This is basically it. We were a country that after World War 2 had HALF of the worlds wealth, unprecedented in all of history. Then we went through the biggest golden age ever, tons of money being generated everywhere. Since the 1970s that didn't translate to the workers, wages stagnated. Now wages are actually regressing, when the rich enriched themselves the workers are getting less and less and the middle class is being destroyed.

I don't dislike anyone for them looking for an answer when there are none about. Going to Libertarianism makes a lot of sense if you want to believe in a just world that makes logical sense. But it's not all that complicated, those at the top have money and power and they use the government to keep it that way. We have to stop them to get what we're owed.

It's not spam because:

• he is a contributing member who didn't just sign up to post this one thing
  
• the post complies with vs guidelines and is in the appropriate channels
  
• shout outs to games are not unprecedented on vs (I've posted one myself, as have others)
  
• although I'm not interested myself, there is a good chance that somebody here is
  

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Mea culpa, but she's a bit unprecedented in speed.

Ut oh, There are so many contradictions in your post. It honestly looks like you're starting to become unhinged. See this is why I quote your posts. I want you to be able to see what you say...makes it easier to spot those contradictions and makes it more certain that I am responding accurately.

It is strange though. It does appear that none of your arguments in your most recent post have anything to do with my recent response. You're making new arguments again without settling our original ones. I can only assume that means you're conceding my points.

You've asked me to prove your emotional manipulation due to your usage of "freedom" and "coercion" Oh...I'm sorry Ren, but you have missed it, but I already responded to that. Here, let me quote it for you:

"Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness."

There, I hope that clears things up amigo.

Ut oh, again, you referred to your original question. But Ren...I've responded to this numerous times? Did you forget? Here, let me quote those too:

"This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?"

and..

"You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you."

and...

"To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering. ""

and finally...

"I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it."

There. I'm really sorry, I thought you read all that already. That should clear it up. I'm sorry you thought I was avoiding it.

Unfortunately, you've contradicted yourself my friend. Earlier in your post, you admit there are no rules for us talking, but at the end of your post you put forth a rule for me...a dare..if you will. I don't think it's very fair that you don't have any rules, but I have to be...coerced into following your rules, do you?

If you do honestly think I'm a troll, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intent, but you know, there is one rule that is known for dealing with trolls. Oh crap, my bad. You don't like rules, you think they take away your freedom, my bad.

I certainly hope that clears everything up buddy. Hopefully this does conclude our discussion. But then again, I thought we were done some time ago, but you kept bringing up different arguments and other distractions so I was compelled to correct your errors. HTH

PS. It is rather contradictory to accuse me of being juvenile, but you end your post with a dare. Oops! That must be so embarrassing for you!

How exactly are they less free?

Am I taking people's freedom away if I have them pass a test before they can use a car?

Am I taking peoples' freedom away If I take away their license if they were driving drunk or doing something else stupid? Yes, but this is universally considered acceptable.

You guys love to compare guns to cars so I'm shoving the analogy down your throat.

Do people generally complain about taking away the freedom of criminals when they do a criminal act? nope. Again, it is universally accepted that it is OK to take rights away if someone is a demonstrated menace to society

These are the *choices* people make. Freedom isn't about unrestricted access, It's about the freedom to make choices. You can make any choice you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of choice of others and you are willing to accept the consequences of said choices.

Can you at least agree that there are certain responsibilities attached to owning a gun? So why is regulation of weapons to ensure those responsibilities are adhered to such a foreign concept to you? Even the NRA "claims" to be interested in firearm safety. Was the idiot in this video being safe?

You have the freedom to go to college...IF you have the grades and money.
You have the freedom to imbibe alcohol...IF you are a certain age and can demonstrate that you can use it safely
You have the freedom to have a certain job, IF you have the skills and education required.
And according to the right, you have the freedom to vote....IF you can provide an ID.

This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?

Are we taking away someone's freedom if they're not qualified to have a certain job?

And having a gun, or a car, has a significant risk to infringe upon other's freedoms so it's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate proficiency and safety before using said items.

The idiot in this video has DEMONSTRATED that he is unsafe with a weapon. Where are the repercussions? When does he pay for his actions as you say.

We have to deal with this crap for the next twenty years, until my generation of 40 somethings are retired. Our parents didn't have any experience about different cultures, they were the first teens, equality between genders were solidified against the ways of the previous generation.. Our job is to teach our children how to make multiculturalism work, even if we don't understand it our self.

People need to remember that this is happening in an unprecedented pace. Society changes slower than we think. But that is not an excuse of not trying to make it work.

I guess the obligatory "I told you so" is in bad taste, but...

http://videosift.com/talk/Obama-Backs-RIAA-with-150-000-Per-Track-Punishment#comment-721610

http://videosift.com/video/Dancing-With-The-Czars#comment-861804

http://videosift.com/poll/Anyone-else-have-some-good-vids-sit-for-48-hrs-unsifted#comment-950425

http://videosift.com/poll/Should-VideoSift-have-a-game-room#comment-695979

http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Unprecedented-War-Powers-Claims#comment-1236012

The fact is when the tax rate was much more fair and taxing the rich was accepted we had the most unprecedented period of growth in the history of the world. It was like fiscal viagra. We've given up on that period from the 50s to the 70s and instead are just asking to go back to the 90s taxation. When rich people were still doing INCREDIBLY WELL, and they won't budge.

It's amazing how much power we give the rich in our society, that's the only way they are able to do these things.

>> ^bobknight33:

Government sets the policies that makes it desirable to ship jobs over seas, for the rich to pay less tax rate that others.

They had the chance to make change and squander their opportunity.
Democrat voters hoped for change.
All voters are left with is change in their pockets.
Obama is an utter failure.


No he's a complete success. What was he supposed to do? Help the financial industry, those who got him elected. They got billions and they're doing better than ever, so you're wrong he's done good and that's why he's gotten unprecedented funding for his reelection.

OH FUCK YOU. Obama got elected and what the fuck did he do? He filled his economics team with people who were largely responsible for the economy being shit in the first place. One economic commentator said "Most of this economic team shouldn't be being nominated they should be indicted." Look them up, nearly all of them are fucking criminals.

Obama is better than Romney, barely in that some peoples lives will be horrible under Romney, namely the poor and a bit better under Obama. But he's a real piece of work, his Hope and Change shouldn't have blinded anyone, it was always in the cards that he would help the Financial Institutions at the expense of the People, because that's who got him elected and that's who owns him. And I'll tell you something else, they own him even more now with unprecedented funding for both campaigns, this isn't anything close to a democracy, it's simply who has the most money now.

Ok, so the plaintiff's google searches are never applicable? Is that because they're "not related to the crime?"

>> ^bareboards2:

Principal would be --- the google search is related to the crime. The accused criminal does the action, not the victim of the criminal.
@Trancecoach, in my opinion. And as supported by the judge in this case, who did something unprecedented in voiding the subpoena.

Principal would be --- the google search is related to the crime. The accused criminal does the action, not the victim of the criminal.

@Trancecoach, in my opinion. And as supported by the judge in this case, who did something unprecedented in voiding the subpoena.

A good place to go for all things tax & budgetary is the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank that specializes in all things tax & budgetary.

For actual legislation that's making its way through congress, you wanna check the Congressional Budget Office.

You don't really need to read a book, but you do need to be willing to read some rather dry material.

The big problem with Romney has been that he hasn't given enough specifics to really even do a real analysis. Though even if you try to do the work of transforming his generalities into specifics for him, it seems essentially impossible for him to keep all his promises unless you assume some sort of unprecedented economic boom will happen.

>> ^Yogi:

Just ONCE I want to see someone break this shit down by the numbers. Seriously can it be that hard? Do I have to go buy a book to do it. Hell 99% of America doesn't read books that do that.

>> ^Chaucer:

President Barack Obama lauded the landing in a statement, calling it "an unprecedented feat of technology that will stand as a point of national pride far into the future." Obama went on to say, "If you've got a rover, you didnt build that..."


Actually, after he congratulated tax payers, he went on to say this rover was made possible by Well's Fargo, Citibank, and Pizza Hut.