In hindsight, I probably should have looked around the rest of the site to see what I was else linking against. I verified the pics against the source video, so it didn't even cross my mind.
Anyways, that's the end of my piece here on this. If the above process makes me a bigot, so be it.
Same evidence, different source. I had a coherent response regarding "throwing the baby out with the washwater" with regards to sources and information. Short: Disagreeing with a source's perceived bias isn't grounds for an indiscriminate throwing out of any evidence or ideas said source may have. It does change the level of scrutiny required, however.
You're still using ad hominem regardless of your squirming around the issue otherwise. I'm automatically a bigot, even though you know precisely nothing about me (other than I choose poorly when linking to a site). You apply this label to me, and that allows you to toss out any evidence I supply. Never mind the fact that there are multiple other sources such as the original video with timestamps of the stills or the Dept of the Army incident report with exactly the same evidence. This is what's wrong with politics in general. The attitude of "I don't agree with you, therefore anything you have to say is irrelevant" is the poison in the well of the political process. To go on record, I'm absolutely not a fan of either of the major US political parties. They're both too far to the extremes for me, but it doesn't mean I'm going to indiscriminately throw out any idea either has. I'm actually going to evaluate them on the merits, which so few people seem to do these days.
No, you're definitely still using an ad hominem fallacy, regardless of your attempts to justify yourself. You're not addressing any of the evidence, but rather addressing a perceived bias.
The site definitely has an axe to grind, and I'm certainly not condoning or supporting the commentary on this, but it does clearly illustrate shots from the video that certainly look like people carrying weapons. Don't let your bias against a source destroy any useful value. Take it with a grain of salt, yes. However, examine each case on the merits. I'd wager we wouldn't find much else of value here, but that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the washwater.
Example: I think the major political parties in the United States are a bunch of whack jobs pushing their own agendas rather than what's good for the country in general. That doesn't mean I'm going to across the board ignore every idea the have to say without evaluating it because of a "consider the source" attitude. Again, it means taking careful evaluation of the idea or evidence, but throwing things out indiscriminately because you don't like a potential source is exactly what's wrong in politics.
I wonder what your response would have been had I simply cited the times in the video of the weapons shots, rather than just linking somewhere that had the times and the stills...
This is why I hate conservatives. I can't get them to understand that a legal document written 200 years ago might, just might, not be 100% relevant any more.
This would be why said document does have a method by which to change it. Liberals seem to forget about that part because it's difficult.
...but not as interesting as what the public will do once this technology is perfected. Cool concept + released to the masses of the Internet = further innovation.
If by "interesting", you mean "interesting and likely disturbing" you're right on. The masses of the internet bring us things like 4chan, goatse, and 2girls1cup. I mean, yes, the masses have brought us other things not quite so disturbing, but the potential for bringing the disturbing to augmented reality is huge.
In the meantime, I await what will come of this with baited breath and trepidation.
It couldn't be that everyone had over leveraged themselves... if that were the case, something like the Glass-Steagall Act would have keep the markets free from similar crashes. Oh, that's right... it did for nearly 70 years until it was repealed in 1999.
I'd definitely rank this as one of the major contributing factors to the financial collapse. Hindsight proves what a stupid decision that was.
Then why are all states at the top of GDP per capita Keynesian or sitting on top of valuable natural resources?
You still fail to address the point that you're attacking here. All those governments (with the exception of China, should it make that list) are massively in debt. Sooner or later it's going to catch up with them (see Greece) and no amount of Keynesian economics will save their collective asses.
The sound Canadian banking system holds the real answer: do not led greedy investors lurk in the shadows. Never take cops off the beat. Government oversight and transparency are the only realistic methods to preventing speculative bubbles, among other things.
I agree with this 100%. There is a balance between too much and too little regulation. Now, if there was only a party in the United States that was actually moderate. Rather than a Crazy Liberal/Neo-Con masquerading as one.
whatcouldpossiblygowrong
On a more serious note, this looks promising. I just hope we don't rush into this. The immune system runs a delicate balance, over response is nearly as dangerous as not enough. More research needed.
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
