Jesus Christ.... that means that every new baby born in this country is DECREASING my life span! Better go open an abortion clinic.

sighs,
ok bcglorf:>> ^bcglorf:

HOW in the supposed land of the free can we have more people incarcerated than any other country COMBINED?

You might want to check your facts. I'm just guessing, but China likely has more all by itself. If your just talking per capita, then North Korea would seem to be in a class all it's own.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/globalincarceration.html
facts..... a pesky lot eh?
but i should have quanitfied "per capita"....my bad.


"made his point"
Was his point that he can make an ass of himself and disrupt others in the process without being arrested? If that was his point, he seems to have merely demonstrated just how extensive the freedom that he abuses are.

I fail to see any other point he was getting across save the right to yell out his opinion loudly enough that others could barely carry on a conversation for it."
oooook....survey SAYS:
his point was to make people uncomfortable in their silent aquiesence.did he succeed?thats debatable...but he did make it.
MY point was that i did not have a problem with his methods,and i stated the reasons why.
i find it amusing that so many people in america espouse the virtues of "freedom of speech" and "right of redress" but only when it comes to what THEY feel is appropriate.
THAT form of protest is fine,because i agree with what they are saying/doing..
THAT form is NOT fine because i dont like their modum operandi.
freedom of speech is FREEDOM of SPEECH,and if nobody is being harmed then its a GO in my book.
would you feel the same if this was a sit-in at an abortion clinic?as the protesters shout at the young women walking into the clinic?holding signs of aborted fetuses?
or is your only beef with the fact that it stopped business for a bit?
ok...you dont like his methods..who cares!
he has the RIGHT to protest,your personal opinion has little or nothing to do with his RIGHT.
just as i have the RIGHT to disagree with you,and i most emphatically do.

To examplify my point, heres a movie idea:

Show witch burnings, cut to bible verse used as basis for the crime, tell people about the crusades, cut to bible verse, show the thousands dead of HIV/AIDS in africa, cut to pope damning condom use, show the Westmoro baptist church and their "God Hates Fags" signs, cut to appropriate bible verse, show abortion clinic bombings, cut to bible verse, etc etc.... end the film with "stop Christianity and all its insanity."

Have I just outlined the plot for a movie claiming it is acceptable to kill all Christians?, does it encourage violence against Christians?, does it throw every single Christian in the Westmoro Baptist Church camp?

Of course not. it is a criticism of Christianity and its completely appropriate, in all the above examples, Christian doctrine was either the main cause of, or main justification for the various crimes and insanity expressed. Fitna does nothing more then my hypothetical movie.

And dont think Christians and Muslims are the only ones that has to endure films like this, look at "Expelled", it (wrongly, this time) links us Darwinists to Neo-darwinism, Communism, Nazism, Nihilism and who knows what. Perhaps it may even convince a fundie or two to go on a Darwinist killing rampage, who knows?

Fitna is no different. It links Islam to various acts of violence committed in the name of islam, it shows the verses that are used to justify these crimes, it shows powerful clerics with insanely fascist ideas, and links it to islam in general, etc. It is, like the movies described above, one-sided and rhetorical in its combination of text and images, but thats it. In no way does it group all muslims into one, in no way does it encourage violence or murder of muslims or anyone else.

Religious moderates of any stripe lend endorsement, tacitly at least, for their fundamentalist counterparts. They do this by not roundly condemning the actions in which fundamentalists engage: suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, female genitalia mutilation, standing in the way of the HPV vaccine, advocating intelligent design in science class, honor killings, etc.

Surely that which a person believes about the afterlife will have great impact on the actions they take while living. The last eight years is a glowing testament.

So yes, having any religious person in the White House is bad for America. It makes me glad that we do not have one there now.

agreed speveO.
the first thing thing that should have given anyone pause before watching this video----tucker carlson.
while i found mr harris argument as a whole vapid and totally lacking imagination,he did bring up an interesting point that maybe guitarwolf was trying to point out to us all.and that is many "liberals" don't understand religious fundamentalism.that there is a percentage of the human population that
believes the "bible" "torah" or the "quran" are the literal words of the creator,
and that the dogma of the semetic triad is absolute in it's perfection and righteousness.
this kind of zealotry may explain the execution of a cartoonist,or an abortion clinic doctor,these incidents,while getting huge amounts of attention,are fairly small in scope relative to the bigger picture.
religious fundamentalism may be the rationalization of suicide bombers and other geurrilla war tactics,but it is the seeking of social justice for those who have been given no other option.for those who have been oppressed,brutalized,tortured while the world largely looks the other way.
religion is not the REASON,its the rationalization.
fundamentalism at its core is a stagnation of the mind,stifles growth as a society and leaves people open to manipulation and exploitation.
and as long as the world looks the other way and dismisses the impoverished,these people will always be vulnerable to indoctrination of many forms,religious fundamentalism being only one facet.
take away the voice of those who are being exploited,oppressed and abused.
they WILL find a way to fight back,and be heard.
religion is only one small part of the dynamic,take it out of the equation and there STILL will be violent reactions from those who have had hope stripped from their lives.
mr harris quantifying his argument on "liberals" misunderstanding of "fundamentalism" by premising his entire argument on religion is laughable.
because his argument is one big straw man,and totally ignores the very REAL threats of the world today.
mr harris should hang his head in shame for such a pathetic argument.
that being said,and those being my feelings.
mr harris is selling his book,and he really just echoing a premise that has been used by many,for many years.
this fact is something i find saddening,because it just re-iterates a faulty premise to excuse those who have allowed the silencing of so many and are the ones truly responsible.
truly heartbreaking,and mr harris is guilty of keeping the "status-quo" narrative going.
and so the cycle continues........................................
till next time...peace

>> ^messenger: Surely, in the big picture, the only measure for progress has to be how we act towards our fellow people, other living creatures, and the planet.

Look at the history of how religions treat members, other religions, anyone. Stone women to death. (Oh they don't do that anymore?) Ok, how about women in the clergy? (Oh they allow that now) Ok, how about discrimination against gays?

Religion has almost never been a good example of how to act against fellow man. The biggest problem atheist probably have is that so-called christians don't follow most of Jesus's teachings. They don't practice live and let live. They go around actively trying to convert and save and judge others (see abortion clinics or teaching evolution in schools for reference).

Anyone actively preaching about their faith online is the same as yelling about it on a bus or street corner. So either stick to appropriate forums or not get all offended when rational, reasonable people point out that you should keep your 1st century ideas off the 21st century invention. Most religions would ban the internet unless it had net nanny to prevent bad ideas from reaching your eyes. Look at scientology as an example.

People having a faith and practicing a religion isn't threatening, organized religion and millions in the coffers of evangelical leaders is a problem. Political action groups receiving millions in donations to push lobbying and legislation is a problem.

So, yeah, religions deserve to be ridiculed and have the sunshine of logic and truth shone on them on the internet. I can't name too many videos finding fault with the teachings of Jesus... Just the nutkooks like Kirk Cameron and idiots trying to show the existance of God because of the shape of a banana. That is what super pro-religion statements look like on the internet. You are judged against the Kirk Camerons and the 6000 yr earthers.

I don't think he realized it, but Gingrich described the Christian Right to a T.

Christian's want to impose their will on the rest of us by making abortion illegal and by teaching creationism in schools.

Christian's are prepared to do violence and harassment to achieve their goals, although they've stopped bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors in recent years.

Christian's are prepared to take over the government to make sure their goals are met. Look how nuts they are over other moronic Christian's like Bush and Palin.

They are a threat to anybody who doesn't believe in the exact same God or Religion as them.

I'm surprised by prop 8, and I am surprised a bit that such a thing could pass in California, but of all the myriad issues, gay marriage is pretty close to the bottom for me.

Yes, I think bans on it are backward and small minded, but there are plenty of people out there who think torture & no diplomacy should be permanent parts of US foreign policy.

There are people who think it's okay to kill doctors who work at abortion clinics, people who think tax cuts for the middle class are welfare, and that private citizens should be able to anonymously purchase military assault rifles.

There are people who think Democrats are Communists, and that anyone who doesn't believe every word of what Rush Limbaugh says is a mindless zombie brainwashed by the "liberal" media.

We lost one battle on one issue in CA, but Michelle Bachmann, who called for an investigation into which Congresspersons are "anti-American" got re-elected.

Alaska has very nearly re-elected a convicted felon as a Senator, and Sarah Palin is still a Governor of a state, with people hoping she'll run for President in 2012.

I want gay marriage rights to be granted, and with the name "marriage", not civil unions, but there are frankly bigger fish to fry right now.

We lost one battle, but we won 20. Prop 8 won't stand for long if we turn the tide of public opinion in this country, and I think we've started to do that.

Where there's a will there's a way. Way to go, conservatives. Driving up the back-room abortion clinics like nobody's business. That's how you put an end to something, right? Make it illegal?

What a crock.

Anyone can define any word however they want, but a standard definition of terrorism is a tactic whose primary aim is to spread fear among noncombatant populations. Thus killing soldiers in battle is not terrorism. Its primary aim is to destroy the enemy army. Bombing factories is not terrorism. Its primary aim is to prevent the enemy from equipping his forces.

Naturally blowing up civilian buildings, especially symbolic ones like the US capitol, would fit this definition. Firebombing entire cities (like we did in Germany and Japan in WW2) also fits. Blowing up abortion clinics makes people who want abortions too scared to go get them. It probably fits too.

Here is a great resource on modern theories of warfare:

http://www.amazon.com/Unjust-Argument-Historical-Illustrations-Classics/dp/0465037054

>> ^jwray:
>> ^Kagenin:
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.
That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.


No such qualification is necessary. Washington was a "terrorist" to the British forces he fought against, and the Red Coats were "terrorizing" the American Colonists. Its all about perspective, which was the point I was making.

In that respect, Americans practically invented Guerrilla warfare. During the American Revolution, we targeted commanders, knowing full well the men they commanded would fall apart without their leadership. We continue to do this today, targeting leaders of political organizations, with far different results, however. In the short-term, we create power vacuums, but it isn't long before someone steps up to fill said vacuum, and energizes another generation of people to hate us.

>> ^Kagenin:
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.

That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.

Oh wait, that would still make all the major powers on both sides of WWII terrorists for bombing the fuck out of each other.
So you'll be wanting another definition...

At least after the USA won WWII relations with Japan were repaired and now we're friends.

Between firebombing a whole city with airplanes and leaving a backpack bomb in a cafe, the only significant differences are size, purpose, and governmental affiliation. I suppose one could argue that the world is better off if loose cannons get more opprobrium than republic-supported warfare.

How can you be so dull?

If the animals were right, and abortions were murder, then bombing abortion clinics would save lives in the long run, punish the guilty, and kill a few fetuses who would have died anyway.

I just gave you the entire question, and her definition, before your comment. Her definition of a terrorist is anybody who would try to destroy our government buildings and take innocent lives.

And if you want to be proactive, you can look up the entire interview on YouTube.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
He asks, "Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?" This tells me that a non-standard definition of the word has been proposed before the clip begins. Perhaps an odd legal interpretation or some such.
Can't condemn her answer when I don't know the whole question.

You might be over thinking it... I really feel like he just meant under the terms that she was using to apply the word 'terrorist' to Bill Ayers...

He is basically just saying as she has applied it to Ayers does she also apply it to abortion clinic bombers... and as has been mentioned she dancing around without really answering the question at all.