November is coming... so hilarious.

Will you promise to leave the country when Obama is re-elected?

Also, your boy Rmoney built a a healthcare plan very similar to the one you're so enraged about. Wow, that must sting.>> ^quantumushroom:

Didja read my post before commenting, because health care is not really the issue here, serfdom is.
We have had a very similar scheme in australia for DECADES. If you dont get private health cover, the govt will tax you to a rate where you would otherwise be paying for it anyway, in order to provide public care to those too poor to even pay taxes to begin with.
So why does anyone there bother to buy private health insurance? Isn't socialied medicine just as good or better than for-profit health care?
This ensures EVERYONE IS COVERED EVERYWHERE, no matter the circumstances.
If you have ZERO insurance and you have to amputate a leg, or get coronary bipass surgery....ITS FREE!
We have that here too. Ever hear of Medicaid? What about the "free" care for the 12 million illegals here (more than HALF of Australia's ENTIRE population)
Our standard of care is FAR above yours, WE SPEND LESS GDP PER CAPITA than you for it too!
You're really going to compare an island of 22 million to the USA? You are FAR from utopia.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2007/187/9/challenges-heal
th-and-health-care-australia
Access to (Australian) health services is becoming less equitable. Patients’ out-of-pocket costs have grown 50% in the past decade and now, for some, present a sizeable barrier to needed care.
You don't get it because you're not an American. As an honorary member of the Euro system, you will always see government as the solution to everything, and that's fine for you, but that shit doesn't fly here. The settlers didn't flee England in search of a new world in order to have a gigantic leviathan government coddle us. Fucking Obama and King George III of England look a lot alike these days, maybe it's the crown.
Your assumptions are many and flawed. You assume taxocrats (the American left) want to "save" money. They couldn't care less, we've spent 9 trillion on a failed war on poverty. Liberals measure success by the weight of their good intentions, not results.
In other words, insanity.
If this was really about the 30 million uninsured, there's more than enough revenue just to cover them. But Nooooooo, EVERYONE is now a subject of the King, because this corrupt legal decision isn't about health insurance, it's about control. Tyranny. The end of freedom.
Fuck 'em. November is coming.

Didja read my post before commenting, because health care is not really the issue here, serfdom is.

We have had a very similar scheme in australia for DECADES. If you dont get private health cover, the govt will tax you to a rate where you would otherwise be paying for it anyway, in order to provide public care to those too poor to even pay taxes to begin with.

So why does anyone there bother to buy private health insurance? Isn't socialied medicine just as good or better than for-profit health care?

This ensures EVERYONE IS COVERED EVERYWHERE, no matter the circumstances.
If you have ZERO insurance and you have to amputate a leg, or get coronary bipass surgery....ITS FREE!

We have that here too. Ever hear of Medicaid? What about the "free" care for the 12 million illegals here (more than HALF of Australia's ENTIRE population)

Our standard of care is FAR above yours, WE SPEND LESS GDP PER CAPITA than you for it too!

You're really going to compare an island of 22 million to the USA? You are FAR from utopia.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2007/187/9/challenges-health-and-health-care-australia

Access to (Australian) health services is becoming less equitable. Patients’ out-of-pocket costs have grown 50% in the past decade and now, for some, present a sizeable barrier to needed care.

You don't get it because you're not an American. As an honorary member of the Euro system, you will always see government as the solution to everything, and that's fine for you, but that shit doesn't fly here. The settlers didn't flee England in search of a new world in order to have a gigantic leviathan government coddle us. Fucking Obama and King George III of England look a lot alike these days, maybe it's the crown.

Your assumptions are many and flawed. You assume taxocrats (the American left) want to "save" money. They couldn't care less, we've spent 9 trillion on a failed war on poverty. Liberals measure success by the weight of their good intentions, not results.

In other words, insanity.

If this was really about the 30 million uninsured, there's more than enough revenue just to cover them. But Nooooooo, EVERYONE is now a subject of the King, because this corrupt legal decision isn't about health insurance, it's about control. Tyranny. The end of freedom.

Fuck 'em. November is coming.

Why do they even have these oversight Q&A type things, they only end up with the questioned making every effort to dodge the most basic of questions in an effort to avoid any oversight. EVERY one of these I have seen was a gigantic waste of time. Didn't a banking oversight thing end up in the congressman thanking the bankers for showing up and then leaving for some other "super important meeting"?

You know I tend to give government a lot of room to do there damn job, I don't complain much about some very obvious problems because I know no system is perfect. Cop arrests someone without obvious reason? Whatever, that person will not be held and will be back out in no time. TSA wants to grope me, cool enjoy my balls and let me go on my way. But these things more and more are showing me that there really is no oversight in, well, anything anymore.

I'm really starting to lose faith that the system is working. I'm sure we all knew it wasn't progressing, but at this point its like a car that won't even start, the wheels are just scenery...

>> ^jonny:

No, it was not. nochannel health anatomy
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Come on guys, get with the program! This is what the Horrorshow channel was MADE for!

"bottom line, whatever makes you scream in the dark!"
-Horrorshow description
Other examples of horrorshow channel posts placed there for a similar reason (eg they make you squeemish/jump/scream in the dark):
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Nose-Maggots-They-re-Real
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/The-World-s-Most-Terrifying-Penises-The-Leopard-Slug
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/UK-Bus-Driver-gets-17-months-in-prison-for-hitting-cyclist
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Live-Birth-of-Hissing-Cockroaches
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/SHIT-Veterinarian-Pulls-Tons-Out-Of-Incision-In-Cows-Gut
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Why-you-shouldnt-sit-in-the-middle-seat
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Dinner-Time-For-Kitty-MOST-DIGUSTING-SIFT-EVER
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Cockroach-Inside-Human-Ear-Nice-Halloween-puke-Video
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Poo-muncher-caught-on-camera

And, more distinguishably similar to the medical procedure we see before us:
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/draining-a-gigantic-spider-bite
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Pullin-Teeth-Aint-All-Fun-And-Games
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Human-Bot-Fly-Removal-from-Eyelid
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Man-spends-6-years-injecting-silicone-into-his-PENIS
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Uncle-Chuck-Had-His-Eye-Removed
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Triple-Human-Botfly-removal
http://horrorshow.videosift.com/video/Pellet-rifle-nipple-piercing

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.

Actually, no. The evidence I have (the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) is the result of a test of the validity of the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead. Jesus promised that after He had been raised from the dead that He would ascend to Heaven and send the Holy Spirit from the right hand of power to everyone who believes in Him. To receive the promised Holy Spirit is objective evidence of the validity of the claim of the resurrection, and Jesus' claim to be the Savior of the world. I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me, but it is something you can test on your own:

Which leads me to this:

It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

What Jesus said is this:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Jesus said there was no other way to know anything about God except through Him. So far, your experience precisely matches His claim. You have no seen no evidence of God what so ever. Therefore, if Jesus' claim is true, you shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of evidence of Gods existence; it is in fact exactly what you would expect to see. Yet, you erroneously use this as evidence to rule out Jesus' claims, when He Himself claimed this would be the case if you tried to know God by any other means except through Him. So therefore, you fail to do the one thing that would provide you evidence, not understanding that the lack of evidence you have encountered actually validates His claim.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different. Where is the genuine humility about the limited capacity of mans ability to reason and his subjective and biased experiences? If you think you are merely matter, why would you trust the chemicals in your brain to be able to rationally determine that? Have you pondered that everything is equally unlikely? How would you know you were looking at a Universe that wasn't designed?

I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion)

This is the standard reply of the atheist (the theist is too scared to face the big bad universe so he makes up an invisible friend to comfort him) but it doesn't apply to me. I grew up without religion and was agnostic until I came to believe in God. I wasn't afraid of death (I was resigned to it happening at some point)..I came to God because I wanted to know what the truth is. I was prepared to die even after finding God.

combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

The medulla oblongata is a relatively small part of the body but you could not live without it. The size of the Universe has nothing to do with the relative importance of Earth. Scripture never says either way whether there is life elsewhere, either.

If you've read up on big bang theory then you would understand that there are some gigantic fudge factors in it (such as cosmic inflation), and understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive. Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove? The question, as it relates to God is, why is it in existence in the first place?

Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

I enjoy talking with you guys..I am interested in your POV. Most of all, I want you to know the love of God.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.

Scripture says differently:

1 John 1:5

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly.

I'm aware that some like to pluck things out of context from the bible and call some of Gods judgments evil. An atheist calling God evil is par for the course, but the real question is, were His judgments just? Some atheists seem unable to think past a superficial level about the nature of God, and His role in creation.

For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate

I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself. All you can do is think to insult Him? I might call this evidence of a pathology in your thought process.




>> ^Sepacore:

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

That's weird. I guess I didn't notice that about the chart (woops). I think you are correct in that measuring average deviations is a better / more responsible way of using this information for the global warming debate. As you indicate, it still have holes in being presented as a definitive. The Earth is big and old and it has a lot of moving parts. >> ^messenger:

Not sure you understand that chart. It's actually two statistics about Texas which happen to correlate. The x-axis is rainfall, and the 2011 dot indicates that last summer was a wee bit drier than the driest ever -- significant. But the temperature is double the previous largest deviation from the average (previous largest deviation was 2.5 degrees; 2011 was 5 degrees) -- incredible. Now, this is interesting, but nowhere near conclusive on its own -- freak weather things happen all the time, but it is huge, and it is for a very large area -- all of Texas -- not just some statistically anomalous hole that was purposefully chosen to quotemine. Cenk's overall point here with the other freak weather states is that there is a massive increase in really freak weather incidents. I'm still not convinced, and would want some information on what the average number of heat records usually is in a given period. It could be that thousands of places reporting all-time weather highs is normal.>> ^Thumper:
I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:
Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

Not sure you understand that chart. It's actually two statistics about Texas which happen to correlate. The x-axis is rainfall, and the 2011 dot indicates that last summer was a wee bit drier than the driest ever -- significant. But the temperature is double the previous largest deviation from the average (previous largest deviation was 2.5 degrees; 2011 was 5 degrees) -- incredible. Now, this is interesting, but nowhere near conclusive on its own -- freak weather things happen all the time, but it is huge, and it is for a very large area -- all of Texas -- not just some statistically anomalous hole that was purposefully chosen to quotemine. Cenk's overall point here with the other freak weather states is that there is a massive increase in really freak weather incidents. I'm still not convinced, and would want some information on what the average number of heat records usually is in a given period. It could be that thousands of places reporting all-time weather highs is normal.>> ^Thumper:

I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:
Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

Light doesn't have one set speed. Each frequency of light travels at slightly different speeds. I've long had this theory, and NASA has since confirmed it. We have detected very slight differences in the time it takes different frequencies of light to travel a set distance.

As such, we cannot say light has "a" speed, but rather a range of speeds. Therefore, could it also then be possible that the speed of an individual photon can be adjusted by various means in order to either speed up or slow down?

The answer is yes. Scientists have managed to slow the "speed of light" all the way down to 38mph. How is this possible? Well, as light has mass (albeit, a very miniscule amount), it will slow when traveling through a material, such as water, glass, oil, or even air. Passing the light through a super-dense, ultra-cooled material magnifies this effect.

As we already know different frequencies of light travel at slightly different speeds, and as we also already know, we can only visibly perceive a very narrow range of frequencies (for example, we cannot see infra-red or ultra-violet, or x- or gamma-rays), isn't it then perceivable that there are frequencies of light outside of what we can see that do travel faster than "the speed of light"?

And if this is true, then what else could travel faster? Are there things we can't even hope to detect simply because they exist in our timeframe for an impossibly short amount of time?

Part of the reason light is able to travel as fast as it does is its incredibly small (by our standards anyway) mass. What if mass is infinite? What if you could shrink yourself down to the size of a photon, or better yet, small enough to live on that photon as if it were the Earth. From your new perspective, the photon would appear to be very large, and as you are now traveling with it, that photon does not seem to be going as fast. You may see things that are even smaller and appear to move even more quickly, but something like the Earth would be imperceptible to you because you are so miniscule. It would be as the Universe to you--impossibly large, and inconceivably tangible. While you would know it is there, it would stand before you as a gigantic, unknowable concept, and things even larger than that would exist merely as mists of an imaginary daydream.

Now, imagine that the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite in both directions as well. Consider the possibility that, along with light, x-rays, gamma radiation, radio waves, and all the other things we know to make up the electromagnetic spectrum, sound is also part of that spectrum. Consider that light, being high in frequency exists near the top of what we can perceive of the spectrum, and sound is near the bottom. The vibrations become so slow and so wide toward the bottom that they effect the air and other matter around us, creating sound. And while we cannot see it, we perceive it with other sensory organs. Imagine that you could slow down light to the point that you can hear it, or speed up sound to the point that you can see it.

Now take another hit before that feeling goes away.

I meant around 3:45. Where he has the chart up with 2011 being a big red dot. And Yes, I think the chart data isn't indicative of anything other than our local weather history. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated. We as an element on the Earth do not have the impact global warming suggests. At most we should be concerned with the pollution for our health reasons, not because we're throwing the Earth's climate out of whack. >> ^messenger:

Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:
at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

Not at 4:45 he doesn't. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway. Are you saying this gigantic temperature spike that annihilates previous records is normal if regarded in the right context?>> ^Thumper:

at 4:45 he says 2011 is off the charts but really it's only off the charts based on the general direction. If you follow the lines increase and compare the distance from the 2011 dot to it, it's no more further out than other years that reach out and above the line. This is my problem with global warming charts. I mean no one really puts forth evidence that is clear because if you follow that line back in time I'm sure as a whole movement it fluctuates with smaller fluctuations locally as seen in the chart he shows.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^kymbos:

Wow, privatising health care? Some terrible ideas just don't die, do they? When this idea was pushed in the 80s here in Oz, it kept the tories out of government for another ten years.
Are the Lib Dems participating in this?


Oh yes, to a degree. Nick Clegg is in full support of it now and is urging his party to back it. 57% of the party are opposed, 32% are for and 12% don't know. One thing is for fucking certain, the amount of things the Lib Dems have done a U-turn on, they have little to no chance of ever getting into power, not for a very very long time. Foolish cunts, all they had to do is refuse the coalition government... but no, he thought he could handle it, and it turns out he's a gigantic fuckwad minus backbone or moral fibre.

>> ^quantumushroom:

They tried, and had every right to do so. But Lincoln and Friends, right or wrong, waged war to stop them. Now, of course, we have a gigantic, out-of-control federal leviathan, just like the South a-feared. Enjoy!
As for the rest of it, different beliefs for everyone, my friends. It would be nice for the left if the Kenyawaiian had NO ties to islam, but even though these snippets in this video lack context, why do they exist at all?
Obama is likely a closet atheist, but who knows?
Californian idiots keep voting in socialists over and over again even as their economy atrophies and illegal immigration runs rampant. There are actual numbers to demonstrate this, but they conflict with the leftist "belief system".
Intolerance is a staple of the left as much as the right. Same concept, different targets.

>> ^Locque:
If the South wants to secede, I think they should be allowed to do so.



I think equating Chuck Norris and friends' cries for secession in the modern era to the situation in the civil war is kinda silly. It would be like blaming the modern day church for the crusades.

Also, you seem to realise claims that he's a muslim are completely fucking stupid, but you are extremely consistent in refusing the acknowledge the wrongs of the right (I've been reading your posts for years dude, old hat)

I think it's fallacious to accuse the left of being as intolerant as the right. There is an unbelievable history among the left of idiocy, hypocrisy, failure, and all that other good stuff, but racism and bigotry are absolutely the territory of the right. Fascistic political correctness and a refusal to acknowledge existing problems are more the political left's tools of the trade.

On the whole though, i feel chuffed. Does being on the receiving end of one of QM's posts mean I've arrived? WILL VIDEOSIFT NOTICE ME NOW?

They tried, and had every right to do so. But Lincoln and Friends, right or wrong, waged war to stop them. Now, of course, we have a gigantic, out-of-control federal leviathan, just like the South a-feared. Enjoy!

As for the rest of it, different beliefs for everyone, my friends. It would be nice for the left if the Kenyawaiian had NO ties to islam, but even though these snippets in this video lack context, why do they exist at all?

Obama is likely a closet atheist, but who knows?

Californian idiots keep voting in socialists over and over again even as their economy atrophies and illegal immigration runs rampant. There are actual numbers to demonstrate this, but they conflict with the leftist "belief system".

Intolerance is a staple of the left as much as the right. Same concept, different targets.



>> ^Locque:

If the South wants to secede, I think they should be allowed to do so.