Seems OK, plus I like the asian chick.eleven bravo wrote:
still a good channel. thats where charlie rose has his show
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Agreed, yes. We are of a like mind.eleven bravo wrote:
still a good channel. thats where charlie rose has his show
Funny that.
Charging people thousands of dollars to reserve a spot in a Doomsday shelter would probably be a great investment. You don't even have to build a shelter really, if the Doomsday happens what the hell are they going to do sue me? They'll all be dead so no worries there.
dam, there goes half the forum . . .Dilbert_X wrote:
Sorry a post on a forum is not really a source.
There's a bit of a difference between real info and Cybargs' 'AFAIK'.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i love tuning into american news channels whenever i can. when on holiday, for instance, they normally get Fox News and CNN for the 'american tourists' abroad, sorta thing. the quality of news broadcasting and the levels of journalistic professionalism in the american industry is absolutely DISGUSTING. it's like watching a bunch of children acting like adults in costume. it's so so fucking surreal. it makes me shiver to think that tens of millions of hicks are sat in their armchairs with a bowl of peanuts being spoonfed that crap and letting it inform their world view, in any way whatsoever. even the vulgar, garish presentation of topics is nauseating. the 'hot topics' and 'debates' they get into literally make me want to vomit at times... the absolute banality, the inane topics they choose, the prime-time drama air they give to it. things like this 'n-word' farce just blow up a non-issue into some great country-arresting issue that people are forced to engage with, just because it's being shoved in their face all day by these huge news companies with their tacky graphics-displays and hollywood-anchors. it's fucked up. fuck american news.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Stopped watching after they showed what someone said about it on twitter.Macbeth wrote:
Dr. Laura thing aside, if this is the best CNN can come up with then they deserve the ratings pummeling by Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdCk4AV5ag
It's not intelligent anaylsis, it's one sided and unfair, and really really boring.
Fuck the news. I don't see why you have to watch the news to get the news. I haven't sat in front of a television for news in I don't know how long. I don't see why you need anything more than text. I don't see how you can make a legitimate case for anything but text doing something more than dumbing down the news, particularly in context of our current media situation.
When I say "only text" I of course refer to something you would find in a newspaper or in an internet article, which could include relevant pictures, charts, graphs, etc.
edit: to the next video, LOLOLOL Moses
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Hitchens is on his way out. It's really too bad, I always liked watching his debates.
I wish I had went to see him when he gave a talk at TCNJ.
I wish I had went to see him when he gave a talk at TCNJ.
You know, I sometimes watch a few minutes of British politics on C-span, it's pretty much the same feeling.Uzique wrote:
i love tuning into american news channels whenever i can. when on holiday, for instance, they normally get Fox News and CNN for the 'american tourists' abroad, sorta thing. the quality of news broadcasting and the levels of journalistic professionalism in the american industry is absolutely DISGUSTING. it's like watching a bunch of children acting like adults in costume. it's so so fucking surreal. it makes me shiver to think that tens of millions of hicks are sat in their armchairs with a bowl of peanuts being spoonfed that crap and letting it inform their world view, in any way whatsoever. even the vulgar, garish presentation of topics is nauseating. the 'hot topics' and 'debates' they get into literally make me want to vomit at times... the absolute banality, the inane topics they choose, the prime-time drama air they give to it. things like this 'n-word' farce just blow up a non-issue into some great country-arresting issue that people are forced to engage with, just because it's being shoved in their face all day by these huge news companies with their tacky graphics-displays and hollywood-anchors. it's fucked up. fuck american news.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Stopped watching after they showed what someone said about it on twitter.Macbeth wrote:
Dr. Laura thing aside, if this is the best CNN can come up with then they deserve the ratings pummeling by Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdCk4AV5ag
It's not intelligent anaylsis, it's one sided and unfair, and really really boring.
Fuck the news. I don't see why you have to watch the news to get the news. I haven't sat in front of a television for news in I don't know how long. I don't see why you need anything more than text. I don't see how you can make a legitimate case for anything but text doing something more than dumbing down the news, particularly in context of our current media situation.
When I say "only text" I of course refer to something you would find in a newspaper or in an internet article, which could include relevant pictures, charts, graphs, etc.
edit: to the next video, LOLOLOL Moses
where is his god now?Macbeth wrote:
Hitchens is on his way out. It's really too bad, I always liked watching his debates..
j/k, i always thought he was as over the top as the holy rollers he hated . . .
er are you kidding? british politics television is unbearably, intolerably boring. it's dull, it's old-fashioned and priggish, it's a snorefest.ATG wrote:
You know, I sometimes watch a few minutes of British politics on C-span, it's pretty much the same feeling.Uzique wrote:
i love tuning into american news channels whenever i can. when on holiday, for instance, they normally get Fox News and CNN for the 'american tourists' abroad, sorta thing. the quality of news broadcasting and the levels of journalistic professionalism in the american industry is absolutely DISGUSTING. it's like watching a bunch of children acting like adults in costume. it's so so fucking surreal. it makes me shiver to think that tens of millions of hicks are sat in their armchairs with a bowl of peanuts being spoonfed that crap and letting it inform their world view, in any way whatsoever. even the vulgar, garish presentation of topics is nauseating. the 'hot topics' and 'debates' they get into literally make me want to vomit at times... the absolute banality, the inane topics they choose, the prime-time drama air they give to it. things like this 'n-word' farce just blow up a non-issue into some great country-arresting issue that people are forced to engage with, just because it's being shoved in their face all day by these huge news companies with their tacky graphics-displays and hollywood-anchors. it's fucked up. fuck american news.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Stopped watching after they showed what someone said about it on twitter.
Fuck the news. I don't see why you have to watch the news to get the news. I haven't sat in front of a television for news in I don't know how long. I don't see why you need anything more than text. I don't see how you can make a legitimate case for anything but text doing something more than dumbing down the news, particularly in context of our current media situation.
When I say "only text" I of course refer to something you would find in a newspaper or in an internet article, which could include relevant pictures, charts, graphs, etc.
edit: to the next video, LOLOLOL Moses
american 'news' and 'politics' is like a huge hollywood melodrama. your news channels are like soap operas impersonating fact.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Its the quality of US political and strategic analysis which I find shocking.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ade-policy
i do recommend seeking it out on the internet, if you can. will surely challenge opinion.
a really good read; the article is written by a guy that did a 3-part series for channel 4 that was absolutely fascinating.One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."
i do recommend seeking it out on the internet, if you can. will surely challenge opinion.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The insanity is half doing something, either crack down on it thoroughly or legalise and regulate.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
half-measures are what keep our(US) militarized police forces in business.Dilbert_X wrote:
The insanity is half doing something, either crack down on it thoroughly or legalise and regulate.
but 'cracking down' breaches all sorts of notions of 'liberty' and 'freedom' in democracy.Dilbert_X wrote:
The insanity is half doing something, either crack down on it thoroughly or legalise and regulate.
to an extent, a person and private individual has the 'right' to do whatever they do so wish, in their own private capacity.
being draconian about drug-laws won't do anything other than make the small, insignificant, miserable people at the end of the food-chain suffer immensely, whilst the big-business, connected and corrupt traffickers and barons will continue with their business. the documentary series goes to great length to show you just how the drug supply-chain and 'underworld' pervades all aspect of public-service and civil authority; from corrupt officials, paid-in-pocket by the drug traffickers, to low-level guards that are bribed, threatened and dissuaded... it's a hopeless fight. there will always be another way to harvest, synthesize, smuggle and distribute these materials: the problem, as the ex-afghan military chief very rightly said, is that as long as there is a demand in the west, there will be a supply to satisfy it. there's a very thought-provoking clip of some afghan farmers, with their farming-poppy livelihoods being torched in the background by the arbitrary decision making of the 'afghan army', saying: "you in the west must do well to look after your drug-users and addicts, here we are all sacrificed for them and their demands".
i think a humanist and medical approach to drug-addiction is necessary to understand and 'combat' the problem, i.e. recognising drug addiction as a psychological problem, in which the drugs are merely the device or the catalyst for other difficulties and problems that need dealing with. muddling the political sphere with the legal and ignoring health/scientific facts about drugs and their relative safety/harm, in order to effectively classify troubled and vulnerable individuals as 'criminals'... is not the way for a state to go. if 'cracking down', in your terms, means simply bringing the hammer down harder on these poor, affected individuals... then who wins? heroin addicts getting 20 years behind bars, on the taxpayer's money? senselessly punishing a down-and-out person and then getting the state to pay for their senseless incarceration? all the while the bribed officials, the major drug lords and the supply-chains will continue on, uninterrupted. say we manage to break-down the supply chain of opium coming from afghanistan (even though now, after 40 years of drug-enforcement policy, we are only managing to intercept ONE PERCENT of all total drug traffick, per year)-- say, hypothetically, that we shut it all down. what then? 40 years ago it was thailand, burma, laos... then it was turkey... then iran... now afghanistan... the drug-trade will just move somewhere else and the drugs will be manufactured/grown/harvested by innocent people, forced to work for their family and livelihoods through localised economic poverty and lack-of-opportunity-- all in order to satisfy a demand in the west that has GROWN exponentially in a HUGE way in the last 40 years... completely inverse to the intentions of government policy, law-enforcement, and public spending.
so... what's your solution? legalisation is safer, medically, and does away with this underworld of black-market opportunism.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
uzique sounds positively libertarian! Whodathunkit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
well then please provide me with an authoritarian perspective.
i cannot see how: (1) legally, (2) scientifically, (3) medically, and (4) politically, the 'war on drugs', from the opposite stance, is having any 'positive' effect. i cannot see any tangible, effective 'payback' for all the public-funding, time and energy that goes into combatting the problem. i cannot see how classifying troubled individuals as criminals and hitting them with rockefeller-draconian drug legislation helps or improves anything, for anyone. i cannot see how transforming small, economically-crushed and politically unstable nations into narco-states is conducive to any common good.
i cannot see how: (1) legally, (2) scientifically, (3) medically, and (4) politically, the 'war on drugs', from the opposite stance, is having any 'positive' effect. i cannot see any tangible, effective 'payback' for all the public-funding, time and energy that goes into combatting the problem. i cannot see how classifying troubled individuals as criminals and hitting them with rockefeller-draconian drug legislation helps or improves anything, for anyone. i cannot see how transforming small, economically-crushed and politically unstable nations into narco-states is conducive to any common good.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
For the same reason prohibition of alcohol was passed: people are nosy, feel they know what's best for others, and when they can't convince the person directly they will then 'go over their head' and use the law of the land to stop whatever it is they feel is detestable.Uzique wrote:
well then please provide me with an authoritarian perspective.
i cannot see how: (1) legally, (2) scientifically, (3) medically, and (4) politically, the 'war on drugs', from the opposite stance, is having any 'positive' effect. i cannot see any tangible, effective 'payback' for all the public-funding, time and energy that goes into combatting the problem. i cannot see how classifying troubled individuals as criminals and hitting them with rockefeller-draconian drug legislation helps or improves anything, for anyone. i cannot see how transforming small, economically-crushed and politically unstable nations into narco-states is conducive to any common good.
Drug use became a morality issue instead of a rational one and once that happened the flood gates opened and there was no stopping them.
Laws like these are simply one group of people controlling the actions of another that they disagree with. Sadly, issues like these fill out the party platforms and have far more weight among the common voters than do less important issues, such as economics, here in the US. Why are we still arguing about and making abortion a top priority platform topic in the year 2010? Fuck if I know.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
so you essentially agree that drug-use is an individualist action determined by liberal principles, ergo: you have a libertarian stance.
the invasion of public morality, political agendas and dogmatism (and they are invasions) into that personal choice are breaches of freedom.
the invasion of public morality, political agendas and dogmatism (and they are invasions) into that personal choice are breaches of freedom.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Welcome to D&ST I always have a libertarian stanceUzique wrote:
so you essentially agree that drug-use is an individualist action determined by liberal principles, ergo: you have a libertarian stance.
the invasion of public morality, political agendas and dogmatism (and they are invasions) into that personal choice are breaches of freedom.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The law is the law, thorough enforcement is consistent with democracy.Uzique wrote:
but 'cracking down' breaches all sorts of notions of 'liberty' and 'freedom' in democracy.Dilbert_X wrote:
The insanity is half doing something, either crack down on it thoroughly or legalise and regulate.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you know the 'discipline-flourishing democracy' of the burmese junta regime has a lot in common with that view . . .Dilbert_X wrote:
The law is the law, thorough enforcement is consistent with democracy.Uzique wrote:
but 'cracking down' breaches all sorts of notions of 'liberty' and 'freedom' in democracy.Dilbert_X wrote:
The insanity is half doing something, either crack down on it thoroughly or legalise and regulate.
there is nothing 'democratic' about invading the judiciary roles of the (liberal) law in order to impose legislative and executive political agendas; pushing 'social issues', 'moral concerns' and 'election elements' onto the judge's bench in order to pass laws that affect the every-day citizen. there seems to be something inherently wrong, say, when i get hold of some acid-- a chemical i know that is pharmacologically and biologically safer and 'cleaner' to my body/mind than alcohol, but a 'hidden hand' of executive power then restricts me from its use. i am technically classed as a criminal facing as much as 20 years for taking a perfectly safe and healthy substance within the private confines of my perfectly safe and healthy home.
see my original post - 'insanity'. that method to the war on drugs simply does NOT work.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-08-18 21:22:37)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Sure, but on the flip side you have to let it remain legal for companies to drug test as well. I don't care what people do in their own home but if they're on the roads or at work whacked out on drugs it becomes a public nuisance and issue.Uzique wrote:
you know the 'discipline-flourishing democracy' of the burmese junta regime has a lot in common with that view . . .Dilbert_X wrote:
The law is the law, thorough enforcement is consistent with democracy.Uzique wrote:
but 'cracking down' breaches all sorts of notions of 'liberty' and 'freedom' in democracy.
there is nothing 'democratic' about entrusting invading the judiciary roles of the (liberal) law in order to impose legislative and executive political agendas; pushing 'social issues', 'moral concerns' and 'election elements' onto the judge's bench in order to pass laws that affect the every-day citizen. there seems to be something inherently wrong, say, when i get hold of some acid-- a chemical i know that is pharmacologically and biologically safer and 'cleaner' to my body/mind than alcohol, but a 'hidden hand' of executive power then restricts me from its use. i am technically classed as a criminal facing as much as 20 years for taking a perfectly safe and healthy substance within the private confines of my perfectly safe and healthy home.
see my original post - 'insanity'. that method to the war on drugs simply does NOT work.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Democracy is simple.
You elect a govt, they pass the laws as they see fit.
If you're not happy then work towards a different govt or try another country.
Your 'hidden hand' is the democratic voice of the people, not an evil govt over which you have no say.
You elect a govt, they pass the laws as they see fit.
If you're not happy then work towards a different govt or try another country.
Your 'hidden hand' is the democratic voice of the people, not an evil govt over which you have no say.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!