Epic Drop 10/12/09: Nukes for Nobel, Toy Story 3, Sports ticket prices, Wild Things, Walmart robbery, Rapidshare warez

foist shee

 

"Start the night off right with the first full length Toy Story 3 trailer.  Any one else considering seeing the re-releases of 1&2 in 3D this winter?"
Uhm.... no?

 

LOL.  Yeah, they are good flicks, but I will pass on a 2nd viewing.  Would rather watch some Big Tits at School porn movies in 3d.

 

Uhm Leon ?

 

umm keira knightley isn't natalie portman

 

I'll be in the Dunce corner. AFK.

 

I use rapidshare/megaupload etc for every bit of music I download.

 

I use it for every bit of my downloads aswell. Most recently, I did not download ZombieLand, Grand Theft Auto 4 & Visual Studio 2008. I've never had to resort to using a torrent. Though if I did have access to a private site I might be more inclined to do so.

 

after watching that toy story trailer i feel i've seen the whole film already.

"Keep them out of the hands idiotic regimes and we are much better off."
reading your blogs sometimes you'd think america is one of these regimes lol

 

It's hard to tell if thats Kiera wtf, maybe I'm insane.
ANYWAYS
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111627/fullcredits#cast

 

and if we want to get technical
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113249/

couldn't edit >_>

 

The first was TV, the second in France.  Neither count as far as I am concerned.  =p

 

haha fair enough

 

Stop talking retard.

 

why are you such an angry man

 

why are you such a clueless idiot?

 

well it all started when i was 10 yrs old and i woke up with a red splotch in my underwear....i
had no clue what a period was( my mom tried talking to me, i was all
ewwwwwwww, shush!) i was so scared! i thought i was reaaly sick and was
gonna die. lol so when i went to my mom, she was all exited 'n
happy...then we "talked"

then when i was at tae kwon do practice and was on my period, but i didn't know.
so i didn't understand how to do this kick thingy so i asked ffor help.
(i kinda had a crush on the 15 yr old british cutie who was a teen
instructor) lucky me...he came over...so when i turn around to do the
kick...he starts acting real weird...he starts smiling then blushing,
then smirking...then he whispers in my ear, "do u know what a period
is?" my face hot i said yes..."then he says "good...cause ur having iy
right now!" i was so embarassed...i wish he gave me a pair of new pants!

that night...i had a dream he did! what's ur story...if u have 1?

 

Its okay bro, i got raeped by an asian chick :*(

 

She looked like

 

First lady pic? Shes black not asian.

 

 

improvement imo

 

Incorrect wording in the end sentence of the Walmart paragraph.

 

It's hard to see what happened in that video. The cameradouche needs to stop moving around like a 10 year old spaz.

What kind of pathetic ******* hits a woman anyway?

 

What kind of man sits back and lets it happen?

 

One hell of a ******* *****. Chick was hot, I'm sure she can find a man to fight for her. Hell if i got to hit it id fight them both.

 

She had more balls than he did, that's for damn sure.

 

Its hard to tell why the chick got pissed off in the first place. 

Either way, she's hot. Even if she wasn't, her boyfriend should stop being a *****. You dont let some guy spill beer on your girl and then ******* HIT her.

 

They are cardinal fans in dodger stadium. The person behind them of Hispanic decent, like usual, instigated a war of words because he's an ignorant mother******, which isn't surprising given their culture. She stood up for herself and he poured beer on her and then probably pushed her down the stairs.

 

@ Hollywood - im so ******* tired of hearing about transformers and spiderman and xmen

holy **** come up with something ******* original already. and stop ******* everything up while your at it.

/endrant

 

True.

 

Idiotic regimes as defined by Slapnuts and other self-proclaimed serious people. Suppose someone from Mars was watching this discussion and they would know the historical record. He would know that for example Iran has never invaded any country in the past centuries, in sharp contrast with the regional super power(Israel) , which has been the main agressor in the region. Then some American, let's call him Slapnuts, comes around and argues that the right to atomic weapons should be reserved to non-idiotic regimes like the US and Israel. This Martian would know fully well that the US has invaded a long list of countries, supported militairy overthrows of another long list of regimes and imposes an economic model on countries which has only resulted in increasing inequality. These policies have led to millions of deaths in the post WO2 era, general misery and deprivation. What do you think the Martian would think when you then proclaim, that the right to nukes should be reserved to serious nations like the US?

He can conclude two things, either Slapnuts is a total racist and doesn't believe in any principles. Either that or, Slapnuts is so deeply indoctrinated that he can't see what's right in front of him. I'll opt for option two, and that's giving you the benifit of the doubt I should say.

 

interesting post.

whats to say its not a He on Mars, and is in fact, a She.


BOOM there goes your ****in universe buddy

 

http://marvel.com/universe/Uatu_The_Watcher
he is male.

 

commendable effort forkz, however

if you read the whole article, no where does it say Uatu The Watcher ever stepped foot on Mars, in fact - he came from another universe and resided on the MOON.

he'd need to come from another universe, i just blew this universe up a second time.

 

In Before slap ****s ALL over your argument.

 

Also it makes it so much easier asking "idiotic" regimes to hand over their nukes if we hold on to ours.

"Please get rid of your nukes. Thx"
"What about that stock pile you got going there??"
"Oh don't worry about those, we have those just in case some idiotic regime doesn't hand their nukes over we can use our nukes on them."

 

Then some American, let's call him Slapnuts, comes around and argues
that the right to atomic weapons should be reserved to non-idiotic
regimes like the US and Israel.

Is preventing nuclear proliferation a bad thing?

 This Martian would know fully well that
the US has invaded a long list of countries, supported militairy
overthrows of another long list of regimes and imposes an economic
model on countries which has only resulted in increasing inequality.


The US has invaded one country (Iraq) unjustly.  Invasions such as Japan in world war 2, Afghanistan occurred after being attacked, and were justified (even a martian would understand the concept of self-defense, even if liberals do not).

As for the economic inequality you complain about, America surely seems to have less "economic inequality" than nations such as Cuba or the old USSR.  Why is that Comrade?

These policies have led to millions of deaths in the post WO2 era,
general misery and deprivation.

It is amazing that you can have such a convoluted sense of history.   You think White is Black, Up is Down, and Good is Evil.   The United States has done more to promote world peace than any other great civilization in the history of mankind. 

What do you think the Martian would
think when you then proclaim, that the right to nukes should be
reserved to serious nations like the US?

A Martian would proclaim that more countries having nuclear weapons is a bad thing, just as a third grader would.  I'm not sure why you cannot reach this conclusion.

He can conclude two things, either Slapnuts is a total racist and doesn't believe in any principles.

So, by your definition what is a racist?  Someone who has an opinion other than yours?  It's intellectually lazy to claim that preventing nuclear proliferation is done out of racism.  First off, Persians are Caucasian.  They are not a different "race".  Secondly, there is no proof that Slapnuts is taking his position out of some kind of dislike of Persians based on their "race" (which is his own!).

I don't think you even understand what race is, or what racism is.  Yet like every other intellectually devoid leftist you throw the smear around liberally (no pun intended). 

You should re-examine your beliefs about why people don't share your viewpoint.

 

You missed my point. I'm all in favour of preventing nuclear proliferation that includes the case of Iran. I'm however not gonna selectively call on this principle whenever I wish to punish some foe. The Obama administration declared this month that the US-India deal on nuclear commerce is exempt from the just-passed UN resolution on the NPT(Nuclear proliferation treaty). Or just this September the IAEA issued a statement calling on Israel to sign the NPT, the US and Europe are sharply opposed to this. So whatever the concern is of policy makers, it's not preventing NP, that much is obvious from what we do around the world. 

I'm afraid I don't have the time to give the details of each war. But let's just take your example, Afghanistan. I'll just quote what I said before:  

"If bombing a country to get a thug whom we SUSPECT of ordering attrocities is a legal act, then we could argue that Haiti would have the right to bomb Washington. After all, the US refused to extradite a known and convicted criminal(Emmanuel Constant) responsible for thousands of political murders in Haiti while on the CIA payroll. Would anyone on this site accept Haiti's right to bomb Washington? Ofcourse we don't.

Furthermore this comparison is unfair to Haiti, in the case of Constant, it was prooven that he was guilty, there was plenty of evidence. In the case of Bin Laden, the US flat out refused to give any evidence about Bin Laden his implication in the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban even told the US that they would extradite Bin Laden, if the US presented some evidence. Obviously a request for evidence was so outlandish, that the US immediately stepped up it's game, and demanded that the Taliban should resign from power. The choice was thus, total capitulation or we will bomb you. If you look at the US army manual, and look up the definition of terrorism("unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"), you'll notice it's pretty much what the US did in Afghanistan."

Ofcourse this is just Afghanistan, we could talk about other invasions. Like when president Reagan declared "we're still standing tall" after sending thousands of troops who managed to overcome the resistance of a couple of middle-aged construction workers with pistols in order to "liberate" Grenada. Or when Reagan called a national emergency because of "the threat posed to the US by the government of Nicaragua"; "only a 2 days drive from Harlingen, Texas". With sober predictions about how these thugs from Nicaragua were "following the script of Mein Kampf", planning to conquer the hemisphere(they don't have small objectives). Suppose the USSR would have declared that it had to send thousands of troops to Luxembourg because it posed a grave threat to the USSR. Do you think we would take it seriously? No we don't for obvious reasons, and we shouldn't take it seriously when our leaders proclaim the same thing. 

We might recall the words of a Mexican ambassador when Kennedy tried to convince the hemisphere to join him in torturing Cuba. The Mexican ambassador said he would like to join Kennedy, but if he declared publicly that Mexico has to defend itself from Cuba, "40 million Mexicans will die laughing". 

You constantly try to strawman me, by comparing my views with authoritarian regimes such as the old Soviet Union or Cuba. I don't support those regimes and I never have. I've read Marx, I agree with the diagnosis, but I don't agree with his solutions. Even back in the days of Marx, the anarchist and prime opponent of Marx, Mikhail Bakunin already predicted that the followers of Marx would create "the vilest and most fearful lie of our century: the red bureaucracy". I think history has proven his point.

Also if you want to be honest about it, Cuba doesn't have as much inequality as the US, it has a gini index of 30, with the US at 45. 

First of all, I didn't say Slapnuts is a racist, I said I believe he is indoctrinated. If you would have read what I wrote that's what I said. 

As far as racism goes, the way I used the term, I meant he's using different standards for a certain group of people, just because they are apart of this group. I should maybe not have used the term racism since the term has to do with race. What I actually tried to suggest is that either, Slapnuts doesn't believe in what Jesus Christ described as "the hypocrite", someone who focuses on the other fella his crimes but refuses to look at his own, or he's just highly indoctrinated. I believe it's the latter. 

 

First of all, I didn't say Slapnuts is a racist, I said I believe he is
indoctrinated. If you would have read what I wrote that's what I said.

You wrote:


He can conclude two things, either Slapnuts is a total racist and
doesn't believe in any principles. Either that or, Slapnuts is so
deeply indoctrinated that he can't see what's right in front of him.
I'll opt for option two, and that's giving you the benifit of the doubt
I should say.

You basically offered a false choice of what the motives of Slapnuts might be.  One of them you proposed could be racism.  You then backed out at the end saying you were giving Slapnuts the "benefit of the doubt" but you were clearly stating he might be racist for his beliefs. 


As far as racism goes, the way I used the term, I meant he's using
different standards for a certain group of people, just because they
are apart of this group. I should maybe not have used the term racism
since the term has to do with race.

Yeah.  But why use the term "Racist" when race clearly isn't an issue?  As you mentioned in this reply, Hypocrite was the word you were looking for.

 

"His beliefs" being that he believes Israelis and Americans do not have to adhere to the principles we impose on Iranians? Let's recall my martian again who observes this, what do you think he will conclude? I don't see any other options then the ones I posed, but if you know any alternative option I would be delighted to hear it.
 
Also yes, hypocricy would have been more accurate as I already conceded. It could be racism aswell, but that's too narrow, I don't think the issue is Persians, the issue is oil and succesfull defiance of US hegemony. Atleast that's the issue for those who set policy. The role of the intellectual in our system is to present the real goals in in a way that makes it look as a noble cause, another instance of the US furthering the goals of world peace and democracy. This is were you and Slapnuts fall for, I don't believe your hypocrits by nature.

 

"His beliefs" being that he believes Israelis and Americans do not have
to adhere to the principles we impose on Iranians? Let's recall my
martian again who observes this, what do you think he will conclude? I
don't see any other options then the ones I posed, but if you know any
alternative option I would be delighted to hear it.
 

Why do you keep using a martian to argue your point.  You could just argue it yourself.

So why should Iranians not be allowed to have nuclear weapons while Israel and America are in possession of them?  Well, maybe Slapnuts thinks a theocratic Islamic government isn't capable of showing restraint when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.   Or perhaps, as stated previously he believes that we shouldn't be allowing any countries who don't have nuclear weapons to obtain them (ie, no nuclear proliferation). 


Also yes, hypocricy would have been more accurate as I already
conceded. It could be racism aswell, but that's too narrow, I don't
think the issue is Persians,

I mentioned persian, but persian isn't really a race.  In the strictist sense, a Persian is caucasion.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neighbor-joining_Tree.svg

 the issue is oil and succesfull defiance
of US hegemony. Atleast that's the issue for those who set policy.

We don't know this for sure.  We can speculate this is the issue, but even if the issue is oil...what would you rather have, a corporatist western hegemony over the middle east, or oil prices so high that western economies can not function and you have to live as a third worlder?

The
role of the intellectual in our system is to present the real goals in
in a way that makes it look as a noble cause,

I'd argue that is the role of the media, and I wouldn't classify all media members as intellectuals (although I guess they are, if compared to the general population).

another instance of the
US furthering the goals of world peace and democracy. This is were you
and Slapnuts fall for, I don't believe your hypocrits by nature.

I have no delusions about "World Peace and Democracy".   I'm skeptical of such claims, but I'm just as skeptical of those who claim America is the source of every ill in the world, or that the world would somehow be better if America were not "in charge".

Just for fun, lets prentend America was never settled, and to this day was a civilization made up of savages...maybe populated by 10 million indians, split into 10 warring tribes.  At the same time, lets pretend an Islamic superstate of Iraq and Iran is the current nuclear superpower.   What exactly do you think they'd do to the American Indians to obtain their natural resources if they were needed?

 

"Theocratic islamic regime" has a extremely negative notion to it in our culture. But imagine an Kurdish-Iraqi citizen(since you're a racist with regard to Martians ), who first saw his brothers die at the hands of Saddam, while the US supported his attrocities(even gave him the weapons), then during the 90's saw his brothers die of starvation due to US-British sanctions and then saw his brothers bombed at the hands of another American invasion. Who do you think he will regard as worse, Iran which hasn't invaded anyone in the past centuries, or the US which has tortured Iraq for decades? 

I might have said you were indoctrinated, I think I'll withdraw that statement I think your a blatant racist. You believe we have more rights to oil in the middle east then the inhabitants of the middle east because we are superior to them? Suppose the Saudis would have had all the militairy might and they started saying they have a superior system so we should give them our resources, do you think they then have the right to invade us? I think not. Or even more grotesque, take the case of Nazi-Germany when the germans declared they were superior to the Jews, so they concluded the Jews didn't have the rights to their property. 

With intellectuals I ment the media, the social sciences, policy makers etc. Intellectual doesn't mean somebody is smart, it means they know how to articulate the position of the powerful. Something which Kissinger conceded when he gave his definition of the expert.
 
I don't argue the US is the source of every ill in the world, in Africa to just mention one example there are conflicts which are very complex and there's not much we can do about it. However there's a wide range of issues for which the US and the west generally bears responsibility given their power. I criticize them for that, and I think that's justified if we look at the facts.

First of all your presentation of this other course of history is a gigantic IF. I don't see what your point is here, but yes they would probably invade the "savages" and obtain their natural resources. Every system of power usually brings out the worst in people, states do the same. So yes it's highly probable they would do it. That doesn't mean it's justified, I would criticize it in the same way I criticize the US, since it's immoral in my opinion.

 

"Theocratic islamic regime" has a extremely negative notion to it in
our culture.

Of course it does.  I was simply mentioning what Slapnuts might see as a valid argument.

 Who do you think he will regard as worse, Iran which hasn't invaded
anyone in the past centuries, or the US which has tortured Iraq for
decades? 


I understand the point of view that many citizens in the middle east have towards the US.  I wasn't saying what was or wasn't justified.  As for the typical Iraqi, I'm betting they'd be a little skeptical of the Iranians getting the bomb.  Especially the Kurds or the Sunnis.


I might have said you were indoctrinated, I think I'll withdraw that
statement I think your a blatant racist. You believe we have more
rights to oil in the middle east then the inhabitants of the middle
east because we are superior to them?

How exactly would that be racist?   "Middle Eastern" is not a race.  Middle Easterners are in fact the same race I am.  So if I were a racist, how would I hate them based on race?  You should purge the term "racist" from your vocabulary unless you're going to use it correctly.

Now if you wanted to make your argument correctly, you could claim I was making a "might makes right" argument, but I'm not.  I'm simply recognizing how the world works.  Yes, the US middle eastern policy might be partially dictated by oil interests.  My response is sort of "so what".

You make a claim here about property rights, that the oil "belongs" to the middle easterners.  I say ok, but governments loot people everyday.  Why should I be any more troubled over the US wanting arab countries to price oil a certain way, than I am over the US government using tax money for abortions?    In fact, this isn't limited to governments, the problem is a "people" problem.  Stealing is easier than working, so people look for ways to steal (as do governments).  They justify stealing however they can.   If you're telling me that you're for strict property rights for every citizen on this planet, then good.  I am too.  But it is sort of moot since every government on earth seeks to steal from one another, and thier citizens, while most of their citizens seek to swindle each other as well.

Suppose the Saudis would have had
all the militairy might and they started saying they have a superior
system so we should give them our resources, do you think they then
have the right to invade us?

Again, I never stated it was the "right" of the US to invade anyone, other than those who attack us.  Why do you keep ignoring this statement even though I make it over and over again?

take
the case of Nazi-Germany when the germans declared they were superior
to the Jews, so they concluded the Jews didn't have the rights to their
property. 


Americans conclude the same about the wealty in America and take a portion of their property.  It's all a looting operation, the one you mentioned was taken under the guise of religious hatred rather than class hatred.


With intellectuals I ment the media, the social sciences, policy makers
etc. Intellectual doesn't mean somebody is smart, it means they know
how to articulate the position of the powerful. Something which
Kissinger conceded when he gave his definition of the expert.
 

I know.


I don't argue the US is the source of every ill in the world, in Africa
to just mention one example there are conflicts which are very complex
and there's not much we can do about it. However there's a wide range
of issues for which the US and the west generally bears responsibility
given their power.

The US isn't different than any other country, and in fact has behaved better than prior empires.  The world would be in much worse shape if western civilization had not come about.

First of all your presentation of this other course of history is a
gigantic IF. I don't see what your point is here, but yes they would
probably invade the "savages" and obtain their natural resources. Every
system of power usually brings out the worst in people, states do the
same. So yes it's highly probable they would do it. That doesn't mean
it's justified, I would criticize it in the same way I criticize the
US, since it's immoral in my opinion.
My point isn't justification, my point is human nature.  The US isn't that different from any other country, in fact it's often acted in a more civilized way than most empires.  Your statements seem to indicate that you think the US is somehow uniquely evil, when in fact the US acts the same way all countries (and people) do for the most part.  You can point out the supposed military aggression of the United States, but I see no evidence that other countries wouldn't do the same if they had the means.

 

Before I'm gonna enjoy the riches of being a Dutch citizen and go to our local coffeeshop. I'll just make one last comment, I don't think the US is uniquely evil, that would be ridiculous given the evils done in the past. What I argue is that power generally makes people disregard the condition of the majority. It doesn't matter if it's communist power centres(the state) or the capitalist power centres(the state and corporations), both produce people with a total disregard for human life. I don't believe it's because the people functioning within those systems are inherently evil, as you argue, but I believe it is because of a lack of democracy. I believe that if we could base both our economic system and our political system on true democracy, we would overcome the obstacles to world peace and general misery. Again these are assumptions, it's not science. It could be like you argue, that human nature is fundamentally evil. I believe however in something Gramsci said when he argued that we should have "pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will". If we don't adopt the view that people are inherently good, I think we can only conclude that the human race is an evolutionairy dead end, and that we are doomed to destroy ourselves.

 

I don't believe it's because the people functioning within those
systems are inherently evil, as you argue, but I believe it is because
of a lack of democracy.  I believe that if we could base both our
economic system and our political system on true democracy, we would
overcome the obstacles to world peace and general misery.

Why?  I wouldn't trust the will of the mob to uphold human rights.  Consider this:  If the US were a direct democracy, what would have happened to Afghanistan after 9/11?  Do you think there would have been an invasion, or would we have just nuked them?   Which is the greater evil in your eyes?

I think a direct democracy could work well with a well informed, politically active, intelligent population.   It probably works out better there than it does here, but we don't have much democracy in our system of government.


If we don't adopt the view that people are inherently good, I think we
can only conclude that the human race is an evolutionairy dead end, and
that we are doomed to destroy ourselves.

Maybe we should get rid of the good/evil argument as it's a bit loaded.

I think if we recognized that people are inherently prone to take advantage of one another, we can craft our laws, and our governments to prevent such things.  At the same time, we must limit our governments to prevent them from becoming tools of oppression, along with any power structures.  

We'd probably be best off if everything were kept local and small, simply because it reduces the potential of mass abuse of power. 


Before I'm gonna enjoy the riches of being a Dutch citizen and go to our local coffeeshop.

Haha, have fun.

 

 

Is preventing nuclear proliferation a bad thing?

It's not quite preventing nuclear proliferation, just tempering it.  Restricting it to non-idiot countries won't stop it.

The US has invaded one country (Iraq) unjustly.  Invasions such as [...] Afghanistan occurred after being attacked

The US and the UK broke their own laws when invading Afghanistan.  The UN constituents are required to recognise the authority of the UNSC within their own law, and yet both countries ignore it routinely.  And now we have Afghanistan in danger of becoming a failed state, with bin Laden still not brought to justice, and growing hostilities with Pakistan because the Pentagon are dumkopfs.  And while the Taliban are dicks, they aren't responsible for 9/11.  The invasion was not due to any objection by the US towards their standards of government either, seeing as the US didn't give a rat's arse about the human rights violations in Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

The United States has done more to promote world peace than any other great civilization in the history of mankind.

I can't really say I share your opinion of the US, either as being one of the great civilisations, or as having done more to promote peace.  Most of its wars since the World Wars have been failures and damaging to the countries involved, its police actions much the same and its peace talks in NI and Israel/Pakistan ineffectual.

Frankly, some of the more isolationist Scandinavian countries, for example, are more deserving of that label than the US.

 

The US and the UK broke their own laws when invading Afghanistan.  The
UN constituents are required to recognise the authority of the UNSC
within their own law, and yet both countries ignore it routinely. 

I really don't recognize (nor care) about UN "laws".   I typically hold nations to the "Just War Doctrine".  We could argue if the US actually follows this or not.  In general, I don't have a problem with the US invading countries that are harboring terrorists that attack US citizens.   I personally am hopeful that the US will one day implement the Vir Doctrine which states:

"We're not going to invade you. We are no longer the policemen of the
world. If your country attacks us in any way, we'll simply drop large bombs on you
until all your people are dead."

I can't really say I share your opinion of the US, either as being one
of the great civilisations, or as having done more to promote peace.

Compare the Scientific achievements of the US to any previous country.  The US invented the light bulb, the computer, the internet, the airplane, the sewing machine.  The US has literally lit up the world, clothed it, and created a mechanism for all of mankind to communicate and share knowledge.   I'm sure a lot of socialist anti-history will attempt to dispute these facts, but the the truth is the US has done more for the world in science than any other country or perhaps more than every other country put together.   These inventions allow what would have been peasants in previous times to live like kings.   Yet the communists on the left can't stop crying about supposed "economic inequality" brought on by free market principles. 

Or compare US military action and treatment of citizens to those of:

The Soviet Union.
The British Empire.
The Roman Empire.

etc.

The US has been the most benevolent superpower in history.  Of course we are not perfect, but we are the best so far.