sanctuary - remake of jefferson airplane WHITE RABBIT has been added as a related post - related requested by enoch.

check out warrel danes high notes here:
*related=http://videosift.com/video/sanctuary-remake-of-jefferson-airplane-WHITE-RABBIT

I honestly don't know what you're referring to with regards to 'derision,' but i don't really care. Probably best for us to drop it since it now appears that you're turning to some rather irrelevant issues. The original point about the "border states" was not how to label or refer to them, but to show that Lincoln did not 'emancipate' or invade them, thereby showing his motivations had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

I don't know who specifically 'shot first' but this is what happened:

"Ft. Sumter was located in the middle of the harbor of Charleston, SC where the U.S. forts garrison had withdrawn to avoid incidents with local militias in the streets of the city. Unlike Buchanan who allowed commanders to relinquish possession to avoid bloodshed, Lincoln required Maj. Anderson to hold on until fired upon. Jefferson Davis ordered the surrender of the fort. Anderson gave a conditional reply which the Confederate government rejected, and Davis ordered P. G. T. Beauregard to attack the fort before a relief expedition could arrive."

The Confederacy ordered an attack on a fort in what it saw as its territory and therefore under Union occupation. The Union saw it as their fort.
Again, a survey of the opinion of people you know about who 'started it' does not the same thing as that "most reasonable people" would see it like you do.

More irrelevant splitting of hairs: in the United Sates of 2014 practically no one openly advocates institutionalized slavery or openly argue their "right" to own slaves. So for practical purposes, (almost) everyone is openly against slavery.
That, in any case, is totally irrelevant to the Jon Stewart video and so your comments are far from relevant.

"I'm not going to comment on Jon Stewarts motives or morality, they are not germane to the subject I'm discussing."
It's all well and good that you're not going to comment on Stewart's motives or morality, but most of what you constitute your "arguments" are not germane to what I'm discussing here, or to any of my original points prior to your digressions and tangential discussions about which I frankly have little interest. No offense.

I don't think they'll let the U.S. default now, nor do I think they will not raise the debt ceiling (But, again, who knows?). If they do, however, raise the ceiling, it will be another indication that there is no more capping the debt, it will grow and grow until the country has no choice but to default.

Interesting to remember, back at the beginning of the Reagan years, fiscal conservatives were "crying" about the debt being $1 trillion. That's nothing compared to what it is today. And it was Reagan (by way of his "Reaganomics") who decided that there was no problem with increasing the debt.
Writes Murray Rothbard (in 1981), in an article about how the U.S. should just default on the debt:

"Perhaps the most absurd argument of Reaganomists was that we should not worry about growing public debt because it is being matched on the federal balance sheet by an expansion of public 'assets'."

(I wonder what he would make of today's $16 trillion+ in U.S. debt?)

Predictably, as soon as Reagan went on a spending spree, fiscal "conservatives" stopped being so (not unlike the 'leftists' who stopped being anti-war as soon as Obama was elected).

It should also serve us to remember that it was the Democratic party that first considered itself the party of fiscal responsibility, at least with regards to Jefferson, Jackson, and Van Buren who all had a conscious plan to defund government but eventually failed for various historical reasons.

"It is for all these reasons that the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians (who, contrary to the myths of historians, were extraordinarily knowledgeable in economic and monetary theory) hated and reviled the public debt. Indeed, the national debt was paid off twice in American history, the first time by Thomas Jefferson and the second, and undoubtedly the last time, by Andrew Jackson."

There is an actual bass player named Mike Michaelson-Band called the Bloody Thumbs...

Jefferson pitched in the Negro leagues in the 40s and 50s for the Jacksonville Red Caps and the Cleveland Buckeyes

What about Mike Michaelson or Frank Frankerson or Jeff Jefferson? Does their bass playing get any accolades?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Jefferson Airplane, Surrealistic Pillow, Alice, Wonderland, 60s, psychedelic' to 'Jefferson Airplane, Surrealistic Pillow, Go Ask Alice, Wonderland, 60s, psychedelic' - edited by lucky760

>> ^VoodooV:

Our founders did NOT want Parties

I feel the same about parties but I am having a hard time reconciling the quoted text.

The Democratic-Republican party was founded by Jefferson and Madison. If they are not our founders, who is?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.


You are picking and choosing your details man. I think you are also getting your 'facts' about the 40's and 50's from tv shows and movies and using them to spin your idea of 'how golden and free of crime America was before we turned out back on God.' And what about the decades before the 50's, certainly we hadn't 'turned away from god', so how do you explain the debauchery of the 20's, the turn of the century 'robber barons' that lived in luxury while their sweat-shops were worked by the masses of poor and children. The herione gangs and the waves of violence around 1910, 15.

It is really funny how some people (mostly white, older and male) see the 40's and 50's as this shining era of godly love, no crime and family harmony. It was all like 'leave it to beaver'. Dad made the big bucks, mom stayed at home and the most the kids ever got into trouble was when they broke a neighbors window. Yes, generally crime rates were low in the 40's and 50's but you cant attribute that to people 'having the fear of god' back then but skip over times that had just as much, if not even more religious fervor but also plenty of social upheaval and crime. Point of fact crime rates right now in most states are at historical lows, nearly to the levels of the 50's, but you still see murders every day. The information age has changed these things. In the 50's the only news you had was local. You might never have heard about some crime rave in another state.

Other things can attribute to the lower crime rates of those years. How many young men were serving in WWII during the 40's, that certainly would account for a drop in crime rates. And as to the 50's, the threat of nuclear war was constant. 'In God We Trust' wasn't added to money in the mid 50's because it was a particularly religious era, but rather because if the threat of communism. The term used to denote a healthy and proper family in the 50's wasn't coined the 'nuclear' family for nothing.

Last I'd like to point out that the US was 'never' designed as a Christian Nation and has only receive that monicker in the last number of years. I know bible-thumpers and hard-right politicians would have you think, hell have even changed school books, to wipe out ideas like the simple fact that many of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion, though certainly not all. You can twist the words of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson all you want, but they above all abhorred the idea of religion influencing politics. This is not to say that they were all anti-religion, many advocated religion as a personal foundation of morality, but to hear modern republicans suggest they wanted Christianity to be the basis of the constitution and this country, they would be rolling over in their graves.

1). The Jefferson's
2). All in the Family (Archie Bunker)
3). Golden Girls
4). Friends
5). Prince of Bel Air
6). Facts of Life
7). Good Times
. Greatest American Hero
9). Threes Company
10). Sanford and Son (Thanks diggum317)(That was my guess but I wasn't sure)
11). Full House
12). Saved by the Bell
13). Happy Days
14). Cheers
15). The Mary Tyler Moore Show'

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

Have you ever taken the time to look at what the apologists/"sophisticated theologists" of today are on about? Because they do not leave out the OT, even in its worst aspects: http://videosift.com/video/The-Obscenity-of-Christianity-or-Pro-Life

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson (on the concept of Trinity)

>> ^dag:

Thomas Jefferson said when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I don't think the US government is afraid of its people - I wish they were.
I think there's more to the dysfunction in American government than the balance of fear.


"Government" is not a person. Our government is comprised of individuals, every one of them a human being (with the exception of two androids and four pod people). I think they DO fear us, which is why they're so prone to pandering. Worse, though, is that WE are our government. By and large, WE put these people there.
I think one of the biggest problems we have is the two-party system, an unfortunate inevitability of the First Past the Post voting system.
One thing the FPtP video doesn't really mention is what happens once the parties have established their dominance - indoctrination. We're encouraged to side with Republicans or Democrats, and once we've done that, over time we're inclined to start buying into the entire party platform. You can't be anti-abortion and pro-gay-rights. We immediately jump to the defense of any party tenet attacked by our "misguided" opposition. Minor differences of opinion become sacred cows. Perhaps this is a natural herd mentality, a defense mechanism against marginalization, or avoidance of peer conflict.
Whatever the causes, the outcome is gridlock and resentment. Nothing gets done because compromise is weakness. Candidates are only able to rise to power by adhering to the party line.
So I begin my post suggesting that government is individuals, and end by suggesting that individuals cede their power to the parties.
The system is broken. Checks and balances only function when sufficient individual agency is involved.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thomas Jefferson said when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I don't think the US government is afraid of its people - I wish they were.

@Hive13 I'm kind of hoping that you're joking, because seriously, her drinking is not at issue here, the assault isn't even really at issue here, at issue here was someone (the defense lawyers, and the wording of the ruling out of the Jefferson District Court) of trying to tell the victim of sexual assault that she shouldn't talk about it. There's enough silencing happening around the issue of sexual assault without giving it the sanction of law.

If you want to talk about the assault, I think it should be fairly obvious that you can't give consent while unconscious (the sources I've read say that the assault happened after she passed out). If someone is too wasted to know what's up, then consent cannot be given, and the other partner would have to be really messed up to think that sort of behavior was OK. She didn't place the boys in that position, the boys did that to themselves - by assaulting her and taking pictures.

Slagging on this particular teen for doing something that is extremely common looks like an attempt to shame the victim. If you want to go moan about drinking at parties, find a different conversation -- here's one
http://videosift.com/video/Drinking-Culture-David-Mitchell-s-Soapbox

It's these sort of attacks on character that help a tiny number of men get away with a large number of sexual assaults, because their victims don't come forward (because of fear of being ostracized), aren't believed (you were drunk), or aren't prosecuted (it's just boys being assholes).

it's ruby tuesday! congratulations UP.... <jeffersons theme>movin' on UPPPPPPP

I dont know how to make ^%%^@& embedded video.. (WHERE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS)
so here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYcqToQzzGY&feature=related