False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.

Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.

Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?

Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:

One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.

Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...

...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.

Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.

Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.

If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.

I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

At 5:20 he mentions the painter James McNaughton. I recently saw his "Peace is Coming" in a mall in Arizona, and drew my family over to bask in the crazy. Jesus hanging with examples of histories various armies. I am surprised to hear him mentioned by Bill and that this painter must have fans. Check his website - especially "One Nation Under Socialism". I'll spare you the eye-pain to say that is is a painting of Obama burning the Declaration. At least I assume it is Obama, perhaps Tracy Morgan? No excuse for sloppy technique.

Holy Shit that Coldplay cover was the most atrocious thing I've ever heard! And was that the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse at 0:58?

Okay, now that I've got my petty gripes and sarc out of the way I can fully bask in the awesome feelgoodness of this story.

> I showed my friends the GW2 beta yesterday and they all scoffed at me "It's just a WoW rip off!"

of course they did.
as if WoW invented MPOGs, and not a ripoff of anything?

what better vested interest could they have, for saying so, than having now spent many $100's, on just 1 video game?
any game that charges to play is the ultimate ripoff.

tell your friends that, and bask in their dull gaze while the gears turn,
trying to rejustify it & think of a response.

@NetRunner -
I like the way that you've made your case here, but I still personally think Politifact's stance/take on the statement was OK. Particularly the revised "mostly true" rating, but even the "half-true" rating was acceptable depending on how you interpret it.

The sentence that I think is specifically subject to some scrutiny is:
"And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect."

You can take that as a fairly straightforward logical statement -- that from the time that Obama entered office until whatever time that it is determined that his "policies were in full effect", 4 million more jobs were lost. If a specific date can be set that all observers would agree on for the "policies in full effect" bit, the whole sentence could be evaluated as a statement of fact, true or false. Just like the following bits about A and B, that Politifact certified as true.

However, I think that it is quite reasonable to assert that there is a heavy implication in that sentence that Obama's policies were largely or entirely responsible for the following upturn in jobs. That is something that is impossible to rigorously prove. I'm happy for Obama to say it, and I think that it is also quite reasonable for him to feel vindicated by it. But I also think that it is worth applying some small print to explain that more fully to anyone who is inquiring about it, for example someone looking it up at Politifact.

Consider this: before I was born, the Inquisition, Crusades, and Holocaust happened. In the 30+ years that I have been alive the global standard of living, as independently measured by the Human Development Index has been steadily climbing in every region evaluated to current all-time highs around the world.

There are two sentences there, basically 2 statements of fact. They are both true. Am I the pinnacle of evolution? Has the world been collectively basking in the glory of my mere presence on earth, matching the implication that I am responsible for or at least contributing to those facts? ...Probably not. I rate my own statements as only "half true" or perhaps "mostly true" ( I am pretty goddamn awesome, so who knows ).

@my15minutes

As in "my 15 minutes of fame"?

Took you long enough to get the Silver Tongue Level One, my friend! Bask in your adulation -- it should last about.... 15 minutes.

Just joshing.... congrats. Silver Tongue is hard to get....

You're a grown man picking on children that are still developing their minds. Sit back and bask in that.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

If God indeed is God then would it not be justified? (I should qualify this with I am an agnostic atheist) But there is very little that separates a Abrahamic faith than a scientific one, or even logical one. Rational systems have undeniably "Chinese walls", as does science. Bedrocks on which are facts that have to be accepted that can't be proved. All people, every single one, lives their day hinged on "facts" they have no idea are "True" with a capital T. Everyone is living with some form of dogma. It is a new found arrogance, and perhaps in rebellion of the arrogance that "religion" has had for some time, that people who don't "have faith" are somehow being smarter or less dictated too. Many of the worlds brilliant mathematicians and my personal favorites were rejected by the world of "free thinkers" to the point where they killed themsevles. All their opposition died, in time, and their ideas only came into popularity after they were dead and in the ground. People are brutally unfair, not fully considering things most of the time...even those tasked with the responsibility to do great thinking. Seldom to people embrace the ignorance we all share, and instead bask in the differences.
One of my favorite quotes on the matter is this:
So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
-James Madison
We are all not so different, in the end...how could we be?
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^A10anis:
I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

No bias, just fact. Name one Abrahamic faith that does NOT dictate to it's followers. I choose freedom of thought, over controlled thought, every time. Religion, if is not stopped, will happily take us back to the dark ages. A time when they had absolute power over every aspect of peoples lives. Who, in their right mind, would prefer that to freedom?


What are you talking about? How can you rationally claim that "very little separates Abrahamic faith from science?" or that science has "facts that can't be proved?" BTW, you cannot be an Agnostic Atheist, you are either not sure there is a god, or you believe there is no god. Or are you saying you are not sure if you are an atheist..lol. I leave it to others to see the nonsense of your non-sequiturs.

If God indeed is God then would it not be justified? (I should qualify this with I am an agnostic atheist) But there is very little that separates a Abrahamic faith than a scientific one, or even logical one. Rational systems have undeniably "Chinese walls", as does science. Bedrocks on which are facts that have to be accepted that can't be proved. All people, every single one, lives their day hinged on "facts" they have no idea are "True" with a capital T. Everyone is living with some form of dogma. It is a new found arrogance, and perhaps in rebellion of the arrogance that "religion" has had for some time, that people who don't "have faith" are somehow being smarter or less dictated too. Many of the worlds brilliant mathematicians and my personal favorites were rejected by the world of "free thinkers" to the point where they killed themsevles. All their opposition died, in time, and their ideas only came into popularity after they were dead and in the ground. People are brutally unfair, not fully considering things most of the time...even those tasked with the responsibility to do great thinking. Seldom to people embrace the ignorance we all share, and instead bask in the differences.

One of my favorite quotes on the matter is this:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

-James Madison

We are all not so different, in the end...how could we be?

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^A10anis:
I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

No bias, just fact. Name one Abrahamic faith that does NOT dictate to it's followers. I choose freedom of thought, over controlled thought, every time. Religion, if is not stopped, will happily take us back to the dark ages. A time when they had absolute power over every aspect of peoples lives. Who, in their right mind, would prefer that to freedom?

>> ^00Scud00:

I heard in my environmental science class once that if resources were divided equally amongst everyone in the world we would all be living like people in third world countries, no wonder it's such a hard sell.
The clip of Jacque - Fresco Money is good but I don't buy the idea that currency invented bribery and corruption, it all happened before, just with horses, slaves, land, or whatever else was of value.


So, the argument I am hearing you make is that millions should be dying so that we can bask in luxury...

As antitheist as I am, I just can't bring myself to have a problem with her saying that. If you've been brought up to thank God whenever something good happens, that's just what you're going to say, especially immediately after such a shocking change to one's life. I can only hope she comes 'round to thanking the doctors who helped her, and learn that it was science and not the invisible sky-daddy that brought her hearing back.


In the meantime, I'm going to watch the video again and bask in the happiness.




_{(I'd be much more pissed at commentator's saying "praise God" when they have the critical and emotional distance allowing them to realise that this is the result of scientific research.)}>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^Sarzy:
On how clearly she speaks, the poster wrote: "My whole life I've been complimented on how well I speak. I don't really have an answer for you other than I have always had a passion for reading, grammar, and English. My hearing loss was/is considered severe to profound. I've worked very hard to be able to interact and blend in.....only thing I can say is 'God is good'."

I really enjoyed the video. It was great. Then... she had to say something as stupid as God is Good. Yes.. God is SOOOO good, he let you be born a deaf. Then, not content with his/it own doucheness, he just let you carry on your life not reverting the deafness. God IS GREAT......... sure.
I'm getting really tired of this kind of attitude.

Yea, he was tricky. All he says, I can come back any time, so just be ever vigilant for my return. It wasn't his fault that many people took that to mean he would come back within their lifetimes. Which is one explanation why it took so long to start cranking out books, because if judgment day is tomorrow, you're better off trying to save as many people as possible by direct preaching. Silly sand people, they had no idea he meant, oh, give it a few thousand years, I'm going to be a fairly weary zombie. Need to go up and get situated first, ya know how it is.

There's passages like -- "6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you."

So this 'You' will be alive when he comes back to bask in his glory in his holy place? Wonder how that person would ever get the mistaken impression that this would go down anytime in the next couple millennium. And what if his given testimony was contradictory and full of flaws, or he was simply a poor persuader? That listener is going to be tortured for eternity for having the ability to process logic! That hardly seems just to me.
Sorry if I don't believe in multidimensional space pixies until I see some evidence buddy.

The saddest thing about this is that even this pile of poo poo her sorry excuse for a brain managed to come up with and convince itself is brilliant is nothing new, it's been done before (unfortunately). I have a better idea, we round up girls like you, introduce them to prostitution and explain to them they would be better serving mankind by whoring themselves out than by trying to be creative, I can't claim pimping is a concept I came up with but at least we know it works.

Also, why do people "mercy-clap"? Wouldn't it be better to shatter her tiny world by letting her know she's retarded than to encourage her to spread her idiocy and bask in it?

Basking shark, really not dangerous...

Tax cut is a Bullshit term. It's my money keep your F-in hands off my money. Dont take it adn then give some bask and call it a tax break.

If the FED and State are in such a bind do what all of us do which is STOP F-in spending.

The tax system is unconstitutional. A flat tax would be.