In his defense, I wouldn't ever rule out the possibility that our gov't could ever become tyrannical. It's just not likely. That and there are going to be a huge number of signs leading up to it and "taking away guns" is not one of them. It's irrelevant because in either case it doesn't change the fact that if the government ever truly did become tyrannical, in order to successfully revolt against it you're going to need a HELL of a lot more than just some assault rifles to overthrow a government gone bad. You're going to need 1) popular support, 2) military defections/support to your side to provide training/support/supplies. In this age, intel and cyber warfare is going to be as valuable if not more valuable than bullets.

I'm sorry, but this romantic myth of a bunch of "patriotic" militia groups rising up armed to overthrow a modern government armed only with a small arsenal of weapons is just that...a stupid myth. News flash, Red Dawn was just a movie, a fictional story, not a how-to manual. You're going to need a hell of a lot more than a 2nd Amendment to overthrow a government in this age.

But yeah, going back to the original argument. It's not impossible, but the idea that gov't is going to go tyrannical is just as ridiculous. Losing an election is not the same as having a tyrannical gov't When we stop having elections, then come talk to me. A lot of shit has to happen in order for gov't to become truly tyrannical and your guy not winning the election isn't one of them. Taxes being raised is not tyrannical gov't.

it's become the fashionable way to cry out for attention and go out in a blaze of, perceived, glory.

I think part of the problem is that mental health is still largely an unknown science. There is no magic detector that goes off if you're in extreme personal turmoil and about to crack.

There are some very good mental doctors out there, but there are a ton out there who do nothing but prescribe expensive pills.

Until mental health science improves, we've got to go after the guns. As someone already mentioned, we've got the most guns per capita, so obviously "more guns" isn't working. I've heard people already arguing that we've got to arm teachers...are fucking nuts?? There's got to be some sort of increase in gun control, what it is, I cannot say, but something needs to be done.

I also think a lot of this has to fall on the parents too, probably not in all cases, but I think in many you have the issue of negligent parenting. I still remember The columbine shooting and how the parents of the shooters immediately lawyered up. Then it was discovered they had a arsenal of weapons and explosives right there in the home. The parents had to know and just didn't care.

That's the problem though, how do you correct that? how do you stop a shitty parent from being a shitty parent and stop shit like this from ever happening in the first place.

America has some deep emotional issues we need to fucking address or more shootings are going to keep occurring. I agree, banning guns isn't going to solve the problem, but the problem is that tackling the REAL reason why this shit occurs is so out of our reach that banning guns is the only realistic alternative. Yes the problem is crazy people + guns. We have absolutely no idea how to address crazy people, but we sure as hell know how we can address the gun problem.

This is from *Canada, and is specific to Canada.

We like to be transparent and polite.

Don't worry, there may still be arsenic and stuff in all you fries. Who knows.

>> ^Fletch:

Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.
Your argument is so much stronger without this foamy cruft.



You're certainly aware of how effective this is at painting the rest of your argument as the same kind of "us-vs-them" garbage (regardless of its merits) so it comes across as so much chest-puffing and strutting about. That is to say, when you argue like this, you're obviously not arguing for effect - you're showing off for your friends.

>> ^lantern53:

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.


Sorry, but that's just fucking sad.

This particular dipshit (I didn't see any other white men being interviewed) didn't pass the protections you mentioned all by himself (if he had anything to do with them at all). For all you know, he fought tooth and nail against them. By your "logic" this idiot shouldn't be criticised because those protections exist at all.

What in this video made you believe he has ANY regard for the well-being of women, outside of allowing an abortion to save her life? Or are you just running to his defense because he has an "R" next to his name?

About 30% of the world population is white. Do you think only white men had anything to do with laws that protect women? By your logic, those white men were ALSO solely responsible for the housing market collapse, 3 unneccesary wars, the world-wide recession, and all the financial scandals that seem to be exposed on a daily basis. They could use a little maligning. Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

The whole point of the video is that this crusader against abortion hasn't even considered the view of those who would be most affected by anti-abortion laws. Why do you think that is? Money from anti-abortion donors? Religious nuttery? Towing the party line? Incapable of empathy (a sociopath)? That he is a man who wants to pass laws that only affect women makes it even more disgraceful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I wish mental health care were as easy to get as, say, a gun.

Mental health care is available to anyone with money.
Guns are available to anyone with money.


I wanted to clarify this. Lack of proper mental health care is a big problem in this country, but it was not this guy's problem. He had the money for a small arsenal, then he had the money for therapy and drugs. It's impossible to find actual verified information on this, but the lawsuit from the one guy targets doctors. So at least someone believes that he was receiving care and had access to medicine.

It was a terrible thing to happen, but you have to realize that some people are just crazy. These things happen occasionally even in the most nonviolent cultures. The finger-pointing isn't helping.

What a thread. Can you USians just go vote for Mitt Obama already and get it over with?

Arsene on his horse! Brilliant.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

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

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

sex is more a communication,an expression of emotional connectedness translated into a physical manifestation and not just a mundane act of procreation.

in my humble opinion women are far more adept in the art of physical communication than men are.the language they employ to express their adoration is as varied as it is profoundly subtle.
seduction is an art spoken in whispers and all we have to do is but listen.
a woman will use everything at her disposal:
the lingering stare.
the coy smile.
the flirtatious hair twirl.
let there be no mistake...
a woman plans EVERYTHING,down to the smallest detail,especially when it comes to seduction.
they have an arsenal of weapons of mass seduction and to the discerning male who understands this language there is little room for doubt the intentions and desires being broadcast on all channels.

but sadly most males are not of the discerning sort (this is due to many factors,some social,others more internally based).
so the woman is almost forced to become a blunt instrument and bash the male in the face to communicate her intentions.
so it really should not come as a surprise that some woman have been found to use the more blunt and crude instruments in their arsenal in order to get their message across.

so we have women faking orgasms and pretend moaning but even in its falseness there is still the act of love,or loving,to be more accurate,because ultimately the women is still attempting to be a good lover by making her man feel...well..like a MAN.

so let me present a little unbidden advice:
to all my male brothers.
start paying attention!
because if you start paying attention to all those seemingly innocuous cues that your woman drops on a daily basis.those fake moans and fake orgasms will no longer be...well..fake.

that being said.
i am with cenk that if you dont bring the genuine read deal i become bored real fast.
i am not interested in performance art.
i am interested in you.
let your body talk to me.
i will listen.

You're a mean one, Mark Sidran
You really are a heel,
You're as cuddly as a cactus, you're as charming as an eel, Mr. Sidran,
You're a bad banana with a greasy black peel!

You're a monster, Mark Sidran,
Your heart's an empty hole,
Your brain is full of spiders, you have garlic in your soul, Mr. Sidran,
I wouldn't touch you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

You're a foul one, Mark Sidran,
You have termites in your smile,
You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile, Mr. Sidran,
Given a choice between the two of you I'd take the seasick crocodile!

You're a rotter, Mark Sidran,
You're the king of sinful sots,
Your heart's a dead tomato splotched with moldy purple spots, Mr. Sidran,
You're a three decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce!

You nauseate me, Mark Sidran,
With a nauseous super "naus"!,
You're a crooked dirty jockey and you drive a crooked hoss, Mr. Sidran,
Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful
Assortment of rubbish imaginable mangled up in tangled up knots!

You're a foul one, Mark Sidran,
You're a nasty wasty skunk,
Your heart is full of unwashed socks, your soul is full of gunk, Mr. Sidran,
The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote,
"Stink, stank, stunk"!

Are the leaders in Iran, for all the rhetoric, rational? I tend to think they are (at least as rational as the Israelis), and believe they are seeking a nuclear deterant, not to destroy Israel.

I think Isreal has to learn to be more diplomatic toward its neighbors, and stop leaning on brute force, their nuclear arsenal, or superpower sponsors.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

Flying devil rays? Quite cool. *Timeshifted flying with pelicans? WAY cool.

I need to seek out this Earth Flight programme. According to the BBC website:

Spycams film right in the heart of the flock with microlights, hang-gliders and wirecams making up the aerial filming arsenal.

In order they are...

Andres Iniesta who scored the winning in the World Cup Final for Spain plays for Barcelona

Cesc Fabregas who joined Barcelona this past summer from Arsenal

Carlos Puyol central defender from Barcelona

Sergio Ramos right back for Real Madrid (and hack when it comes time for El Classico)

Fernando Torres (Fatnando) who joined Chelsea for a a fee of 50 Million pounds.