Wow. Dawkins embracing infanticide. Good find @shinyblurry.

However, you should acknowledge that "God" in the Old Testament was also a fan of infanticide. And "Godly" people also embraced it. Did the value of human life change from then to now?

You should be questioning the morality of the Bible's God and why you must depend on God's "inspired" word instead of God himself.

*dead

Patrice O'Neal died yesterday. Here's an audio clip with his take on the Bin Laden fable. Airdate was 16 May 2011 on the Opie and Anthony Show.



Patrice, you will be missed.

2011: A Brave New Dystopia

>> ^shinyblurry:

So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


Using Paul's own standards he is condemning himself to hell, no? Or is it righteous to persecute and kill Christians?

Not mentioned:

"Only hours before Anders Breivik Behring began to shoot children at Utøya, police emergency squad finished an exercise where they practiced an almost identical situation." http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Trente-p-Utya-scenario-22-juli-6285004.html (http://translate.google.com/)

Just like 9/11 and London 7/7, the government was conducting terror drills the very same day with nearly identical scenarios as the real attacks. Coincidence over and over again, right?

Our country is headed for the toilet because too many people want deny reality and cling to prepubescent delusions.

Ignoring facts is anything but nuanced.

>> ^bareboards2:

@marbles, what you are missing is that if you have FUCKING INCOME, it is okay to pay taxes. The middle class has indeed shared in the Bush tax cuts. They didn't gain as much as the multi-bucks people, but still they gained.
So what if EVERYONE pays a little more? There is a FUCKING DEFICIT AND TWO FUCKING WARS.
If you are poor or unemployed, truly hurt by the recession of the last couple of years? Guess what. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INCOME. You won't pay "more" taxes.
I am sick to my bones of this weird anti-tax sentiment. It is childish, puerile, short-sighted, and KILLING THIS COUNTRY as everyone grasps more for ME ME ME ME ME ME ME.
Are there other issues? Sure. THE WORLD IS A COMPLICATED PLACE. Reducing complex and inter-related topics down to one thing is.... childish, puerile, short-sighted and KILLING THIS COUNTRY.


What you are missing is WHY we have a fucking deficit every year and WHY we have a world stage of perpetual wars.

Now you're just admitting that we need tax increases on the middle class to pay more to Wall Street banks in interest and more to Wall Street government contractors to fuel the war machine to go destroy life and land.

So not only is the rhetoric about taxing millionaires and corporations a complete sham, but we're actually taking the tax revenues from the middle class and small business owners and giving it to the very criminals that got us here to begin with.

Stealing from the middle class to feed the corporate shadow government. And you partisan drones want to brand it as a "tax on millionaires"? LOL

>> ^packo:

>> ^marbles:
Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks
and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions
woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally
cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them
the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


Thanks for confirming what I've already said.

The "tax the rich" legislation is mostly a tax on the middle class and small business owners and NOT on millionaires and corporations.

By the way, it ignores the crux of the problem anyway. ie: Financial fraud and corruption.

@MaxWilder: It would eliminate the cash for favors system that corrupts all levels of elected officials!

How so? Corporations control mainstream media and news content. If they control the information, campaign dollars don't really matter. Public campaign financing (ie tax payer financing) just saves them the expense.

Public campaign financing just gives Wall Street puppets campaign camouflage. Not that it matters if people know who sponsors their candidates anyway. Plenty of OWS protestors will be voting for Wall Street politicians in the coming elections.

Condorcet voting is certainly better than first past the post, but it's just as corruptible. Especially when you can manipulate voters with polls and biased news coverage.

As for the rest of your post you spend a paragraph trying to contort something I said in one sentence. I said roll back to it's original limitations, ie follow the Constitution. Yes, the same document that also protects our right to peacefully assemble and protest. But we want to pick and choose what parts we want to follow and THAT has everything to do with the "stranglehold that mega-corporations have over the political spectrum".
Furthermore, with more focus on local and state elections, people might actually have a part in "democracy" instead of feigning it on a national level.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

I haven't seen anything that suggested it was murder, just really poor trigger discipline.


Keep telling yourself that. The medical examiners thought otherwise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-26-tillman-friendly-fire_N.htm
"The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away."

The medical examiners wanted a criminal investigation, but...
"Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments."

"No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck."

How does one mistake fellow Army Rangers in Army Humvees for enemy when they don't return fire and engage them for 10+ minutes and then get ten yards away from the most recognizable person in the platoon shouting his name and shoot him in the head with a 3 round burst?

... because of "poor trigger discipline"? Yeah, right.

Good luck with that. Not that it's going to solve any problems.

I'd prefer we do away with the national theater of political campaigns all together and roll back the federal authority to it's original limitations.

And start attacking the shadow corporate government directly like ending it's continuous money tree called the Federal Reserve.>> ^MaxWilder:
I'd prefer to see some legislation put forward by citizens to enact public campaign financing, and some voting system reforms to end first-past-the-post.

>> ^MaxWilder:

It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.


And vote for the same Wall Street financed assholes that enable the fraud and corruption.

>> ^bareboards2:

Yep. Silly. Simplistic, myopic, intentionally misguided, unable to detect nuance, silly silly SILLY man.


The pot dares to call the kettle black? You're hilarious.

>> ^bareboards2:

You are a silly silly SILLY man. I was in the middle of writing exactly why you are a silly silly SILLY man and unfortunately lost the whole thing.
I don't have the energy to start over. But I do want to repeat the main argument -- I know that it is a waste of time to show you exactly how you are a silly silly SILLY man, uninformed, misguided, and trapped by some weird anti-tax obsession that beggars all logic of what it means to live in a wealthy society that provides services and protection for its people.
Silly silly SILLY man. That is my main point.
PS: I do taxes for a living. I have done more than one tax return for "middle class" folks who had up to $70,000 in taxable income who paid ZERO TAX. I am perfectly fine with those folks paying more taxes. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Shouldn't you be mocking those exercising their first amendment rights?

http://videosift.com/video/Jefferson-Memorial-Dancing-on-June-4-2011
silly silly SILLY woman.

Oh, so you admit that the "tax the rich" plan has no intent on actually taxing the rich? Nice.