Bill Maher decides to permanently entrench himself on the wrong side of history

  On 1/22/2014 at 8:35 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 7:03 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 6:28 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 6:23 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i believe that corrupting a government is as easy as corrupting the man in the street.

well you believe wrong because government is an organization with way, way more systems of oversight, control, self regulations and so on.

 

 

but the political decisions of a government can be influenced by private institutions (lobbies), can't they? for example, i can think of a particular lobby in france that all politicians are aligned with, when this allegiance makes no sense.

 

 

political decisions can be influenced by definition. that's the point of politics. influence and corruption are not the same. (and influence and money shouldn't be equal either...shouldnt!) In an ideal political system all stakeholders have equal opportunity at influencing political decision making. political decision making can not, and should not happen in a complete vacuum.

 

O, and A/D, I think you forgot to mention Maher being a dick in your summary of good points.

 

edit.: not happy about how i tried to explain this, btw. but the main point is that influence isn't bad by definition.

 

of course influence isn't bad by definition, but i'd like to be explained how the influence of a private entity, institution, corp. etc. on the government, can benefit the people, and why it shouldn't be suspected of interfering with the people's interests.

GOOGLE KILLED MY DOG

wait are we still on that tip

  On 1/23/2014 at 12:19 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 8:35 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 7:03 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 6:28 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 6:23 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i believe that corrupting a government is as easy as corrupting the man in the street.

 

well you believe wrong because government is an organization with way, way more systems of oversight, control, self regulations and so on.

but the political decisions of a government can be influenced by private institutions (lobbies), can't they? for example, i can think of a particular lobby in france that all politicians are aligned with, when this allegiance makes no sense.

political decisions can be influenced by definition. that's the point of politics. influence and corruption are not the same. (and influence and money shouldn't be equal either...shouldnt!) In an ideal political system all stakeholders have equal opportunity at influencing political decision making. political decision making can not, and should not happen in a complete vacuum.

 

O, and A/D, I think you forgot to mention Maher being a dick in your summary of good points.

 

edit.: not happy about how i tried to explain this, btw. but the main point is that influence isn't bad by definition.

of course influence isn't bad by definition, but i'd like to be explained how the influence of a private entity, institution, corp. etc. on the government, can benefit the people, and why it shouldn't be suspected of interfering with the people's interests.

Simple answer: People tend to be consumers/customers, right?

More text answer: Lets take a corp which delivers services to customers and start from " making profits" as a prime business goal, and see how that would work out when they try to have influence in a political contact.

Do you agree that a corp like that is able to make profits primarily by delivering (profitable) services to their customers? What would happen when they'd try to influence politics (in order for them to remain or be more profitable)? Is it possible that the outcome would be that they could provide their customers better services? There's usually an incentive to have more customers, right? And better value for money usually attracts more customers. And more customers leads to more profits.

Of course, there are a lot of buts. One of them being that the perspective of business interests tend to be very narrow and defensive. The positive is that this is pretty predictable behavior. The negative is that the political process depends on other interests with different, less narrow perspectives, with an equal amount of influence.

I'm not sure whether this actually answers your question, because I feel I'm just rehashing a bunch of truisms you already know. But I really don't think the complexity is in the principles on paper. Problems arise in practice because of numerous reasons. But those real world problems dont necessarily refute those theoretical principles. Not necessarily. (Another truism?)

  On 1/23/2014 at 6:10 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 1/23/2014 at 12:19 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 8:35 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 7:03 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 6:28 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 1/22/2014 at 6:23 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i believe that corrupting a government is as easy as corrupting the man in the street.

well you believe wrong because government is an organization with way, way more systems of oversight, control, self regulations and so on.

but the political decisions of a government can be influenced by private institutions (lobbies), can't they? for example, i can think of a particular lobby in france that all politicians are aligned with, when this allegiance makes no sense.

political decisions can be influenced by definition. that's the point of politics. influence and corruption are not the same. (and influence and money shouldn't be equal either...shouldnt!) In an ideal political system all stakeholders have equal opportunity at influencing political decision making. political decision making can not, and should not happen in a complete vacuum.

 

O, and A/D, I think you forgot to mention Maher being a dick in your summary of good points.

 

edit.: not happy about how i tried to explain this, btw. but the main point is that influence isn't bad by definition.

of course influence isn't bad by definition, but i'd like to be explained how the influence of a private entity, institution, corp. etc. on the government, can benefit the people, and why it shouldn't be suspected of interfering with the people's interests.

Simple answer: People tend to be consumers/customers, right?

 

More text answer: Lets take a corp which delivers services to customers and start from " making profits" as a prime business goal, and see how that would work out when they try to have influence in a political contact.

Do you agree that a corp like that is able to make profits primarily by delivering (profitable) services to their customers? What would happen when they'd try to influence politics (in order for them to remain or be more profitable)? Is it possible that the outcome would be that they could provide their customers better services? There's usually an incentive to have more customers, right? And better value for money usually attracts more customers. And more customers leads to more profits.

 

Of course, there are a lot of buts. One of them being that the perspective of business interests tend to be very narrow and defensive. The positive is that this is pretty predictable behavior. The negative is that the political process depends on other interests with different, less narrow perspectives, with an equal amount of influence.

 

I'm not sure whether this actually answers your question, because I feel I'm just rehashing a bunch of truisms you already know. But I really don't think the complexity is in the principles on paper. Problems arise in practice because of numerous reasons. But those real world problems dont necessarily refute those theoretical principles. Not necessarily. (Another truism?)

 

what a sexy beast! ;D

just admit it you want to s Obama's d

im no expert but he's arguably the best looking president

and probably the president with the nicest D, can't argue with that.

lol is that a copy paste of a youtube comment?

  On 1/24/2014 at 11:54 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

and probably the president with the nicest D, can't argue with that.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

clinton's ED made him resort to cigars, Obama doesn't fuck around with that because he doesn't have to. It's also said kennedy only last 1 minute before climax, Obama is known for his marathon fucks, michelle looks mad not because she's not getting laid but because Obama just destroys it every time

 

 

he's gay for that p***y

I wonder he installed a bathhouse in the white house.

  On 1/24/2014 at 11:54 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

clinton's ED made him resort to cigars, Obama doesn't fuck around with that because he doesn't have to. It's also said kennedy only last 1 minute before climax, Obama is known for his marathon fucks, michelle looks mad not because she's not getting laid but because Obama just destroys it every time

 

 

lol

Lol

So, about O's ED. I agree that Michelle's facial expression(s) is deeply connected to her sexuality and therefore strongly related to O's sexual performance...which basically means his d. (Does she really have only one facial expression? Wtf!?)

What also might play a role is the thing that O can create a false sense of hope. The reality tends to be a watered down version of the story he tried to sell us earlier on. (Yes, i'm implying we're all having sex with O, in some weird delusional way.)

Ironically, Michelles facial expression is similar to the peoples opinion on O. Actually, it's the best fucking poll! (I'm afraid I have to say that the pun was intended. Also, fuck statistics!)

In the end though, yes, O's presidency is closely connected to sexuality. And it shouldn't be a surprise that large parts of US society are playing hard to get. Like a true Michelle. And that a tiny minority of sexual conservatives have some extreme repulsive reactions when thinking about having sex with the big O. The underlying set of feelings could be some suppressed sexual feelings towards people with a different skin color, an actual fear of big d's, a sense of sexual incompetence, and perhaps some other stuff which I can't pull out of my ass (although being anal sounds like some kind of crucial factor).

Come to think of it, the whole NSA spying thing could actually be about O's desires to know everyones sexual preferences. With whom, what, how frequent... You name it.

It shouldn't be a surprise that it takes an a-sexual creature like Snowden and a gay journalist to break through O's sexual stronghold, btw.

Awe, I think you're onto something. I don't say it often. Or rather, not often enough. But this time, I cannot withhold myself. This urge is not sexually driven, btw. At least, I think it isn't.

  On 1/24/2014 at 11:54 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

and probably the president with the nicest D, can't argue with that.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

clinton's ED made him resort to cigars, Obama doesn't fuck around with that because he doesn't have to. It's also said kennedy only last 1 minute before climax, Obama is known for his marathon fucks, michelle looks mad not because she's not getting laid but because Obama just destroys it every time

 

 

I bet lincoln had a nice D

Washington had to have been packing down there. Already a tall man for his age, dude was humble as all hell.

Conversely, I nominate John Adams for possibly having the smallest D.

edit: Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover had to have nice D's too.

But ultimately, you can't beat the 'Bama

john adams definitely had the smallest D but his son inherited a bigger D

The Washington parable about the cherry tree is obviously a sexual double entendre

And the Bushes had relatively big D's, but in the end they were impotent? They couldn't get it up. Junior got some help on the sides from Cheney and Rover (aka da Dawg).

your government tried to terrify and/or murder you with anthrax, here ya go

  On 1/26/2014 at 7:23 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

your government tried to terrify and/or murder you with anthrax, here ya go

 

Nice work.

thanks! I'm going to make a thread about it after i do a writeup, it officially will be announced on monday.
part of the reason for waiting for a write up is to deflect some of the built in expected knee jerk responses to the information presented ie: well they took cipro because they were afraid of more terrorism, that type of bull shit.

yep, the taking of the cipro on 11/09 and telling your media buddies to do it to, is a very specific remedy for what at the time would have been a broad list of potential threads. It's the smoking gun. Well one of the smoking guns. The fact that the US still exists in the form it does and that those institutions haven't been dismantled says terrible things about humanity, reinforces and validates prejudices we have about it. heh.

Took the time to watch your vid, a rare thing for me. good job. I wonder, how do you get all the archived video that you do?