So when can we tar and feather these mother fuckers. These are peoples homes. If you know of someone being for closured upon tell them to squat inside of their own homes.

No offense - but boo freaking hoo.

Through all history, art (and by extension, advertising) has idealized the human physical form to represent the societally desired standard of beauty. Some folks (vid chick especially) needs to spend a bit less time whingeing about things that are absolutely, unequivocally, 100% unchangeable. What are you going to do, toots? Pass a law that forces people to only portray human figures in a way that you personally approve? Get over it.

By the way, males get the same treatment too. Avertising, movies, TV, and pretty much all forms of media portray the male figure in an exaggerated fashion. Males are shown in two ways... 1. They are shaped like tent-pegs, tall, muscle-bound, and have physically impossible abs. 2. They are the icky "metro-sexual" waif-like douche with a shirt half open, popped collar, and an expression like he is about to commit suicide. So don't give me this bullcrap that men are not also objectified, idealized, cut up, and treated like meat in ads & the media. Of course they are.

But you don't hear stupid moronic men giving speeches about how it this trend 'damages' boys because it doesn't. Why? Because boys have the ability to not care squat about how the male body is portrayed in media. The only area men tend to be insecure about body image is (A) going bald and (B) the size of thier junk.

funny I did research this guy after seeing this and discovered the logical outcome. Dream Theater is one of those bands I always liked and have their albums but dont know squat about the members. I wondered later if this is a near exact clip from a DT song?? Sounds very falling into infinity if my recollection serves me.

Thanks. I do squats.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What an ass.

I'm not so sure it's equal, but assigning blame isn't the most productive outcome here. Hopefully this event will moderate the rhetoric on all sides going forward.

I've seen both sides, and yes it is equal. There is a ton of left-wing hate speech that is never focused on by the media. The media CHOOSES not to focus on it, but it is still there - consistent and constant. Media tends to ignore sleaze which they are ideologically sympathetic towards, but they're hypersensitive to sleaze they oppose. The media decided that "right wing hate" was to blame before the smoke even cleared and so that's how they're going to discuss the story despite the evidence piling up that the lunatic was a neolib nut.

I do not believe this event will moderate jack-diddly-squat-doodle in terms of political rhetoric because the blame game being played is not taking place with a neutral "let's all step back" attitude. The blame game is ideologically motivated, biased, slanted, one-sided, and taking place 100% from the perspective of "left is fine; right is evil..."

That sort of biased slant is not going to calm people down. It is make people who are conservative even more upset. Bill Clinton pulled the same stunt in 1995. The right mostly ignored it. But they piled on, and conservatives became associated with compounds and crazies as a media default. The right learned a lesson that they can't just ignore it when the political left in concert with a left-biased media manufactures a lie.

So when overnight there are literally dozens of hit peices blaming this tragedy on Palin, the Tea Party, and conservative talk radio? Well, naturally the right is going to respond. I very much doubt the two-way "yes you did - no we didn't" discourse is going to soften the rhetoric.

What WOULD calm people down is if the media and politicians stopped trying to cast this story in such a way as to blame only their opponents. I put the odds of that happening at just about 0%. The political world is addicted to slash and burn hostility, and the media can't stop itself from slanting the news to save its own life because that's just what they've done for decades and they don't even know how to just report without editorializing anymore.

That's true of any voting group.

Quite so. This is why federal governments should be extremely limited in its powers, with most functional legislation at the state or local level where there is more accountability, higher churn, and restricted capacity to impact unrelated citizens.

Why would you imply such behavior is inappropriate if "the left" is criticizing public figures you agree with?

I didn’t. I was refuting Net’s position that when the left loses the intellectual and popular debate that they behave like some sort of gentleman’s club. Bull feathers.

You have also argued that Social Security should be repealed even while admitting that doing so would be extremely unpopular. Why would your same "dictate by fiat" criticism not apply to conservatives when they violate "the will of the people"?

It does apply. Who said it didn’t? I’m fully aware that my personal position of eliminating Social Security would be against the will of the people as far as they are currently aware of the issue. But that can change with information. Reagan rolled that way.

I'll be the first to point out that what is "best" is rarely what is "popular", but in my opinion the solution is education, not exclusion.

Experience is the best educator. Let’s take an example of a typical market boom property flipper. Uh oh! It’s September, 2008 and the market collapses. Guy has three properties, he can’t afford to pay the mortgages on any one of them with his base salary, and he can’t sell them for squat.
A lot of parties are involved here, but this GUY bears the ultimate responsibility for his predicament. He was a moron who put himself in a bad position with reckless borrowing. No one held a gun to him and forced him to take out three mortgages when he only had the earning power for one. People who behave in ways that are this foolish deserve probationary, limited voting rights for a time. If he claws his way out of debt, wiser for the experience, and demonstrates he deserves a shot then more voting rights can be restored. Same logic applies for a lot of screw-ups.

basically every part of your response directed at me was some form of "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you!".

That’s your opinion, and I disagree with it. Valid counters you do not like are not “rubber/glue” just because you don't like them. For example, you made a clear, statement that “the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of, instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.” I said that is not true, but that they resort to insults, slander, and attacks. I think MSNBC, Kos, HuffPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, NPR, Pelosi, Obama, Ried, Greyson, Frank, Olbermann, Maddow, and a billion other leftist persons, outlets, and organizations prove me right on a daily basis.

Rather than address the meat of my argument, Geesuss ran off crying and Pennypecker has resorted to insults.

Oh? Where? I try to never make things personal. Rather, I respond accurately. Some people may find that insulting, but accuracy is not insult. Describing your hyperbole as hyperbole is not an insult. You may not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m not right. It must be said that you are the one dealing in personal insults. I’m intellectually addressing a valid question about appropriate voting, and you started putting words in my mouth and flinging maledictions. Quite frankly, you need to learn how to argue an ISSUE instead of just attacking the messenger. I thought I was quite polite, really, all things considered.

I'd love to hear either of you explain to me why denying civil rights to poor people is not fascist

Well in the first place you are framing your posit very badly. I never said poor people shouldn’t vote. That kind of poor argumentation is why I suggested to you (very artfully) that you should reinstitute your policy of self-recusal. You appear to argue from pure emotion. Believe me that I'm not being 'insulting' when I say that it makes you really bad at intellectual discussion.

I say something like "bad management of property ownership should result in voting restrictions"... Your interpretation is, "He's a fascist who hates poor people!" If you can't see the difference then it must be said that our perspectives are too far seperated to bridge and you really shouldn't even try. I can understand and intellectually address a liberal argument. You seem unable to do the same when faced with a conservative one. So your position of self recusal was wise. Your decision to abandon it was not.

No Bill, you are not racist, as Islam is not a race, but you ARE prejudiced. While there is every reason to defend and uphold the democratic principles you list against the reactionary and patriarchal elements of all religions including islam, there is no reason to believe that small arbitration courts in parts of London is a threat to the well established and well founded liberal legal systems of the Western world.

And to say that Mohammed is the most popular name for babies is at best bending the truth. In that count is also included Mohamad, Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammad and similar variations of the name. To be fair you would also have to count names like Jake, Jack and Jacob in the same bin. Five minutes of googling would also have told you that there is a tradition for muslim parents of all denominations to name one of their children after the prophet, while no such tradition exists among other brits. This fact alone can explain the name statistics, without saying diddly-squat about the rise of radical islam in Great Britain.

How amusing. All of a sudden when it comes to weed the 10th Ammendment starts mattering again to neolibs. Of course, it doesn't matter squat when it comes to illegal immigration enforcement, gay marriage laws (when the people vote 'no'), or repealing Obama's unconstitutional health care law. But hey - even broken clocks are 'right' twice a day...

For the record - if Cali wants to legalize weed then I support it. Because unlike neolibs, I am consistent in the application of my political philosophy. I'm a state's rights, small government, low-taxes, fiscal conservative, and I don't change my stripes. I think people who use weed recreationally are stupid idiots, but unlike neolibs I don't seek to use government to impose my standards on others.

Actually, I agree with Mikus.

But if you are going to let some expire, let it be on the super rich.

We are babies in this country, wanting something for nothing.

I stumbled across an internet posting by a tax client (I do taxes), railing at someone because they supported the healthcare reform. He railed about how he had to pay for it.

Well, I do his taxes. I happen to know that he hasn't paid doodly squat in taxes on the federal level for several years -- in fact, got huge rebates due to having kids.

He also works for a state government -- his income is 100% taxpayer funded.

Maybe his healthcare premiums did go up. But he has paid jack sh*t to the federal government.

The hypocrisy of it astounds me.

This was clearly the most awesome and epic thing I have ever, and will ever witness.

A few comments:

1) Your personal firearms collection is very nice.
2) You do have a well-sculpted body. Kudos.
3) You have obviously never had any sort of combat training in your life, otherwise, you would know that:

a) Grenades have a second safety thumb clip that needs to come off before pulling the pin
b) you don't put grease paint on to blend in and then take your shirt off
c) you apply grease paint in such a way that it's actually effective with darker colors on high-shine areas
d) you don't throw a knife away when you're holding a gun, especially without looking. If you miss, you can't fire another knife.
e) you don't wear reflective material like chain necklaces
f) you don't use 9mm SMGs in open terrain
g) you don't silhouette yourself by standing on top of a cliff
h) you don't rest a weapon on the magazine. It can lead to jamming.
i) you don't need a black mask in broad daylight
j) you don't roll around on the ground whilst firing. You won't hit anything.
k) you don't spin around a corner and immediately fire. You won't hit anything.
l) you don't walk through big bushes. You can't see anything and you will give yourself away.
m) you don't hold a weapon right-handed and look through the left eye.
n) squatting and letting wildlife crawl around you doesn't accomplish anything.
o) you don't fire an automatic weapon with one hand
p) You don't hold fire on full auto without having a weapon fed by a belt.
q) you don't jerk the trigger on a rifle. Your aim will be off.
r) You don't stand in a window to screw a suppressor on. You're easier to see and will get shot. Same as (g).

Other than all that, you're fuckin' awesome.

Your video, Man shoots guns, squats and wears a snake, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This video is such Bull.

There is no money left to fund SS. Its been broke for years. If you want this program at 62 ,65 or 67 then cut other programs and fund this. The days of borrowing has to end. We are borrowing from our grand children and that is totally wrong. How selfish. If you haven't figured out that you will be getting squat from Uncle Sam when you retire that you are an idiot.


Define rich? If you make more that 160K/yr the you are part of the top 5%.
The top 5% pay 53% of all income tax.. Is that fair? While if you make 32K then you are part of the top 50%. The top 50% pay 96% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% make less than 32k/yr and pay less than 3% of all Federal taxes.

Looks like the rich are paying a shitload more than anyone else. Quit bitching about the rich. Bitch at the government to un fund some programs and fund programs that you care really care about.

Some of the stuff here looks a little arbitrary - what's the point of the kicks in between the weighted squats for example - but upvote for interval training. Also, this is clearly meant to be a part of a very varied training regimen, and not getting stuck in a routine is probably the single best idea for functional training I can imagine.

I could write a wall of text providing detail on everything I've said about solar power. Is that what you want? Humans have been fiddling with batteries for centuries and with solar cells since the 1940s. Progress has been slow not because people haven't been trying or because there hasn't been money thrown at the issue. People have been trying to make solar work for decades, and have sunk billions into research. And yet - here we are - and solar power isn't good for squat except powering calculators and heating water. You can't change the laws of physics.

Until some genius discovers a brand new technology, solar power will remain unviable except for limited applications. Ma Bell made the first solar cell in 1954 and the basic design & technology is still the same. Batteries? New metals haven't changed the fact that they're localized, heavy, toxic, and expensive.

I know some folks wish otherwise. But solar just isn't a good alternative. If we're going to go to an electricity economy then it's going to need to be done with nuclear. This guy's road? A cute idea - but conspicuously absent in this video is any cost analysis or description of exactly how he's going to get the collected power from the road to your house or business. Energy doesn't just magically wait around for you to use it. It's got to be moved from point A to point B, and has to be stored somewhere until its accessed. Currently it costs around 10,000 dollars just to get enough solar paneling (ignoring the batteries, cables, fixtures & labor) to power one small house. Panelling the entire road system? Yeah, right... (b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b...)

You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons. Since BHO's election, we've got new months of data--hard evidence--that the left's schemes don't work, and in the ongoing example of Statist Europe, proof that going further left doesn't increase prosperity even as it reduces individual liberty to a speck.

If socialism "worked", the EU would be an economic powerhouse. Instead they are an economic powermouse. But that's the left's folly, measuring everything in terms of "equality". If everyone gets a dirty mattress in a filthy hospital with a 6-month wait, that's better than one guy with health insurance and another without.

FDR's follies now have to be repeated because government schools are--surprise!--pro-Big Government and anti-capitalist; warnings of FDR's failures go unheeded, if they're even pointed out at all.

In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”


Guess there was no other way to learn except by direct experience that government spending doesn't stimulate squat and oppressive wealth redistribution puts unearned money in the hands of the less capable who can't create anything with it.

One thing I'll never understand about the American far left (they exist, they're called communists) is why they simply don't pack up and move to Europe. I'm not saying love it or leave it, it's just the logical solution. The EU is large enough to simulate any climate or locale in America and all the entitlement goodies taxocrats use to buy voters here already exist: "free" health care, college, child care, etc...

There is no such place for right-wingers to move, where liberty and risk are more prominent than Statism. The United States was the last place on earth where government knew its proper role, with laws to keep its powers in check. That is no longer the case.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy