>> ^Yogi:

So now just being on someones property means you will die instantly? Maybe we can mechanize this in some way...make sure that no living thing will EVER trespass again!
You're too stupid to understand the complexities of this world. Never ever ever join the military or a police force or even umpire little league you sad stupid man.


I served honorably in the Army for six years and received multiple commendations for exemplary service, am a licensed concealed handgun holder in Texas, do more community service in my area than you have probably dreamed of and am a father of four.

FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

Thank you for basically nullifying any sort of argument you may have had in this "debate" and taking the low route to try and prove your point.

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

You're right, the first wave of settlers weren't strongly committed Christians, although one of the first things they did upon arriving was join the Rev. Robert Hunt in a communion service. However everything else is the complete opposite of what you said. Indeed, John Rolfe was the first to establish the colony, but what you've left out is that he was a deeply committed Christian! He is the one who converted Pocahontas to Christianity and took her as a bride. He had a Christian purpose for Jamestown such as to "advance the Honor of God, and to propagate his Gospel." He also said:

"no small hope by piety, clemency, courtesy and civil demeanor to convert and bring to the knowledge and true worship of Jesus Christ 1000s of poor wretched and misbelieving people: on whose faces a good Christian cannot look, without sorrow, pity and commiseration; seeing they bear the Image of our heavenly Creator, and we and they come from one and the same mold. . ."

So yes, Christianity was there at the outset, and it continued to be the prevailing influence in shaping this country.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the library of congress:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html


>> ^Hive13

@shinyblurry:

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

9/11 Motivated Excessive Fiscal Spending

The wars are a tiny portion of the debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-war-on-terror-costs_n_856390.html

"If Congress also approves the president’s FY2012 war-funding request, the cumulative cost of post-9/11 operations would reach $1.415 trillion"

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

"As of October 22, 2011, the gross debt was $14.94 trillion."

This is not even addressing the point that the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. You're going to have to explain your lack of conservative bona fides when Bush was in power another way.

Banks should have been allowed to fail

Not bailing out the banks would have trashed the economy. When banks fail, financing dries up, businesses can't meet their short term cash flow requirements and they default. The economy collapses. The end. It doesn't matter how you're ideologically attuned to government assistance in times of crisis, that this would have happened is simply a fact.

Better yet follow it through further. When banks collapse, without federal deposit insurance, individuals lose their personal savings. How far would you follow through your rigid and impractical ideological principles? Would you say free markets dictate they lose their savings for the bad judgement of those in the financial services industry.

Keynesian Fiscal Policy Works

Every other major economy is doing it. Take a look at how much China spent and how it's barely sputtered in growth. Every economist worth a damn is saying the US is not spending enough to prop up the economy. That whatever you're reading is drawing a comparison FDR rather than you know, something in the last 50 years should tell you they're full of the BS.

If you go back and read forecasts for unemployment before Obama was inaugurated, none of them expected to fall significantly or quickly in a short period of it. The prolonged European debt crisis has exacerbated that. Unemployment falling marginally is not evidence that stimulus spending does not work.

Look, what is it about fiscal spending that you don't understand? Economic uncertainty in Europe. Businesses don't know what demand will be like, so they sit on their money instead of investing or hiring more workers. Countries face that risk that as they wait, short term unemployed become long term unemployed because they've been out of the workforce and skills atrophy. So they spend in the short term to keep people employed or incentive through deductions for companies to hire. Tax cuts improve returns marginally. Spending to keep people employed reduces the cost of social services in the long-long term from people being shunned out of the workforce. You spend but you make your money back over time.

It's simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.

How is it that hard to understand?

The rest

I'll be honest, your writing manner makes you look stupid when you're trying to make factual arguments. Have you seen a newspaper article or dissertation written like this? No. Exactly.

FYI, I live in Australia. We have free hospital visits, virtually no government debt, almost record low unemployment and we never went into a recession. Funnily enough Keynesian fiscal policy works over here, must be an anomaly though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".
The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.
Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.
We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?
You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.




>> ^RedSky:
@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

The question that can't be answered is whether Bush would've spent like the amateur liberal he is without 9-11. There was plenty of criticism leveled at Bush by the right during his tenure. The left was so focused on ensuring America lost in Iraq it didn't have time to thank Bush for rubber stamping all of their usual failed social "programs".

The failouts and scamulus sealed Bush 43's legacy as a failure. Everyone should've been "allowed" to fail.

Now enter His Earness. Questionable background, no experience, gets shunted through by obeisant media fawns. Tries the same Keynesian BS that FDR did with predictable results. As FDR's antics prolonged the Depression by a decade, so His Earness has spent and spent with nothing to show for it but enormous new debt (and no WW2 to save his bacon). Now this regime's media says with a straight face that the scamuli "prevented even worse unemployment". Hippie PLEASE.

We've now had six years of Taxocrats running Congress...what's better now than before?

You are going to have to defend the indefensible next year. Be sure to vote November 3rd.








>> ^RedSky:

@quantumushroom
QM, my problem with your point of view is throughout Bush's term, you didn't appear to have any issues with his profligacy as he (and the Republican congress at the time) pushed through bill after a bill that took the country massively into debt. Now your concerns are presumably that in the worst economic crisis in 60 years, the Democrat government is spending too much to prop up the economy and prevent the skills of the short term unemployment stagnating and turning into the long term unemployed dependent on social benefits.
Where are your standards here?
Or your consistency?

>> ^Yogi:

I remember watching this clip dickity six years ago. Seems like the apparatus would weigh too much even for cars back in those days.

With the technology of the 60s, this would definitely be to heavy and fairly impractical. I have no idea how this prototype worked but with modern motors and hydraulics this seems like a pretty good idea, especially considering the lack of parking in major cities. The parking problem is the only reason to own a Smart Car after all. With the ridiculous size of many cars now days this might actually help quite a bit, allowing people to park in spaces that their cars will fit but can't possibly maneuver into.

I remember watching this clip dickity six years ago. Seems like the apparatus would weigh too much even for cars back in those days.

>> ^Jinx:

Pftt, thats nothing. My girlfriend pretended she had a headache for six years.


Hahahahaha, nice

Pftt, thats nothing. My girlfriend pretended she had a headache for six years.

@NetRunner: agreed that it's not the worst, nor is my anecdote...

and certainly odd changes in policy and illogical requirements do increase bureaucracy... but i'm not certain that i can agree that there isn't any valid reason for change...

think back through the last 11 years of us elections, in particular the previous three presidential elections... claims of voter fraud, hanging chad, dead rolls, acorn, etc -- now, i don't know if or what impact wisconsin's regulatory changes have on that... but that's the nature of government: we expect incompetence, and success is generally just a fortunate coincidence

from my tale, our overseas missions weren't always as i described... they changed, radically so, post 9-11 -- i used to be able to phone my nation's consular services and be shown respect and have my questions answered... help was given freely and easily, as one should expect

not so anymore - now we're herded in like infected cattle and treated as a possible terrorist - the 'help' has morphed into a hindrance... but are the reasons for such valid? how can we say...

and no, i wasn't dealing with the department of immigration... just my embassy in filing a consular report of birth abroad (CRBA), and those policies have changed recently too... for no apparent reason

i'm an american citizen, not an immigrant - there wasn't one iota of reason to suspect my not being a citizen... and soooo many reasons to accept that i was...

my family came to north america in the early 18th century... i'm tall, blond, and blue-eyed... i speak perfect american english with a non-regional accent... i served my country for six years in the usmc and am a veteran of the persian gulf war... and this is in addition to all the documentation i presented...

instead, i was treated as 'suspect' by a foreign- and indifferent-looking woman speaking to me in broken english... quite rudely questioning ME regarding something i have always assumed was fundamental: my being a us citizen

i guess my point is that videos like this present the particular situation as being 'scandalous' ... when in fact it's commonplace... and while annoying, it's not really insulting -- try visiting a us consular mission abroad and then complain about the bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, and being treated in a demeaning way

honestly, watching the domestic situation in my home country from overseas for the last 15-odd years is amazing... the partisanship is ridiculous, and so are most of their claims -- it's like having your body (the nation) infested with two distinct groups of intestinal parasites--like an old-south, grangerford-shepherdson blood-feud--the attacks from both left- and right-leaning tapeworms have risen to the level of threatening the very health and life of the host

videos and other seeming vitriol like this appear to me as symptomatic of such an unhealthy bent: a bloody feces-laden discharge

I'm not a Biblical scholar, as I said above. I know the Jesus from six years old Sunday School and what I have read in the liberal papers.

Jesus said all these things? Or did others say this about him? I honestly don't know.



>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bareboards2:
Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

Jesus wasn't a sexist?
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^vpvpvp:
>> ^vpvpvp:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^vpvpvp:
As a caucasian rapper myself I hate it when other white rappers add the "hiphop" twang to their voices when they don't have it when they speak. ie try to sound more hood by ending their words more gangsterish. google me and check out my music. Vito Polizzi.

You know what I hate about rap? That the VAST majority of it is purely 'I'm so fucking hot. I'm the best. Dance girl, shake something, shake it, wobble it, woah, stop wobbling so much, that'll hurt'.
There's Nothing to it all, it's just posturing crap.
And after watching your video for 'Move, Bounce, Shake', I'm afraid you fall right into that bucket along with all the rest.
Give me a rap that's about something and I might listen to it.


That song is around six years old. A lot of rap sounds like that because that's what radio wants. You must not listen to much rap at all to not know all rap doesn't sound like that. Some of the best story telling songs, interesting plays on words, similes, metaphors, alliteration, and rhyme patterns are found in most good rap. Go to my website and check out A.D.D. for a fun story song, or Bed Bugs, for fun plays on words, or Ciao Bella to hear me rap in Italian and English back and forth. (There's a video for that on youtube as well that I shot in Sicily a couple summers ago) Listen to Hypocrite to hear more of what you think rap should sound like (I'm assuming) then listen to Butterface for a good laugh :-) I don't know if I can post my web site here but it's otivito dot com click on the music tab.

OK, those tracks were pretty good. You've got some nice stuff going on there.


Thanks. That's older stuff as well. Currently working on a new project and shooting new videos. Maybe you can sift my next video and label it, "How more rap should sound" ;-)

>> ^vpvpvp:

>> ^vpvpvp:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^vpvpvp:
As a caucasian rapper myself I hate it when other white rappers add the "hiphop" twang to their voices when they don't have it when they speak. ie try to sound more hood by ending their words more gangsterish. google me and check out my music. Vito Polizzi.

You know what I hate about rap? That the VAST majority of it is purely 'I'm so fucking hot. I'm the best. Dance girl, shake something, shake it, wobble it, woah, stop wobbling so much, that'll hurt'.
There's Nothing to it all, it's just posturing crap.
And after watching your video for 'Move, Bounce, Shake', I'm afraid you fall right into that bucket along with all the rest.
Give me a rap that's about something and I might listen to it.


That song is around six years old. A lot of rap sounds like that because that's what radio wants. You must not listen to much rap at all to not know all rap doesn't sound like that. Some of the best story telling songs, interesting plays on words, similes, metaphors, alliteration, and rhyme patterns are found in most good rap. Go to my website and check out A.D.D. for a fun story song, or Bed Bugs, for fun plays on words, or Ciao Bella to hear me rap in Italian and English back and forth. (There's a video for that on youtube as well that I shot in Sicily a couple summers ago) Listen to Hypocrite to hear more of what you think rap should sound like (I'm assuming) then listen to Butterface for a good laugh :-) I don't know if I can post my web site here but it's otivito dot com click on the music tab.


OK, those tracks were pretty good. You've got some nice stuff going on there.

>> ^vpvpvp:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^vpvpvp:
As a caucasian rapper myself I hate it when other white rappers add the "hiphop" twang to their voices when they don't have it when they speak. ie try to sound more hood by ending their words more gangsterish. google me and check out my music. Vito Polizzi.

You know what I hate about rap? That the VAST majority of it is purely 'I'm so fucking hot. I'm the best. Dance girl, shake something, shake it, wobble it, woah, stop wobbling so much, that'll hurt'.
There's Nothing to it all, it's just posturing crap.
And after watching your video for 'Move, Bounce, Shake', I'm afraid you fall right into that bucket along with all the rest.
Give me a rap that's about something and I might listen to it.



That song is around six years old. A lot of rap sounds like that because that's what radio wants. You must not listen to much rap at all to not know all rap doesn't sound like that. Some of the best story telling songs, interesting plays on words, similes, metaphors, alliteration, and rhyme patterns are found in most good rap. Go to my website and check out A.D.D. for a fun story song, or Bed Bugs, for fun plays on words, or Ciao Bella to hear me rap in Italian and English back and forth. (There's a video for that on youtube as well that I shot in Sicily a couple summers ago) Listen to Hypocrite to hear more of what you think rap should sound like (I'm assuming) then listen to Butterface for a good laugh :-) I don't know if I can post my web site here but it's otivito dot com click on the music tab.

Yes, yes. Any school with famous liberals who graduated are now completely invalid as educational institutions. That's how you get around that one. Harvard Law is a crap school. So here are the conservative graduates who also don't have a valid degree according to you:

Chief Justice John Roberts
Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Justice Antonin Scalia
George W. Bush
William Bennett
Henry Paulson
Bill Frist
Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens
Mitt Romney
Alan Keyes
Lou Dobbs
Bill O'Reilly

Man... too bad they must all be idiots... and they clearly don't have a grasp on being "American".

Do you ever stop and think before you say things like that?

You don't get to invalidate someone's academic achievement because you politically disagree with them... Well, you can, but it just makes you look incredibly stupid. There's something horribly wrong with people who look down on someone's intelligence despite graduating from one of the elite colleges in the US because they disagree with them. Ridiculous...

Sarah Palin can really galvanize and lead, eh?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/07/palin-unfavorable-rating-reaches-new-high/

What, are all polls now liberally biased, too?!

And nice try attempting to make this about how well Obama has done as President. That wasn't the debate. You said Palin is just as smart, if not smarter, than Obama. She's not. Period. You can't even sanely argue that she is. She's of average to above average intelligence overall, but sorely lacks knowledge of the economy, foreign policy, and other crucial topics needed to be a good president. Plain and simple. Your political leanings shouldn't cloud that assessment. There are plenty of right wingers who also can accept Palin just isn't smart, and Obama is.

Bonus: The only person who brought up Al Gore is you. This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing. This is you saying idiotic things flying in the face of simple facts.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Did you seriously just say Obama's intellect is comparable to Palin's?!
Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist who sat in a hate-Whitey church for 20-plus years. His Earness is endlessly promoted by His media lackeys, so a fair comparison is not possible.
SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? Look, gaffes aside, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School with a JD magna cum laude. Palin took six years to get a bachelor's degree in communications bouncing around from school to school to get it!
You might have had a point when Harvard wasn't a politically-correct degree mill. Speaking of kollij, we will never see Obama's kollij papers to know his genius even then. Community organizer? Do you even need higher education to become a rabble-rousing 'activist'?
Dude, if the conservative/libertarian ideology concluded the world is flat, would you spout that crap, too?! In fact, your beloved Ron Paul wouldn't tell Obama he's not smart enough to be president.
I don't need any labels to denounce His Earness. I merely observe the results of his incompetence (or genius, for those promoting the one-world illuminati worldview). His results are indefensible by any metric you care to name.
Just ridiculous. I get you don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean you should ignore basic fact. And I'm sorry, but she's simply not smart enough to be president. This has nothing to do with her ideology. Plenty of conservative politicians are out there who have the intellectual capacity to be president, but she's not one of them.
Due to an unfortunate media-created outbreak of Palin Derangement Syndrome, your observation cannot be quantified. Anyone here think Joe Biden is smart enough to operate a doorknob much less be President?
BONUS NO. 2 -- "Who are these people?" -- mid-90s Vice President and supergenius Al Gore, referring to the busts of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin during a tour of Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson.