Right, cause the appropriate response to realizing your parent's home is in the process of burning to the ground is..?

I think you're confusing this girl's lack of swift-thinking and vocabulary..
for her genuine panic and shock over an uncontrollable situation.

>> ^budzos:

This is a pretty sad example of how kids/young people today are often incapable of engaging sincerely with actualy reality. This little idiot's house is burning down and she can't even have an honest reaction to it.

If you're asking "Fucking Magnets, how do they work?" in the first place, there is probably some mystery explanation already in your head to explain it. If it's a real question, you can surely google up something to read about that. Whether or not you get good information depends on how much time you put into studying the question. If it's a rhetorical question, you're wasting the time of whoever you've asked by expecting them to take it seriously.

Another good example of this is any discussion with a creationist about evolution. They've heard just enough from pseudo-scientific creationist arguments to know some minor points about evolution, but this comes with misconceptions, flawed arguments, and logical fallacies. When you try to educate these people, you swiftly learn that any attempt to do so is a waste of time and energy. If they really wanted to know they would study for answers, but what they want instead is to shout down the people with the actual knowledge.

I think what Mr. Feynman is saying here is that if you expect to get a good answer to your question, you should study enough so that he won't have to "dumb down" his answer to satisfy you. If you're actually curious about the answer and want to understand it, you'd oblige.

That's a dog with spirit! [I hope karma was swift and just]

What the fuck is it with these republicans - Bush & Cheney get a swift pass on war-crimes like waterboarding untrialled detainees. & Clinton is impeached for a blowjob - And Obama's really a secret Muslim. WTF REPUBLICANS.

I'm not a sinner. Your lot invented the concept either to claim superiority and power over others, or as a device to beat yourselves up with, and I simply don't accept your judgement. If God existed, then yes, I would have broken his laws many times. But he doesn't (see, that's my own assertion), so there's nothing to break. You certainly don't know better.

According to the word of God, you are a sinner. According to the word of God, I am a sinner. The difference between you and me is, I have asked God to forgive me, and have chosen to serve Him the rest of my days. I'm not on a powertrip; I'm no better than you are, or anyone else. God doesn't show partiality between persons. Whether you admit to being a sinner or not, you have done what is called sin. It doesn't make you any less guilty if you acknowledge or not.

It's not nihilism. It's just nature. Nothing's more natural than that. I know what wrong sex is. I don't do that. I am well in control, or certainly more than Mr. O'Neal appeared to be. And why would I limit myself simply because it's enjoyable? I like bacon, beer, ice cream and riding my bicycle. They all give me extreme pleasure and no suffering. Should I stop doing them simply because they give me pleasure? That makes no sense. No more sense than giving up sex would, considering I don't accept your assertions about God, and so neither do I accept your judgement of me.

You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters. The reason fornication is wrong, among other things, is because sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. When you join together with someone, you become one flesh. God designed sex to be between married couples only. God isn't against pleasure; my point was is that you do what makes you feel good; that is your priority. That is an inherently selfish mindset. Also, moral relativism is essentially nihilism.

Your religion is controlling your mind. I too am at rest in terms of my morality. As I've probably said to you in other threads, I'd love to know of some God-type thing, but just choosing to accept one religions's dogma isn't the way.

You would love to know God, that is, if He didn't require anything of you. It is because He requires you to modify your behavior that you don't know Him. God makes His existence plain to everything; you reject God because you don't want to know Him. You are suppressing the truth.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

Your idea of truth is something we can never really know for sure. In a word, relativism. Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it.

The word of God is inexaustible. There is more truth there than any person could discover in many lifetimes. Neither am I trying to bend the world to make it fit scripture. Scripture perfectly describes the condition of man, the nature of reality, and the spiritual realm. The world is only comprehensible through scripture.

You say I have the nerve to state what I believe to be true, yet you feel free to tell me I am wrong. You've made your unprovable assertion, the presupposition that there is no God, and from there you dismiss every claim to the contrary, with no evidence; there is nothing there except pathological skepticism.

We're all bad people, because we have all sinned. You think I am pointing the finger at you, which isn't true. All human beings have fallen short of the grace of God. I'm no different. I preach the gospel because I care what happens to you, and everyone else who doesn't know the Lord. You perceive it, incorrectly, as an attack (because the message convicts you), but they are actually the words that lead to life.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.

I absolutely believe Jesus Christ is God, that is true, and why do you think this is something I need to apologize for? You don't believe God is real, but I know that He is, and those who know Him of course will absolutely attest to the fact that He exists and that He loves you and has a plan for your life. You accuse me of not being humble when you are basing your criticism on your own presupposition, that there is no God. According to your own definition of humility, that is a very arrogant thing for you to say.

Your issue is that you believe the truth is some kind of unknowable morass and no one really knows what is going on. That's because your comprehension of the truth is that it's unknowable morass and you don't know what's really going on. Atheism is a religion for people who have no experience with God. The truth is knowable, and you could know God today, if you would serve Him. The fact that you won't is the reason you don't know Him. You regard your personal autonomy as more valuable than what is actually true; you prefer an illusion of control.

>> ^messenger:

I'm with you all the way about other people's frameworks. I love --LOVE-- talking to people who are figuring the truth out by any means, especially by means that are different from mine, or that seem opposed to mine. In fact, I love it so much that I've spent probably around 10,000 words (not an exaggeration) around the Sift in dialogue just with Shinyblurry alone --most of it very civil, and the majority of it (around 7,000 words) in this one vid's comment thread-- so I'd say that I have given him more than a fair shake.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.>> ^heropsycho:

I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

>> ^MrFisk:

I've heard T. Boone Pickens speak before. He didn't mention Swift Boating.


exactly and notice no mention of WHO bought up huuuge amounts of natural gas enriched lands ten years ago.
for all his great points this man has an agenda....and it benefits him mainly.

I've heard T. Boone Pickens speak before. He didn't mention Swift Boating.

No worries. That's certainly understandable. I'm actually glad to see such swift moderation!

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Please disregard my hobblement. I undid it after I was notified by a couple of users that you were just clearing out some dead videos. Pardon my haste, but mass killings have been known to happen.

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

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

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

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

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

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

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

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

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

Swift, but not silent.

After seeing this and all the other Prog-Lib-Dyte videos this week desperately trying to explain away the OWS meltdown, I have reached the firm conclusion that I need to act swiftly. I need to open up a tin-foil hat stand and go to OWS sites right away before this lucrative market dissapates.

I remember reading last week how a nervous Putin said that there was not going to be any occupy movements in Russia, that any attempt would be swiftly quashed. OCCUPY FSB! ... splat... not...

Oh critics say something...well they must be right...make crimes harder to prosecute...yeah must be true. Please present some evidence for your claims.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-29/local/me-25875_1_hate-crime-cases

Also I disagree it's Orwellian unless it's the powerful subjugating the weak with thought crimes. When it's a law for protecting the weak and minorities, I don't agree. Just doesn't make sense unless the scales are balanced.

What's more powerful than government and its badly written, randomly-enforced laws?


----

Here is the simplest way I can think of to describe it. @quantumushroom

Say some teenagers spray paint their names on one side of a Mosque and a neo-nazi group spray paints 'death to all Muslims' on the other side. Is there a difference between these crimes? Is there a difference in intent? Absolutely. The teenagers have committed vandalism. The neo-nazis have committed both vandalism and a targeted act of terrorism against a group of people.

Attacking someone because of their sexual orientation is both battery and a calculated act of terrorism against a group of people.

You don't have to agree with it, but do you at least get the distinction?

I'm aware of the difference, however, if someone hands out flyers and holds a sign saying "Exterminate all left-handed albinos", that is protected speech. What the 'hate crime' lobby is saying is, if the same individual spray paints this message on a wall that is not his property, he is to be punished both for vandalism AND the message; the latter would then be punishment of thoughtcrime.

---

The idea is that the crime is politically motivated. It is their status within society that is being targeted not themselves as individuals. What makes it a hate crime is the likelihood of it triggering others to do the same in a way that a non-politically motivated instance of crime would not.

You are smart enough to know this already QM.

Per my previous excellent examples, we can only make assumptions as to the intent of a criminal. Do you seriously think some violent teenaged punk targeting a weaker target has political motivations? How do you prove it? You cannot. A much more plausible but equally unknowable motive is that this school does not swiftly punish offenders for committing acts of violence.


Changing tracks slightly, this video is also an excellent example of how you cannot expect government to save your bacon and watch over you all the time. Every feminine-acting boy--indeed, every picked-on youth--must decide for himself at some point, though he may not like training, whether it would be worthwhile to learn rudimentary boxing or martial arts, or at the very least, how to take a punch. Krav maga on youtube: 25K videos.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 7 Badge!