>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: Do you also advocate that private organizations such as churches, the boy scouts, and various professional organizations have a "right to dissassociate themselves whenever they like" when applied to gays?

Hmmm, what's the difference? Oh yeah a little thing called 501(3)(c).

Miss California didn't loose because she gave the wrong answer, she lost because she gave a BAD answer. She said specifically.

"Well, I think it's great that Americans can choose one or the other. Um.. we live in a land where you can choose, um.. same sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In MY COUNTRY.. in my family.. I think that, I believe that, marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody but thats how I was raised and thats how I think it should be - between a man and a woman."


Read that paragraph again, she didn't loose because she gave the 'wrong' answer, she lost because she was completely inarticulate, said one thing and meant another. (She said it's great we have the right to choose, but in the next line she thinks we shouldn't). If she had gotten a harder question she would have been like that chick last year who was spewing all kinds of nonsense to her question. This chick is just another ditsy plastic-model with a pretty face, nice legs, fake tits and plumped lips who has never exercised her brain.

Since she lost, she is just a whiny whore who broke the rules (and would have been stripped of her crown had she won in the first place for breaking said rules) and is bitching that she feels she said the wrong answer and is being punished for doing so. She simply gave a bad answer. And the organization who runs Miss USA has ever right as a private organization to rule as they feel right. Just as the Boy Scouts don't allow woman, gays, pagans, etc into their ranks. It may not be the right thing to do but it is their right to do so.

In the end, it doesn't matter what answer she gave. She simply gave a poor one, whether it was 'right or wrong' in any one persons view.


And wasn't there an incident like this last year where the Miss USA winner got into a bunch of trouble and she was crying all over about it and finally Trump invited her to a 'meeting' where they discussed the issue behind closed doors. Then they came out, she was crying and he had a big shit eating grin on his face and announced she would retain her crown?

These whiny-slut fests are worthless anymore. Lets free up some of the millions and millions that go toward these (and pay for people like Miss California to get boob-jobs before the event,) and give them to some charities or something.

Prejean can say anything she wants, whenever she wants. However, the organizations she belongs to also have the right to disassociate themselves from her whenever they like. In this case, Trump chose not to exercise that right, but it has nothing to do with her "freedoms". Give me a break.

Do you also advocate that private organizations such as churches, the boy scouts, and various professional organizations have a "right to dissassociate themselves whenever they like" when applied to gays?

I have no problem with a gay chick standing up in the MAP and saying that she thinks gay marriage is cool. Why? Because I'm not threatened by other people's opinions. By comparison, the neo-libs & gay lobbyists collapse into puddles of intolerance, fear, and hatred when someone says or does something they disagree with.

Yeah, I know it's been a while since someone last posted here, but I feel like sharing.

1) I was once ranked in the top 150 ExpertCTF for Quake2 players in the world by TheCLQ.com, and I did it on dial-up.

2) I am only a few credits shy of getting an AA. I don't consider myself a drop-out, but it has been a very long time since I was in school.

3) Every girl I've been with ranks me somewhere between "really awesome" and "the best they ever had" in bed.

4) I once got my car stuck in the middle of Tahoe National Forest.

5) I used to be a boy scout.

6) Both my girlfriend and I have an aversion to using firearms.

7) I sleep with a very sharp 18" black ninja sword next to my bed.

I once did security for a Taj Mahal concert. I got him and his band to sign my badge.

9) Like many other sifters I've also worked in community theater, mostly backstage work.

10) I've studied martial arts off and on, since I was 8. I have 4 years of experience in American Kempo Karate (the stuff Ed Parker taught Elvis), and 4 years of Aikido training. Aikido had a bigger impact on my life.

11) When I was in 8th grade, my Odyssey of the Mind team came in Second place in regional competition. Only our teacher's team did better than us in our category. I wore a tiger costume (an orange jumpsuit I made, and then drew stripes on).

12) For about 4 years, I worked in a place Mark Twain, and two presidents once slept.

13) My parents own a Yellow-naped Green Amazon parrot. I'll likely inherit him. He's been in the family since I was in 4th grade.

14) I have never had any urge to join the military.

15) I've walked through the red light district in Amsterdam.

16) As a waiter, I once served the author of Schindler's List.

17) I've had long hair for most of my life.

18) I enjoy dueling friends using a Shinai - a traditional bamboo training sword.

19) I'm addicted to Yahoo! Answers. It's sad, but there's so many noobs who need schooling. I got to level 6 answering a bunch of the same questions in the Wii category.

20) I used to have a pet Goose.

21) I didn't sleep at all last night.

22) I was told many times growing up I could have been a model. I would rather be known for contributing something more to the world than just my looks, though, so I never pursued it.

23) I have mastered the head-stall footbag technique.

24) I don't kick footbag as much since rolling my ankle a couple years ago.

25) When I was in 1st grade, my dad would sometimes guest host for a friend's late night community radio program. The couple times he took me along were awesome.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by mintbbb.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/12-Year-Old-Boy-Scouts-Volunteer-To-Give-Women-Breast-Exams

Dupe:

http://www.videosift.com/video/12-Year-Old-Boy-Scouts-Volunteer-To-Give-Women-Breast-Exams

I once attended Boy Scout camp in Mass. and they had a troop's name tacked up over the mess hall. If you learned it, you were released from KP duty. I still remember it to this day:

Ottenbottenlittledottenittenbittenlittledittenishspidleottendottenbodoskadeetendottenwatotinchu.

The only other weird word I still remember, we made up one time when me and a buddy of mine were frying on acid: Demisuninformulatablelingly. We tried to get every prefix and suffix onto the word 'formulate'.

Funny, I can remember these, but not my niece's birthday...

>> ^Xax:I have to agree with the person who pointed out that you're judging a character by one act... there's much more to Mal than these 66 seconds.

He wasn't exactly a boy scout in the rest of the series. Anyway, he's just the lead character of a TV show, not presented as a hero.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Atheism itself ostensibly is a rejection of theism, but its primary rhetoric is faith based - and therefore there is no practical distinction between faith-based thiest rhetoric and faith-based atheist rhetoric. When the bulk of atheistic communication takes the form of faith-based rhetoric, it is difficult for a neutral 3rd party observer to divine (no pun intended) a distinction.

I've explained the reasons why your "atheism is faith-based" argument is bunk so could you tell me why you still think it is? How are we exercising faith, that is, belief without evidence?

The primary objective of philosophy is to lead individuals to greater understanding, more positive behavior, and a resulting improvement in the condition of mankind. Now - operating under that auspice - why is it necessary to 'prove' one philosophy more correct than some other one? Should not the standard be, "How well does the philosophy improve the condition of mankind?"

I agree about your definition and purpose of philosophy but religion is not philosophy.

In that light, it cannot be argued that the philosophical teachings of theism improve mankind (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do not steal, do not kill, et al). The counterargument would be that religions (theism) also produce negative behaviors (violence, intolerance). However, an objective reviewer must conclude that the negative behaviors are not the result of religious philosophy. Religious philosophy teaches 'love thy neighbor'. Intolerance and violence go against that philosophy, and therefore the 'religion' is not to blame. Therefore whatever negatives take place that are blamed on 'religion' are in fact, erroneously applied. The blame for the negatives must then be shifted to individual practitioners who are failing to live up to the correct philosophy.

Yowzaa! That's a whole lotta accusations I did not make. I'm not making an argument about the validity of religion. I'm merely correcting you about atheism being faith-based (which I feel I did thoroughly).

I'll go through it again.

Atheists are big on evidence. It's our thing. We don't have much use for faith because it requires the absence of evidence. So the only way that you can say atheists practice faith is that we do not have evidence that god does not exist.

But you see, there are so many other things for which there is a similar lack of evidence that are easy to disbelieve. Elves, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns and so forth. There's no evidence that any of these things exist, so does that mean people's default position should be to believe in them? If you believe in any of these things, then you need to provide proof. I don't need to provide proof that these fantastical things don't exist. You see my point?

Atheism, by discouraging belief in a philosophy that (if followed) would improve mankind, is therefore a negative philosophy.

No, atheism is a rejection of theist beliefs, specifically, god. I should have pointed that out before but I really didn't think I had to.

Atheism does not propose positive behavior among its practitioners.

Atheism doesn't propose any behavior.

It exists parasitically as a negative juxtaposition to a positive world view. Some atheists suggest that rejecting theism would result in a reduction of the negative behaviors of the theists.

Yes, some atheists do suggest this. Personally, I feel that if religion helps people, then great. Just don't go pushing those beliefs on others.

How is this done? Ohh, at the top of my head it's done by promoting things like Intelligent Design, pushing abstinence-only programs, keeping teenage girls from getting the HPV vaccine because it's seen among some religious groups as a deterrent to sexual activity (thereby increasing the risk of cancer), muslim suicide bombers, allowing state funding for groups that practice religious-based discrimination (like the Boy Scouts).

I'm not presenting this info in support of my main argument (atheism is not faith-based) but I'm presenting it as examples of religious activity externally imposing its will.

Such an argument ignores the fundamental reality that you'd simply be replacing a jerk theist with a jerk atheist.

Well, imo, being a jerk is less wrong than believing something you cannot prove.

By the way, atheists believe in much the same morality as theists (do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc.), we also love our children, we feel awe when we look at the Grand Canyon, we appreciate the beauty of a tree, a flower, an ocean, etc. We just don't attribute any of it to god. It's exactly that simple.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'religion, christianity, intolerance, rant, boy scouts, atheism, freedom' to 'religion, christianity, intolerance, rant, boy scouts, atheism, freedom, cleavage, boobs' - edited by doogle

I just wish we could undo some NSFW tags. Like these:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Opening-shot-from-A-Clockwork-Orange
http://www.videosift.com/video/12-Year-Old-Boy-Scouts-Volunteer-To-Give-Women-Breast-Exams
http://www.videosift.com/video/Mike-Myers-on-the-Daily-show
Incredibly disturbing, but not NSFW http://www.videosift.com/video/WTF-No-words
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Ancient-Art-of-Kung-Pu

And most pointless NSFW ever: Pixelated blood.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bowsers-Minions

I was a Boy Scout when I was 9-10, and didn't think much of the Christian aspects of the organization. My Scoutmaster was never around, so the asst. Scoutmaster took us out on camping trips, hikes, etc. There was never any adherence to the Christianity in our troop (thankfully!).

But on that subject, I think it's utter bullshit that an Athiest, Agnostic, whatever, can't be a part of Scouting if they choose to. One day that will change though, as they see their numbers dwindle...

I wonder if gurl scouts, like boy scouts, are a mainly Christian organization. I quit when I found that out...

>> ^quantumushroom:
Why is McCain's "temper" an issue? I like a guy who expresses his anger.


lets not forget he also called his wife a cunt and a trollop publicly as well.

as for liking a guy that expresses anger.. I cannot see any possible rational in such a statement. America needs CONSTRUCTIVE IMPROVEMENTS. Not anger or expressing it. Logic & reason > emotion. Fact of life.

Oh yeah, and
"A man who would compromise his own enjoyment of smoking to placate nanny-state assholes has no business leading a Boy Scout troop, much less the nation."

A man that is willing to put aside personal satisfaction in order to be a better candidate is much more preferable than a man that changes things to better suit his own personal needs.

guess you like your candidates angry and selfish. I prefer logical and selfless but thats just me.