I've been thinking lately that one of the biggest reasons that the Bible appears as a sham to me is that it starts so simple and gets more and more complicated as it goes along.

Think about it. At first, the authors are just rounding up local word-of-mouth legends and parables. Which is why so many early religions share so much of the same information, stories, themes, etc. But then, as people become more educated via industry and technology, the stories have to get more complicated to deal with more problems and more questions that people have. Then by the time you get to Revelations, which was written hundreds of years after everything else, it gets really, really complicated. Dealing with matters of early globalization and world government. AND, those things aren't hard to predict, really, if you think about it. Anyone trying to control a large amount of people would know that if they all tried to join together, that would be the end of the reigning power. So they try to fight that by planting the idea early in people's minds that it's a sign of evil. And so they preemptively attack the "leader" saying that "you'll know him, because you'll be really impressed by him". And you don't have to be a student of history to know that people usually attribute revolutionary ideas to one person so that they can hide behind that one person when the powers that be try to persecute them for trying to change things.

The whole thing seems like such a recipe for control. I mean, maybe this idea isn't new (Hell, Frank Herbert wrote about them a long time ago) but it seems to me that it's the biggest evidence showing that the bible was created by men, for the purposes of control. I'd like to think that a supreme being would be so obvious about it.

That is not what the S&P said. They said the fact that politicians were willing to risk default to get their ideologies made into policies triggered the downgrade.

And all parties wanted the US economy to not plummet, which necessitates the debt ceiling raise. The difference with this debt ceiling raise is one faction of one party was willing to have the US default to get their way. The GOP ran the deficit up from 2000-2006 with tax cuts and unfunded mandates, entered the US into two wars, and then stuck a Democratic president with the bill, and then said, "you cut your programs to fix this, or we'll force the US to default" after the economy tanked.

Don't sit there and say the GOP compromised by raising the debt ceiling. They did in fact hold the US economy hostage by suddenly becoming worried about the debt to score political points. The Tea Party is a small faction of the GOP. The GOP willfully attempted to aggregate political will from Tea Party sympathizers.

The problem with all this is the vast majority of Americans, on both sides, do not understand the ramifications of default, large deficits, a growing national debt, etc. On this very site, guys like you for example swear up and down that deficits are never good, when a cursory look at our history shows that deficits have actually been at times wildly beneficial to our economy. Others insist on paying for social security indefinitely from 65 to death without looking at what it would cost to make that happen, or ignoring that people live longer today than they did before, so maybe it's time we raise the retirement age.

Both parties are concentrating on scoring cheap political points, throwing out platitudes about how to fix the economy instead of using actual information and determining a policies moving forward to fix this economy. Sometimes it's on purpose; sometimes it's because they're just as ignorant of economics as the general population. Idiotic things like:

"The government must always spend less than they earn!"
"US citizens should always be entitled to <insert blank without providing a realistic means to pay for it>"
"Providing <insert gov't program> is socialist, and it can never work because the gov't can't do anything right!"
"Corporations are always evil, and always screw the people!"

You know what will fix the economy? Competent policy makers not married to any ideology, willing to make policy based on facts instead of talking points. Unfortunately, the American people, combined with our political system, don't seem to select such people to positions of power.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How was I off? I said that the US debt was 17 Trillion. With the 2.4 trillion 'deal' Congress just made, that is correct (16.9 trillion, but I'm rounding up). I also said that the government spends 28% more than it takes in. I was using GOA numbers, but if you want to use "the wiki" then I will have to correct myself. According to Wikipedia, the US 2010 tax revenue was 2.1 trillion and its expenses were 3.4 trillion. Happy? According to Wiki, the US spends !!61.9%!! more than it takes in. It only furthers my argument - but whatever. I also said the US is in total debt to 571% of its income. This is also correct. Income? 2.1 trillion. Debt? 16.9 trillion. We're in hock over 700% of our income, and it is getting worse YOY.
You lose. I win. Facts and reality tend to do that.
And S&P said cut, cap & balance would have prevented the downgrade - therefore it is not "only the tea party" that liked it. Democrats voted for it. Independants voted for it. Libertarians voted for it. RINOs voted for it. It passed the House. But Obama refused to compromise and sign it. Hint for you neolibs - "compromise" means you compromise YOUR position. The GOP compromised by allowing the debt to go up. That was the compromise. Obama just didn't like it because it didn't give him 2.4 trillion more of his walkin' round money to trowel out past the 2012 election.

How was I off? I said that the US debt was 17 Trillion. With the 2.4 trillion 'deal' Congress just made, that is correct (16.9 trillion, but I'm rounding up). I also said that the government spends 28% more than it takes in. I was using GOA numbers, but if you want to use "the wiki" then I will have to correct myself. According to Wikipedia, the US 2010 tax revenue was 2.1 trillion and its expenses were 3.4 trillion. Happy? According to Wiki, the US spends !!61.9%!! more than it takes in. It only furthers my argument - but whatever. I also said the US is in total debt to 571% of its income. This is also correct. Income? 2.1 trillion. Debt? 16.9 trillion. We're in hock over 700% of our income, and it is getting worse YOY.

You lose. I win. Facts and reality tend to do that.

And S&P said cut, cap & balance would have prevented the downgrade - therefore it is not "only the tea party" that liked it. Democrats voted for it. Independants voted for it. Libertarians voted for it. RINOs voted for it. It passed the House. But Obama refused to compromise and sign it. Hint for you neolibs - "compromise" means you compromise YOUR position. The GOP compromised by allowing the debt to go up. That was the compromise. Obama just didn't like it because it didn't give him 2.4 trillion more of his walkin' round money to trowel out past the 2012 election.

her quote was "round up the Japanese" not Japanese-Americans.

>> ^shuac:

That first thing she said (about the US using census data to round up Japanese Americans to send them to interment camps) is actually true.
Don't get me wrong, she's a fuckwit but that particular soundbite doesn't belong in this video.

That first thing she said (about the US using census data to round up Japanese Americans to send them to interment camps) is actually true.

Don't get me wrong, she's a fuckwit but that particular soundbite doesn't belong in this video.

I think this is my favourite part of this conversation, from Blankfist: "I think I remember that time when bk33 rounded up all the black people and gassed them. What a tactless exaggeration, NR."

Evoking race hate and Nazism in accusing someone of making a tactless exaggeration. You just don't see that very often.

I also like the idea that someone who is not especially offended by racism can define for us an objective extent of racism in a statement, and conclude it to be lukewarm as a bottom line.

Fabulous stuff.

>> ^NetRunner:

Not the comment itself, but the backlash that occurs against people who take action in response to it.
Anytime anyone says they're offended by something, they get a huge target on their back, and have to put up with a tremendous amount of derision aimed at them.
I'm cool with questioning whether an instaban is an appropriate punishment for this particular infraction. I don't think a permanent ban is warranted (and I don't, but I do think comments like that should result in something more serious than a mere response in comments.
Your comments indicate that your issue isn't just that the punishment is too severe, but that you object to the notion that racist speech should result in any kind of punishment at all. You even say nobody should've even taken offense in the first place. Then you go so far as to cast bobknight as the victim of some sort of conspiracy to silence political opposition, since obviously nobody could or should've really been offended!
This is nuts, and it happens anytime anyone offends someone else deeply enough for them to take action rather than just let it slide.
If this really was "liberalsift" there'd be some sort of consensus that being sensitive is a positive trait, and not one we should try to beat out of people with our policies and social conventions...


What backlash? You mean this discussion on my personal blog? Oh the poor people who are forced to read my blog and have zero other places to go on the internet.

And this: "Anytime anyone says they're offended by something, they get a huge target on their back, and have to put up with a tremendous amount of derision aimed at them."

Hilarious. Yes, there's a real movement on here to target people. I think I remember that time when bk33 rounded up all the black people and gassed them. What a tactless exaggeration, NR. I've been attacked personally for my difference of political beliefs, yet you don't hear me crying foul every damn time someone calls me a libertard or blankfuck or whatever. Sometimes I feel targeted by you, dft, and some other prominent Sifters, but I'm not going to hop on a soapbox and spin a yarn how I'm a victim. That would be disingenuous.

The bottom line is this. Bk33's comment was luke warm racism. I understand some people could've been really offended, and apparently that was the case, but some people are offended when I order meat or wear leather or use the Christian God's name in vain. I think we all need to relax and move on.

"Yippee yo, you know this kid? I said I didn't but I know he did."

And in Paul Revere's own words,

"It began," he writes, when "it was observed, that a number of [British] Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets."

And then he offers this account of being captured and telling the British that there was a militia waiting for them:

"I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."

[All copy "as is" except the bold, which we inserted to highlight the line.]

The Associated Press adds that "Revere was probably bluffing the soldiers about the size of any advancing militia, since he had no way of knowing, according to Joel J. Miller, author of The Revolutionary Paul Revere. And while he made bells, Revere would never have rung any on that famous night because the Redcoats were under orders to round up people just like him. 'He was riding off as quickly and as quietly as possible,' Miller said. 'Paul Revere did not want the Redcoats to know of his mission at all.' "

Indeed, Revere says elsewhere in the letter that "it was then a common opinion, that there was a Traytor in the provincial Congress, & that [Gen.] Gage was posessed of all their Secrets."

>> ^Sarzy:

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??
I'm done.>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.



You're done? what, apologizing for murderous thugs?
Good call!

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??

I'm done.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).


Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?


I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.

As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?

They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

>> ^Sarzy:

Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world


You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

crazy to say, but I partially agree with him in regards to limited t.v. for kids, but not no t.v.
I see he was able to round up his target demographic...


Your text to link....

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm no fan of huckabee, but you don't think this is taken just slightly out of context?
Guy was just making a joke...a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.


How is this out of context? He isn't talking privately with a few people at a dinner party, he's addressing a group as a public figure and while he's saying this slightly tongue in cheek, it is VERY much in context. He feels forcing people to believe something at gunpoint it is "funny."

For example, if I was to "joke" that Christians should be rounded up into camps and forced to listen to Neil Tyson Degrass at gunpoint until the stupid left their little brains, do you think Mike Huckabee would find it funny?

That is pretty dangerous "humor."