeigh. Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.

Hate is hate, no matter who is doing it. The past suffering of women does not justify current women jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of minorities does not justify current minorities jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of 'retribution'. The past suffering of Palestinians (or Jews) does not justify current people jumping on a hate bandwagon in the name of retribution & fairness.

See the pattern here? We have all these groups who point to past injustices, and use it as justification to make THEIR OWN evils sound somehow more acceptable. I reject all such self-excuses as evil. Pure, 100%, unadulterated evil.

It isn't funny to tell a racial joke just because it is about whites. Racism is racism. It isn't funny to joke about mutilating a man. Sexism is sexism. It isn't funny to lump all the Tea Party into one bucket and pretend they are all Timothy McVeigh. Prejudice is prejudice. Anyone who practices it is an evil person, and needs to take a good hard look in the mirror at themselves. These are all different manifestations of the same disease. Hatred. And it isn't funny.