I'm going to *promote the annoying as hell product placement.

This does not demonstrate just how intrusive they can get. For instance, the Chuck examples of Subway include characters waxing lyrical about the ingredients of said sandwich... it's like the show stops for a while to have a full on ad...

And the Toyota people mover sections include the titulature character going on about all the features of the vehicle, and even demonstrating them... it's painful

First, the sex thing is biblical based. It's part of the GOD package. you either buy into it or you don't. Republicans seem to buy into this more than Democrats.


As a parent of little ones I personally wish like .com, org, .gov, .net there was a .porn in which you could select and filter out sites by extension. I believe the internet community just passed such rules. The next step would to make sure porn sites use the .porn extension. The choice still would be the user. One could argue that the government should not dictate this but since these new .com extension will come in affect, browsers will inherently make this filter option possible.

So the issue would become "forcing" porn sites to re list their sites to the new .porn extension. Only governments could pass laws and fines that could "force" the hand of porn sites. As much as I would like this to occur I don't believe government should.


Only when you have kids do you see things differently. You really notice how inappropriate TV shows and commercials are.

One could argue that the lack of civility in society is from lack of morality. The TV is full of inappropriate situations. One could argue that TV is the real teacher of of society morals.

I am all for not letting little ones grow up too quickly. But unless you live off the grid they will be influenced more from TV, Web, and social media. Parents are out gunned by the media empire.

So your question for an response is hard. I feel Government should not interfere with business.

Business on the other hand should conduct themselves in a morally positive fashion.
Adult TV themed shows should be aired late at night after little ones should be in bed.

Porn sites should adopt the .porn extension and browsers should have user selectable filters.

Parents also should involve themselves and promote morally positive themes from media by emailing, calling etc tv\ cable providers and you local government representatives.

We are all in this together. We either all morally rise or fall together.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I love how republicans hate big government intrusion into peoples lives... right up until sex is involved. Now, tell me @bobknight33, @quantumushroom, @Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @lantern53 and
@Chaucer do you really want a piece of government installed software on your computer that monitors your web activity?
Can't wait to see this....

I love how republicans hate big government intrusion into peoples lives... right up until sex is involved. Now, tell me @bobknight33, @quantumushroom, @Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @lantern53 and
@Chaucer do you really want a piece of government installed software on your computer that monitors your web activity?

Can't wait to see this....

>> ^Sagemind:

Hmmm, I listened to the soundtrack for Blade Runner over 150 times (estimated) when I used to own it and this song wasn't on it.


There are -several- soundtracks for Blade Runner out there. The official one has hardly anything, really. Look for the 25th anniversary version or the boot leg one with all the songs on it

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_soundtrack Ctrl-F to Esper, that's the one that really opened my eyes to what I'd been missing. The official release lacked so much.

I've also listened to the music from Blade Runner over and over. It's such great music to work to, not intrusive and it's very atmospheric.

>> ^jmzero:

I'd forgotten just how intrusive laugh tracks were back then... and how slow things went.


Yeah, it's hard to imagine that the laugh tracks were once worse than they are now. Still, Night Court always felt a bit like a stage production to me - just a few sets, small cast, etc. The laugh track almost, ...almost, fits.

I'd forgotten just how intrusive laugh tracks were back then... and how slow things went.

As moderate as American Christians have been?>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

>> ^messenger:

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?
And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:
So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.


I suggest you read my comment again, slowly. Far from putting words in their mouths, I pose the legitimate question; "how would they characterize islam?" Please observe the question mark which, funnily enough, denotes a question NOT a statement. However, they certainly DID suggest what their answer would be. My inference is based upon their demeanor of derision and incredulity at anything said by Dooley, and the fact that they openly condemn him as a war monger. The two comments that I said were "extreme" and "ridiculous," were just that. The other comments made by Dooley were legitimate. Your Brevik comment is absurd and, as such, is not worth commenting on. As for you comparing islam with christianity? What are you talking about? I am an atheist and deride ALL myths. However, in defence of Christianity; When was the last Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time Christians flew planes into buildings? When was the last time a Christian stoned a woman to death or carried out an "honour" killing, or hung gays from a crane? When was the last time a christian beheaded a non-believer, etc, etc? Comparing the two is ignorant and intellectual laziness. If by xenophobic you mean I am afraid of those who wish to radically change our lives and drag us back to the bronze age, then yes, I am very afraid. Islam is an insidious threat, one we ignore at our peril. Finally, If you wish clarification on any other points that you don't understand, I will happily explain them.

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?

And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

Ya I sorta wondered about the age of this clip as well but it still shows the TSA asserting their authority for no other reason than to make themselves look important. I mean really this kid was flagged as a threat? Seriously come on! He had an obvious broken leg and needed the wheelchair to move around.

What do they really suspect terrorist are using 5 year olds in bomb laden wheelchairs with fake broken legs to blow up planes it's just plain old abuse of power if you ask me.

>> ^njjh201:

So: the TSA security pantomime is tremendously silly, as Salon's Ask The Pilot and many others have pointed out.
But the toddler in this video is not terrified, he's hungry and slightly grouchy. Notice how when he appears upset, parent reassures him they'll be eating soon?
Notice also how the 'terrified' toddler doesn't scream with fright, cry, and utterly obstruct the TSA agent, as a genuinely terrified child would (ever watched a child of that age who has serious phobia of needles get a shot?)
Notice also how the TSA agent performs his (intrusive, pointless and yes maybe unconstitutional) task sensitively, in a calm and reassuring manner. He is gentle, he gets down to the child's level, he doesn't raise his voice or rush. (In particular I note that he doesn't fondle the child's genitals. I thought that was standard TSA practice?!)
Yes the TSA security pantomime is silly, but so is the right wing claim that investigations such as these amount to child-rape. They plainly don't.
Which leads me to my question: this happened almost two years ago. Why has it only just surfaced?

What's more, Harris actually discusses the spectrum of that comment (muslims more likely to be terrorists) in the context of the discussion. They are having a discussion about racial profiling, privacy and security. His point isn't that all muslims should be subjected to intrusive searches at airports, just that the current system isn't doing much to prevent an attack. The old woman being frisked thing was an example of this failure.

I like Hedges, but not on religion. And, whenever he engages with Harris, he seems to pull the same crap of quoting him out of context.

I made it about 2 hours into the video and thought Rogan was pretty effective at calling out Harris when an exaggeration was made.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

Heh. If you've got nothing to hide, why not just let them do their job?
Fine, if you dont want to let them search, then you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street.


"Heh. If you've got nothing to hide, why not just let them do their job?"

You need rules and indaviduals need protection from police abusing there power you don't want to be constantly searched all the time do you ? You realise the ultimate point of laws and the police is so a society can function not so that people can be arrested and go to jail ?

"if you dont want to let them search, then you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street."

Well they are not doing there jobs if they are searching someone without probably cause or picking off random people to try and meat arrest quotas. Where do you stop would you like it so that we have to show papers to cops every place you go ? You realise the importance of inosent until proven guilty ?

"you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street"

Yes you can there is no causal link between cops randomly searching people and reducing the amount of drugs and weapons on the street as a whole. In fact research has shown that the more aggressive policing and penalties for drugs have increased the prevalence of drugs. ( just Google it and do some research )

Socities that have reduced crimiunal sentancing for drug possession and use and instead implemented mandatory rehabilitation have seen a massive reduction in drug use and crime.

So its perfectly reasonable to refuse a cop to do something In reality they should not even be asking they are themselves exploiting the good will of people that don't know the law. A cop asking to search your car is the equivilent of a random person knocking on your front door and saying hello would you mind if I look around the inside of your house ? if you say yes then they have permission and its not an intrusion if you say no then they cannot come in without braking trespassing laws. Just because that person is waring a random uniform does not suddenly change that , they still need permission from a court or from laws that say if there is probable cause they have a default permission to search.

In the same way that if I see your house on fire and someone screaming inside its not likely I would get done for trespassing ( if that person later complained) as I have a good solid legally supported reason to trespass on that property.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If you're for allowing abortions but not for allowing prostitution, drug use and assisted suicide for consenting adults, then you're not worthy to sing about government intrusion/dominion over the human body.


Where does she say she's against those things?

I have to admit I kinda skipped through the song as it was awful. Being right != being musical.

If you're for allowing abortions but not for allowing prostitution, drug use and assisted suicide for consenting adults, then you're not worthy to sing about government intrusion/dominion over the human body.