Why are 1/3 of broadcast TV ads for some injury law firm?

Why are 1/3 of broadcast TV ads for some injury law firm?

pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4zH9Zca1vRM
chomsky.info/072015-2/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

legal/medical fees=debt=usury=(((lifetime democratic voter)))

Because you touch yourself at night, I'm not even kidding.

youtube.com/watch?v=4zH9Zca1vRM

Better than ringtones.

Two terms that I know are of particular interest to you are anarchism and libertarianism. Could you discuss the varying definitions of those two terms, anarchism and libertarianism? Maybe the American definition versus the European, and why that’s important for education to sort out?

NC: There’s hardly a term in social science, political discourse, academic professions, and the scholarly professions where there’s anything remotely like clear definitions. If you want a clear definition, you have to go to mathematics or parts of physics.

Definitions are basically parts of theoretical structures. A definition doesn’t mean anything unless it’s embedded in some theory of some explanatory scope. And in these areas, there really are no such theories. So the terms are in fact used very loosely. They have a strong ideological component.

Take, say, democracy. The United States, I’m sure in your school, they teach as the world’s leading democracy. It’s also a country in which about 70 percent of the population, the lower 70 percent on the income scale, are completely disenfranchised.

Their opinions have no detectable influence on the decisions of their own representatives. Which is a good reason to believe, a large reason, why a huge number of people don’t bother voting. They know that it’s a waste of time. So is that a democracy? No, not really.
chomsky.info/072015-2/

>chomsky
I'm going to stop you right there

people like camille paglia are astute enough to understand (as sade did) the logical conclusion of liberalism into anarchy, or sex into domination
Chomsky (like many other pseudo-intellectuals) posture as smart simply because he refuses to acknowledge this obvious connection that can even be witnessed in nature

tl;dr stop with the chomsky

Noah is a pretty cool guy though.

NC: The Citizens United decision should be considered in the context of a series of decisions, starting with Buckley v. Valeo back in the ’70s, that determined that money is a form of speech. You and I can speak in the same roughly equal loudness, but you and Bill Gates can’t speak in the same loudness in regards to money. So that was a big deal, that there can’t be any interference with the use of money, for example — funding.

Now there were restrictions in the laws on campaign funding, but they’ve been slowly eroded. Citizens United pretty much dispensed with them. There’s still some limitations but not much. So exactly what its impact was is pretty hard to judge. But it’s part of a series of decisions which have led to a situation in which, if you want to run for president, you have to have several billion dollars. And there’s only certain sources for several billion dollars. If you want to run for Congress, pretty much the same. House of Representatives, you have to have a huge campaign funded.

I'm not a fan of pseduo-intellectuals
his most revered speculations and contemplations are viscerated effortlessly with a simple understanding of enlightenment history

>you need to be rich to be in politics
is that supposed to be insightful?

But now it’s in the stratosphere. That’s why 70 percent of the public is totally disenfranchised. They don’t contribute to campaign funding, so they’re out. And if you sort of go up the income/wealth scale, you can detect greater levels of influence, but it’s not really significant until you get to the very top, maybe a fraction of 1 percent or something, where decisions are basically made.

Daytime television is for ultra-plebes. Fly-by-night colleges, law firms, recalls, and re-runs of the worst sitcoms. It truly sucks to have no job and be at home watching TV.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just questioing how astute of an observation that is
most fourteen year olds can see that we are ruled by oligarchs who tout "democracy" more as badge than as something they are actually committed to
good for chomsky that he can articulate this more accurately but in the end he just ponders what is really going on to make his lovely idea of liberalism turn into something so foul

read sade, he'll explain quite clearly how something "liberal" turns into merciless domination, thus maki g chomsky completely obsolete in terms of a source of info

Because the ghetto lottery is a real thing in 2017.

Easy money. Some lady ran into the back of my car and I got a check for $50k. Anytime a vehicle comes in contact with you or your property you need to call a lawyer. It's a shit system, but it isn't going anywhere, so abuse it.

I still can't believe people watch the View without wanting to end it all.

>pseduo-intellectuals

Chomsky is a scientist. I've started reading his works when he was one of the most acknowledged linguists on this planet, then he decided to dedicate his time to politics.

I don't care much about what he has to say about politics and socialism, but in my book that guy is not a "pseudo-intellectual". He's the real thing, more than you or your mum will ever be.

ending with a dash of ad hominem is a little more revelatory of your true feelings than you'd probably like, my teutonic friend

as for his credentials, I don't doubt them, not only do I think he's a talented a clever linguist, but that linguistics is a tricky field.
however, confusing personal expertise with expertise as such is, in my book, the mark of someone who is decidedly NOT an intellectual

an intellect maybe, but not an intellectual, to be that one must have a reverence for knowledge as such that chomsky does not, he really thinks his shit does not stink

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.

George Orwell, 1984

brave new world is an infinitely better book than 1984

But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Like China, everyone in America is an asshole and buttfucks people with their car

dude, proving my fucking point my dawg

I've always hated the boot on face quote, it's so horrendously unpoetic and blunt. I don't hate orwell but that quote is so overused (much like 1984) as a whole it really does great injustice to how complex and insidious big governing bodies can be

BNW is fucking it man, one god damn great book

Are you seriously trying to discredit Chomsky based on my drunken rant? That's swell.

no I'm discreditng chomsky because he presumes too much of his intellect without warrant, are you reading my posts?

I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

if you've got time and you're in for a non-fiction look at the destructive capability of pleasure/comfort read pic related

There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol."
...
"There was a thing called the soul and a thing called immortality."
...
"But they used to take morphia and cocaine."
...
"Two thousand pharmacologists and biochemists were subsidized in A.F. 178."
...
"Six years later it was being produced commercially. The perfect drug."
...
"Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant."
...
"All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects."
...
"Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a mythology."
...
"Stability was practically assured.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

>are you reading my posts?

Yes I do. But I can't understand your attidude. Maybe that's because I didn't follow Chomsky for ages, or maybe that's because you're getting too anxious about some things he said?

my argument is pretty simple:

1. Chomsky is considered intellecutally reputable
2. this repute is based on his articulations of seemingly unaswrable questions
3. these questions are NOT unanswerable (my evidence to support this can be found in a few sources I have mentioned)

4. Therefore, Chomsky repute is ill-deserved


I don't need you to bow down and accept I'm right, you are more than entitled to your won opinions, but chomsky just doesn't do it for me