They did until the early 70’s when the southern strategy reversed the parties rolls, now it’s Republican’s turn to be overtly racist.

You know this well, you dishonest tool. Deny reality all you want, it doesn’t change history, it only makes you a dishonest ignoramus who denies racism exists then blames it on Democrats. Rational people see through your consistently racist lies.

It’s blatantly obvious you don’t care about racism a whit beyond blaming it 100% on your political adversaries and denying any responsibility by Republicans, despite the last 50 years of republicans being the party of racists, despite 100% of the white supremacy vote going to Republicans, despite republicans courting known white supremacists and campaigning with them, and despite not a single civil rights leader being right wing, and not a single anti racism organization being funded or supported by the right (only those fighting reverse racism).

That’s why Republicans are anti BLM, but pro murderous rioting at the capitol....anti kneeling for the anthem but pro beating police with flags....super patriotic and pro American government overthrow....totally pro police until the police try to stop YOUR riots, then it’s instantly fuck the police, kill the pigs, only death can cure them.

Just stop. You only paint republicans as moronic dishonest racists every time you speak out like this.

Your video, SpaceX Makes History | MARS, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 118 Badge!

And that's stupid. We agree.

This isn't about guilt. This isn't about history. This is about the facts on the ground now. Now. Now. Not history. Now. Stop making out like this is only about history. That's a defence mechanism to avoid talking about now. Talk about now.

White people have a clear advantage over black people only because of the colour of our skin. Do you think that's good or bad or are you indifferent?

the situation in st louis did not just pop up out of thin air overnight.the tensions between the poor community (mostly black) and the police has been a festering pressure cooker for almost 15 years.

a particularly venal chapter in the st louis police archives is the RNC of 2008,for anybody to absorb some context on the militarization of a police force.

the tinder has been accumulating just waiting for the match.
mike brown WAS that match.
this is not new nor original.
it has happened before.

and as @lantern53 has pointed out:it is the chain of command that sets the tone of how that police force performs their duties.so if those in charge are authoritarian douche nozzles,that attitude tends to trickle down to the everyday cop on the street.

cops by their very nature are authoritarian due to their vocational choice.they respect the chain of command and the authority it represents.to follow orders is to be a "good" cop.

so i do not understand the ridicule that lantern is receiving.he is offering his perspective AS an actual police officer.i am not suggesting that he is right NOR that his opinion somehow exonerates the st louis cop JUST because he is a cop but rather we should listen to someone who actual IS a cop.

there is absolutely ZERO evidence that lantern is a bad cop.we simply do not know how well,or poorly,lantern is at his job.

there IS evidence,however,that lantern tends be a tad racist,authoritarian and contradictory.lantern may be a poor debater but that does not make him a bad cop.

though his defense of zimmerman does reveal an extremely poor judge of character.(seriously lantern?that dude is a full fledged cunt).

but i get it @VoodooV,
lantern is easy pickings.
a right wing authoritarian conservative commenting on a mostly secular left site?
its like shooting fish in a barrel.

sometimes lantern brings it on himself...i know.
his poor debating skills coupled with an almost embarrassing understanding of history and government makes him catnip to someone like you.

its
just
so
easy

i disagree with lantern,pretty much always and i agree that sometimes his biased rhetoric should be taken to task,if only to clear up the bullshit.

but you take it to whole new levels voodoo.
you follow him from thread to thread and chastise and belittle him and THEN act all hurt and shocked when he lashes out at you!

seriously?thats like poking a grizzly bear in the face and then crying when it rips half your face off.

you use the exact same tactics choggie used,but at least he was entertaining.

you are just a bully.
a hypocritical,sanctimonious bully.hiding behind the skirts of others who may find lanterns comments distasteful (which they certainly can be).this is a cowards path and just like all bullies,you rely on the silence of others to continue your persecution of someone who does not have the support of an entire site.

i find your lack of humanity disturbing.
and i will not be silent.
your actions do not deserve respect but rather ridicule.

Good for him for taking that amount of time to explain his actions. The witnesses were morons for making their argument "you know she's a girl". Idiots.

Anyway, I'm pretty scarred by the state of the world during my lifetime (and that is accounting for the fact that I'm well-educated and completely understand our existence relative to history), but what makes me still question the whole thing is that the cops argument is that "she broke the law", and in today's world that has proven to be entirely subjective and often even completely immoral (what 'law' did she break? j-walking? carrying a 'suspicious package'?).

Regardless, if all officers had the demeanor of this one I'd be much more inclined to side with them on a regular basis.

Also, @chingalera - nothing is black and white. I almost always see your point, but you're so militant lately that I worry for you. In the sense that "we need more right-thinking people to keep their heads and show people the 'correct' way".

Thanks Alien for the promo. I would have been sad if mine was the only epic of history not to make ten votes

>> ^kymbos:

I think the US is changing, but it's not changing for the better. More fundamentalist, more corporate driven, more entrenched, more divided... That's change.


I think you're right. the fundies are surging, corporate influence is rising. These things aren't very sustainable though. We know this because it's happened before. Theocracies don't work and are in opposition to freedom. Plutocracy doesn't work and is in opposition to freedom. Just because we seem to have forgotten history doesn't make it any less true.

America does really have the whole sleeping giant thing about it. We're lazy, we ignore stuff, we let stuff slide. We see this stuff coming but do little to stop it. But eventually the fundies and the plutocrats will cross a line and that's when people will finally push back...and push back hard.

When that will happen though..who knows. So yeah, things are going to get worse before they get better. But that's how it usually works. I tend to consider it a given that there is going to be a 2nd American Civil War before I die.

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

He has a very euro-centric view of world history.

Makes a change, doesn't it.

word. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
dft, you need to put a date in the description.
Cause this is going to be a common scene.

*quality

He's speaking a half truth, but I don't think he's calling the Tea Party people who believe in the extermination of people based on race or anything like that. He's trying to point out that the Tea Party, similar to the Nazi party, is an anti-establishment movement that has been born out of a troubled economy. That he's right about. He's also correct in observing that there doesn't seem to be any charismatic leader within the Tea Party. He's also correct in stating that there's a higher risk of radical parties coming to power during times of socio-economic upheavals.

He loses me in stating that the Tea Party is only about fear and hate, and have no proposed solutions. They are proposing a radical change in the federal budget, including massive cuts that adhere to radical conservative political philosophies, including massive cuts typically in social programs instead of defense. I vehemently disagree with that, but that's still a stated solution. I just wish politics were more about discussing rationally the pros and cons of an idea instead of loose associations with clearly horrible groups from history. You could make the case that the American progressive movement was a reaction to poor political and social environments, but that doesn't make the Progressive Movement bad.

He also is oversimplifying the Nazi rise to power. When you think about it, he contradicts himself. If Hitler simply rose to power because of exploiting popular discontent with the economy, then why did he never get the support of the majority of Germans in a free and fair election? Hitler did in fact exploit fear and malcontent in the German population caused by the Great Depression, but he never would have come to power had the conservative parties not attempted to co-op the Nazis to fight off the political left Social Democratic party and the Communist Party in Germany.

The rise of an extreme party in the US in the same way Nazis took control of Germany is very highly unlikely. While there are obvious negatives to the US two party political system, one strength is it does a very good job of preventing extremists from taking over. In Germany, the Nazi party exploited the fact there were numerous parties - the Conservative party, the Catholic Party, the Social Democratic party, the Communist party, and of course the Nazis to name some. Sure the US has other parties than the Democratic and Republican parties, but they're virtually insignificant in numbers and support. That simply wasn't the case in Weimar Germany, and in order to get a coalition government to get anything done, parties had to compromise and work together. Unfortunately, the conservative parties decided to work with the Nazis, making Hitler Chancellor, even though the Nazis were clearly anti-democratic, because they politically disagreed with the Social Democratic party. You can call the Tea Party whatever you want, but they certainly are in favor of Democracy.

The person I would most like to go for dinner with. Such a fascinating individual and Michael Palin is probably my second choice. Both must have such incredible stories to tell. The Attenborough + BBC natural history unit combination make by far the best wildlife documentaries in the world. No-one else even comes close.

Thank you very much!!

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
I *promote this *quality vid. Hmm, not sure if I've tried that combo before. Love the change in the text as they realized he DID step down. Funny delay.

Also *history in the making.

I *promote this *quality vid. Hmm, not sure if I've tried that combo before. Love the change in the text as they realized he DID step down. Funny delay.

Also *history in the making.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.

I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!

Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.

It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.

I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.

Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:

John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway

There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.

Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.

The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.

I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.

You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.

To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.

If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.

Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.