>> ^Engels:

Gun violence in Seattle was higher in the past. Most notably 1994 with a total of 69 homicides. Overall, homicide is down since 1999. It just seems higher because, you know, crazy white person killing white people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_politics_of_Seattle
Crime and criminal justice
...After reaching its highest murder rate in 1994 with 69 homicides, Seattle's murder rate declined to a 40-year low with 24 homicides in 2004.[2] By 2006, Seattle's murder rate had increased, with thirty murders that year.[3] ...Seattle has suffered two mass-murders in recent history: the 1983 Wah Mee massacre (13 people killed in the Wah Mee gambling club)[5] and the March 25, 2006 Capitol Hill massacre when 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff killed six at a rave afterparty.[6] Later in 2006, an attempted spree killing by Naveed Afzal Haq left one dead at the Jewish Federation building.[7]


You're right of course ... it's just that this past week or so has been so bizarre. That guy who was killed by a random shot driving with his family in the CD, the bystander shot outside of Folk Life and that innocent student randomly shot and killed in Pioneer Square coupled with the too close for comfort events of yesterday have me shaking my head and checking my locks.

Thanks for your voice of reason =o)

Gun violence in Seattle was higher in the past. Most notably 1994 with a total of 69 homicides. Overall, homicide is down since 1999. It just seems higher because, you know, crazy white person killing white people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_politics_of_Seattle

Crime and criminal justice

...After reaching its highest murder rate in 1994 with 69 homicides, Seattle's murder rate declined to a 40-year low with 24 homicides in 2004.[2] By 2006, Seattle's murder rate had increased, with thirty murders that year.[3] ...Seattle has suffered two mass-murders in recent history: the 1983 Wah Mee massacre (13 people killed in the Wah Mee gambling club)[5] and the March 25, 2006 Capitol Hill massacre when 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff killed six at a rave afterparty.[6] Later in 2006, an attempted spree killing by Naveed Afzal Haq left one dead at the Jewish Federation building.[7]

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^VoodooV:
If Samberg goes too....SNL be hurting

It started hurting nine years ago. heh.. When this "new" cast came to be.
Nothing replaces the 1994-2003'ish cast. I have just rolled my eyes over the past many years when plunked down in front of the boob tube with family or a friend I had.
Stinky show, probably even more stinky now.
Griping is stress relief !

This is relevant :
<div id="widget_1944715422"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=224080&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script></div>


Wow. I think just the opposite. SNL really hurt from 1994-2003 because of that cast. Cheri Oteri, Will Ferrel, Rachel Dratch, Molly Shannon and the like were complete hams.
It was refreshing when they replaced them all nearly at the same time with the crew they have now. This latest incarnation brought some fresh voices and decent writing. Not quite 1988-1993 greatness, but it has definitely been a step up.

>> ^VoodooV:

If Samberg goes too....SNL be hurting


It started hurting nine years ago. heh.. When this "new" cast came to be.

Nothing replaces the 1994-2003'ish cast. I have just rolled my eyes over the past many years when plunked down in front of the boob tube with family or a friend I had.

Stinky show, probably even more stinky now.

Griping is stress relief !


This is relevant :

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hell, freezes, over, 1994, eagles, rock, mtv' to 'hell freezes over, 1994, eagles, rock, mtv, hotel california' - edited by xxovercastxx

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf

See 1998-2001.


>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
ARGH!!! You're doing it again. Money the general fund owes to the payroll tax is still part of the total debt. Just because the government owes it to itself doesn't mean you get to take it out of your calculations as your factcheck.org article has. Public debt is not the only important factor.
Here are the total US debt figures from the treasury department:
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
If he actually ran a surplus don't you think that number should have dropped at some point?

@heropsycho

ARGH!!! You're doing it again. Money the general fund owes to the payroll tax is still part of the total debt. Just because the government owes it to itself doesn't mean you get to take it out of your calculations as your factcheck.org article has. Public debt is not the only important factor.

Here are the total US debt figures from the treasury department:

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

If he actually ran a surplus don't you think that number should have dropped at some point?

I don't think my complaint about VideoSift not keeping logged in information is the same as people complaining about crappy Internet connections on Airplanes.

Cookies have been around since 1994, this is not some newfangled technology web programmers are still getting the hang off...

>> ^curiousity:
Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

I didn't ignore your counterpoints, I just took them in the balance of this comment of yours:

"Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for"

Since you had already dismissed me as unworthy of your time, I saw little reason to devote much of my time to responding to your points. And even if everything you said were true, which I do not concede, it still wouldn't be enough to overturn the general conclusion of homosexuality being harmful to the individual, community and society. The evidence from the Netherlands is particularly powerful as it shows that even in societies that are open to homosexuality, the risk factors are the same or even worse. I'll address your points:

gay party scene: please be specific..I can think of one study.

too old: if it has changed, please show the data

>> ^curiousity:
"Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument."

Are homosexuals less educated on STDs and sex education? How else do you account for them being 63 percent of all new cases? Why are the statistics the same everywhere you look. Sex education can only do so much..many people know when they are engaging in risky behavior and do it anyway.

>> ^curiousity:
"A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)"

Here is more data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838193

>> ^curiousity:
"I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint."

I'm sure that some drug use may be based on their feelings of being persecuted, but if it's all based on discrimination then why are the usage rates the same in countries where homosexuality is practically institutionalized? I also wonder where personal responsibility ever comes into play? Do you think people can blame all of their behavior on environmental factors and not take any responsibility for their own choices? If I lose all of my money because of some dishonest bank and become homeless, does that mean I now have a right to steal? Or when I steal, am I not a criminal?

>> ^curiousity:
There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

How are my claims intolerant? I am not intolerant of anyone, I am intolerant of sin. There is a difference between judging someone as a person and judging their behavior. I am incapable of judging anyone, because I would only be a hypocrite, being equally guilty as they are, but I can tell if what they're doing is right or wrong. And yes, it is intolerant (by definition) to be intolerant of those who don't tolerate your position. You either welcome everyone to the table, including those who disagree with you, or you do exactly what you accuse them of doing to you.

>> ^curiousity:
It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

As I indicated, your post was dismissive..therefore I didn't spend much time on it. I appreciate the time you did spend but there was no indication you weren't interested in further dialogue.

>> ^curiousity:
Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

I'm open to a change in conversation. I am not super interested in arguing about statistics until kingdom come. I realize that they are not going to convince you of anything. I was just trying to support my statement. Since you feel that you understand some psychological motive about me that underlies my behavior, what do you think that is exactly? I can tell you that I do sincerely feel love for all people, even those who openly hate me. Mind you, sometimes I fail to show it, or even show the opposite..but that is something the Lord is helping me with. Some people are harder to love than others, but I see them all as being in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect. I can honestly say that have no predisposition against homosexuals, but you feel I do; so tell me why.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Of course you have some information to verify your confirmation bias. There is an issue that some of these studies focus (or were only able to find) gay people in the gay party scene. This typically includes younger (or older that stayed in the party scene) people who normally engage in riskier behaviour. Hard to include those people who are quietly gay due to some fear or just preference. Some of these studies are quite old too (one of your cited studies is from 1981... Seriously?) Much has changed for gay men and women in the last 15+ years.


- Link below was not found (even with unbreaking the link.) Obviously you've been working on this presentation for a while so that you can quickly "prove" that gays are the blight on society that you claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

- Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm

- A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

- I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint.

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html



Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I feel that, as with many born-again, you've lost your empathy to your newfound religious fervor. While my dad isn't a born again, he hides and validates his homophobia with the word of god and the bible. I know, I know - you aren't homophobic... you just see them as immoral sinners destroying society, a force that must be stopped, etc, etc.

In conclusion, logic and self-honesty - what the fuck are those?

>> ^CheshireSmile:

no mention of Space Jam? shenanigans!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117705/

Or his baseball carrier in 1994

Still swiftboating and muddying the waters? Still not talking about Murray Rothbard's role in this all?





Well lets look at some actual facts:
----------------------------------BEGIN

In early 2008, this article revealed that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the Ron Paul newsletters published from "roughly 1989 to 1994."

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously) .. so he was no stranger to trying to protect himself while expressing what he truly thought..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/still-states-greatest-enemy.html

----------------------------

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html

-------------------------------------------------------




I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

Get real people. It wasn't Ron Paul. The secret is in the grave at this point.

>> ^dag:

Anyone know what podcast I was listening to that led me to this promote?


Tell.

>> ^dag:

Anyone know what podcast I was listening to that led me to this promote?


#jesus

>> ^shinyblurry:

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.
But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.
Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins
The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.
Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?
Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."
Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156
"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"
Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J. & Weldon J. , "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.

>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?


Needs more quotes. But I guess that's what religion is all about, rely on things someone said before you and not think for yourself.