>> ^MonkeySpank:

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.



Ok let me put it this way. Noam Chomsky is smarter than you and he's right. Go argue with someone who cares.

Why?
He wants to outlaw lobbying at the Federal level. If corporations really loved him, then you'd see that in his political contributions, instead they are backing Mitt Romney:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

It's easier to call the man crazy, but I still don't see why he is crazy for limiting federal involvement. I voted for Obama, but I fail to see why Ron Paul is such a big pill for people to swallow. If the Bush (real crazy) administration had less control over the 50 states, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.
Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.
Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.
For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.


Yes but he's saying that Ron Paul would cut out federal restrictions. California isn't more powerful than the companies that own it they would have to bow down to them immediately.

Sorry but Chomsky is right as usual. Ron Paul is fucking crazy, what he believe would create a world in which corporations would enslave us completely.

I love Noam Chomsky; I quote him regularly, many times on videosift, but I disagree with him here. I think Noam Chomsky is confusing libertarian with anarchist. Ron Paul, by definition knows his limits as a POTUS. His constitutional ethics cannot force his rule, or the Fed's rule, onto a state. This is where Noam gaffed.

Ron Paul doesn't dictate what a state should do, with regards to health care, EPA, or anything, but he does have the power to limit the federal government involvement; that's a huge difference from what Noam is saying.

For example, I live in the state of California, and we strongly believe in an environment protection/regulation agency, because we saw how bad it got over here, and we are trying to back out of our mess - think of it as a cancer patient starting to eat healthy all of a sudden. What California wants should not apply to Montana for example, but California can still enforce tariffs on products from other states that infringe on its own policies, outside federal protocols. That's the Tenth Amendment, and that's how it should be.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.


First we need to ask "what" the constitution is in the first place before we say what is "in" the constitution...nobody seems to know what it truly is. It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)

You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.

In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

But this is a double edged sword because it leaves much not covered completely to the Federal Government and States with only the people to balance them out with their morality.

If the federal and state government both said Pot was legal--pot is legal. If they say alcohol is banned, it is banned. If they say contraceptives are prohibited, they are prohibited. Period. If they made rape legal, RAPE is LEGAL. We may not like that scary thought--but that's the power, that's the force of government, even in a democracy (Adolph Hitler and his followers would have agreed, so would Rome and many other democracies.)

Sadly, dumb fucks even say the constitution only applies to citizens...even though it really has nothing to do with "The people." It cannot apply to anyone because it only applies to the State...

Now, and this is where I detach and am not a blind fanboy of Ron Paul's, he get's the constitution ass-backwards... Still, I would take his broken views and make honest men out of politicians than to propagate the election of spineless bad-guys-finish-first shit bags.

And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.

The giant federal mafia that ALREADY does whatever it wants to anyone is WAY better.



>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?


There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.

That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.

The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"

And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.

Hah, John Wayne was a member; why does that not surprise me? Sorry, but ye'ol Ron that is the last straw. I should have just looked up his background in the first place. Belonging to the John Birch Society is tantamount to pure paranoia to the tenth degree, with a ultra-right-wing-christian flavor.

I can't see it anywhere, but it seems like John Edgar Hoover would be a de facto member for sure yet it's not listed. The John Birch Society comes off more as a cult much like Scientology to some degree (both equally horrendous in their own way). One member that didn't surprise me too much was Mr. Koch himself (Daddy Koch). That one makes perfect sense...

Atleast a few people know just how ridiculous the John Birch Society is here on the sift. I'll have to look around and see if I can find a good program about them, as they most deservedly need their own defined space here on the sift for us to pummel into submission. Problem is most of the documentaries I've ever seen on them were done in the 1980's--so I'll have to look hard, there may be some connected to PBS.

/Goes to read all the backgrounds on all the candidates from thorough sources...
//Really surprised the John Birch thing hasn't come up far more often and much more earlier...

Oh yeah and the UN IS F@$KING SATAN!!1!1 Just so you know.

>> ^shuac:

What the fuck is with all the quick-cutting? It's ridonkulous.


It's the guys in the booth trying to put whoever's talking on the screen. The problem is they all talk at the same time and no one can speak uninterrupted for more than a tenth of a second.

i saw one of these in India. it runs on android and costs one tenth the amount this one did.

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

Sorry Jlowen, but @Skeeve is right. I really enjoyed this and hope you post more from that site.

>> ^Skeeve:

The other one isn't working for me at the moment, but this is a dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/imagining-the-10th-dimension


I fixed the old one.

This is what I listen to when I think about how sad September 11th was and is today on the tenth anniversary.

>> ^Ryjkyj:


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.
And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.
Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.
What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?
And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.
And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.


I will admit that a species that has absolutely no comparable experience with us would be a problem. There's a mad, wonderful chapter in Greg Egans Diaspora that discusses the idea of complex creatures that have evolved in multi-dimensional space. I don't recall the exact maths, but they essentially live "rotated" into extra dimensions. I'll grant they will pose a challenge.

But it's not unreasonable to assume that some life forms would have evolved on a similar ecosystem to ours. We're already comfortable in working outside base 10, and there are some smart people who are working out establishing common symbol patterns based on fundamental mathematical principles. I don't care if you can interchange your head with your elbow, or you reproduce by thought, 1+1 =2. That does not change. Same for Pythagoras' theorem, prime numbers and so on.

My overall point is that something that is smart enough to figure out all the problems of going out into space will figure out how to communicate with us.

Or more likely, simply harvest the planet for resources. They're bound to be low on food and fuel by then

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Much as I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I feel he's wrong on this. I've said it before, but I think our ability to understand abstract concepts such as math should mark us as sufficiently different from the other species on our planet.


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.

And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.

Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.

What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?

And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.

And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.

"The latest disaster for the solar system is that the United States has decided to go to Mars. And, of course, later we intend to colonize deep space with our Salad Shooters and Snot Candy and microwave hot dogs. But let me ask you this: What are we going to tell the Intergalactic Council the first time one of our young women throws her newborn baby out of a seventh-story window? And how do we explain to the Near-Stellar Trade Confederation that our representative was late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold, and he had to spend thirty minutes beating the shit out of his wife?

Do you think the elders of the Universal Board of Wisdom will understand that it’s simply because of quaint local customs that over 80 million of our women have had their clitorises and labia cut off and their vulvas sewn shut in order to make them more marriageable and unable to derive pleasure from sex and thus never be a threat to stray from their husbands’ beds?

Can’t you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?"

- George Carlin