Thats fine, as far as I know you are not a member of the force there so what you say is just second or third hand knowledge.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:

Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:

Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

Far too long....

>> ^quantumushroom:
QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.


Make me happy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It saved me time to waste on other stupidness.


I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."


So, in your small sampling, it's 87%. I somehow think the sampling may have been intentionally skewed, but OK. Note I didn't disagree with your stat, just questioned it's origin, if it was Faux, I would discount it offhand.


You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.


You seem to assume that because I think McCain is worthless now that Obama must be my preferance, and that I support his policies and actions and think he's leading us strongly. That is an incorrect, and all to often made assumption. Why must you continue to make an ass out of umption, do what you like to yourself.


You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?


I'm what used to be republican. I'm a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. There is no sane party I can call home today.


The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.

Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.


This is why people call you nuts...you are insisting that 3 trillion is more than 5 trillion, and that spending sprees and tax (revenue) cuts under total republican control were against republican (the right's) wishes.


All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.
Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.


Underfunded because of insane administration costs, better? More money doesn't automatically make better schools, but it helps, but not if it's all spent on non-school related administration expenses.


Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.


I'm not sure your arguement here...I'm not a liberal politician, or a true supporter of them, so how does what they do relate to me? I've been to good and bad private and public schools, the ones with money always had a leg up. I really believe if you have children, you should be taxed the cost of a decent education and allowed to spend it at the school you prefer (excluding religious school, that's another issue). Since this doesn't happen, I prefer decent public education be purchased with my tax dollar rather than prison cells and barbed wire. I do see it as an either or situation.


I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.


I'll never understand the arguement that, when confronted with their own abhorrent behavior people answer with 'look, that other guy I always call an a$$hole is doing bad stuff too'.
As I understand it, many states are cutting back on pension payments, or not paying them at all. At the same time they are regulating teachers, denying them union status, and forcing renegotiation of in place pay and work hours/load contracts. Not total a$$ rape, but close, and certainly not fair or acceptable treatment.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I said:Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

You replied: Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

The ridiculous infactuation with his ancestory (race) is where the racism is. Kenyanesque only applies if he acts Kenyan, and he does not. It is intended to be racially insulting, you know it, we know it. Either give it up or own it.
It's sad that you just don't give a sh!t about your people being so unstable that you can't trust any agreement made with them. That's my issue, not so much their political party, but their actions and trustworthyness. I'm hardpressed to find a politician of either party I wouldn't call fectless and feculant. I call out the right more often because they went bat sh!t crazy and deserted me, leaving me partyless.

QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.

If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.

I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.

"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."

FOX news appears to 'tilt' right. You may have heard of them.

As for conservative educators, they're out there but are a minority on kollij kampii.

You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.

Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.

You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.

Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?

The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.



Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.

Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.

All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.

Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.

Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.

And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.

I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?

I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.

Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

Actually, this protest has its roots months ago.

A bunch of happy libertarians wanted to celebrate Jefferson's birthday. So they planned a little midnight dance party, with iPods so no music could be heard, done quietly to minimize the impact, thinking that there wouldn't be any tourists to disturb. No harm was intended, it was just a little celebration.

They were still loud though, and they were asked to leave. Everyone left, loudly protesting but no big whoop, except one woman, who got arrested.

I don't know exactly what transpired next, but she sued and lost, and appealed and lost.

It was the loss on appeal that led Adam Kokesh to post a YouTube invitation to anyone to come to the Memorial at a specific time, during the day. That is what you see at the other video -- what happened with the public demonstration.

As I posted on the first video:
For those interested, here are links to the original flash mob event that precipitated the chain of events that led to this action:

Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-IpdeMqlkM&feature=player_embedded

Part II -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujrSAJ1b6Go (the first person you see is the woman who ends up getting arrested at the end of this part)

And here is the original facebook invitation to the first birthday celebration:

"It's a secret birthday/dance party thrown by a group of flashmobbing libertarians. Tell friends about it if they are 1. Awesome. 2. Can keep their mouth shut 3. libertarians

Sweet dance moves wouldn't hurt either.

It works best if we all listen to the same song (nominate on the wall) but since libertarians are "free to choose" come prepared to listen to whatever makes you happy."



>> ^dag:

^Agreed. And remember that this video has to be viewed in context, having watched this video first: http://videosift.com/video/Police-State-Arrested-For-Dan
cing-in-the-Jefferson-Memorial
This second video is a direct response to the first - these are people putting themselves at risk of being arrested - to support the innocent people who were assaulted and arrested for shuffling their feet a bit in the previous video.

This is like those Begat bible verses:

1. A group of admirers of Jefferson decide to celebrate his birthday at midnight, when tourist traffic is low, by "dancing" with iPods plugged into their ears. The original facebook page invitation, slightly edited:
"It's a secret birthday/dance party thrown by a group of flashmobbing libertarians. Tell friends about it if they are 1. Awesome. 2. Can keep their mouth shut 3. libertarians

Sweet dance moves wouldn't hurt either.

It works best if we all listen to the same song (nominate on the wall) but since libertarians are "free to choose" come prepared to listen to whatever makes you happy."

Seems to me it was a sweet idea to honor someone they admired, knowing it probably wasn't okay (secret, going at midnight, they knew they were being naughty, but no big whoop.) No disrespect intended.

2. Disrespect, however, was perceived by others. The video shows a party-like atmosphere, which attracted attention enough for the partiers to be asked to leave.

3. Being asked to leave was perceived as being disrespectful to the rights of the partiers.

4. Not leaving (the woman who was arrested, not the guy filming, who left) was perceived as disrespectful.

5. Being arrested was perceived as disrespectful.

6. Which led to a series of other events, all of which were perceived as disrespectful by one "side" or the other.

Perceived disrespect begats perceived disrespect begats perceived disrespect.

Who is going to step outside this cycle and say, hey, can we go about this differently? Because going on like this perpetuates nothing but bad feelings and a lot of lawyer fees.

I was going to say that this is terrible for the Chinese government as saving face is their time honored tradition; I'm glad this is happening and I'll tell you why.

Apparently, Chinese citizens have figured out that getting a lot of "things" certainly will not make you happy. In fact it'll turn into what we have here. You MUST work. You MUST have money. You MUST be a tax-paying consumer. You MUST be beholden to the rich.

I for one (heh) commend China's either lucky or smart citizenry for their decisions about their lives and whether they wish to become involved in the stupid game that is consumerism (as only the rich win, we just pay more here and there and remain "balanced" for THEIR needs...).

It's sad for sure, but it's his choice as it should be, and we will have to bear the burden of losing his voice early because of it.
>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.

I think it's sad that's dying, and it's sad that he's relatively young (60 years old) with much more to contribute to the world. That seems like a high price to pay for some simplistic chemical addictions.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.


I think it's sad that he's dying, and it's sad that he's relatively young (60 years old) with much more to contribute to the world. That seems like a high price to pay for some simplistic chemical addictions.

>> ^chilaxe:

So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.


Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.

I dunno how much I agree with what she's saying. Action starts with thought. Of course it is delusional to think you can change the world with only your thoughts. But once those thoughts are tied to concrete actions it's absolutely amazing the things that people accomplish--in spite of all the supposed evidence to the contrary. Michael Jordon got cut from his high school varsity team. Should he have been "realistic" and given up basketball? He used the incident instead to motivate himself to be the best junior varsity player. His attitude was absolutely critical to his development and becoming a legendary NBA star.

Attitude is important. It's just not the only important thing. If all you do is sit around and feel sorry for yourself it's highly unlikely your circumstances are going to change at all. You are part of the equation. It's not delusional to believe that, or to believe that hardship can be used as an opportunity.

Honestly, I can't think of a healthier way to deal with adversity. Yeah, it sucks. Acknowledge it. But how much time do you really want to spend wallowing in it before you get back to living again? No, the physical world doesn't change by your attitude but your perception of it does entirely. I don't see how it could at all be healthier to choose an attitude that will make you miserable ("I lost my job and it is devastating") than to choose an attitude that will make you happy ("I lost my job, but I will use this as an opportunity").

I do absolutely agree with her, though, that when people who think alike and have a common goal come together, absolutely amazing things can happen. Habitat for Humanity is a great example. She's right that there isn't enough emphasis on that process of coming together to accomplish something beyond an individual dream and it should happen more often.

And still, when it comes to other people and their beliefs we do not always respect them (or their beliefs). Imagine someone who believes that Elvis is still alive and "preaches" it. We effectively marginalize such people and do not respect their views. I would go so far to say we do not even respect them.

In most other areas, as Sam Harris puts it, to be highly certain of something with a low order of evidence is a sign that something is wrong with your mind. However, when it comes to religion, we must suddenly flip this on its end and respect other people's beliefs. Why?

When it comes to tolerance, I could care less what people believe in their own heads. If it would only stay there. I do not want their views imposing on my life as it does now through the hindering of science and an attachment to ancient moral values. They are actively hindering me from fulfillment in this the only life I think I have. And while their lives appear better to themselves it comes at the cost of almost endless suffering felt by others. Condoms in Africa anyone?

Summing it up: Believe what you want, but as soon as you put it out there and it affects others be ready to have your reasons inspected and challenged.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I'm 100% with mgittle on this. You don't convince people by disrespecting them. While you don't have to respect people's ideas, in a civilized society at least, you should respect the person who formed them and not assume they are a total idiot just because they don't agree with you.
My basic problem with his argument is that it assumes that faith is somehow imposed from the outside--as if the faithful have all been suckered--and he's here to save them all from it. A lot of faithful that I know are willingly faithful. They know there is no "hard" evidence. They have a choice and they choose to be faithful. Why? The answer is simple really: because their faith makes their lives better.
And how can you argue with that? Would you honestly accept someone else telling you demanding that you change because that's what they think is going to make you happy? It works both ways, of course. Most of us here hate it when one of the overzealous faithful shows up on our doorstep to proclaim how much better we'll be worshiping their particular deity. This guy is just doing the same thing in reverse. Like mgittle said, showing them how happy you can be is far more persuasive.
Problem, of course, is that again it works both ways. Some people see how happy a certain faithful person is and choose to embrace the faith as well. I honestly think certain people are happier and more productive when they are practicing a religion and others are happier and more productive when atheist. It just depends on the individual. And I absolutely agree with justanotherday that it is entirely possible for all of us to get along... if we all learn some respect.
That said, there are serious problems within many major organized religions, and these do need to be addressed. But I see that as a separate issue from that of faith (in Christianity), which is mostly what the video was about.

I'm 100% with mgittle on this. You don't convince people by disrespecting them. While you don't have to respect people's ideas, in a civilized society at least, you should respect the person who formed them and not assume they are a total idiot just because they don't agree with you.

My basic problem with his argument is that it assumes that faith is somehow imposed from the outside--as if the faithful have all been suckered--and he's here to save them all from it. A lot of faithful that I know are willingly faithful. They know there is no "hard" evidence. They have a choice and they choose to be faithful. Why? The answer is simple really: because their faith makes their lives better.

And how can you argue with that? Would you honestly accept someone else telling you demanding that you change because that's what they think is going to make you happy? It works both ways, of course. Most of us here hate it when one of the overzealous faithful shows up on our doorstep to proclaim how much better we'll be worshiping their particular deity. This guy is just doing the same thing in reverse. Like mgittle said, showing them how happy you can be is far more persuasive.

Problem, of course, is that again it works both ways. Some people see how happy a certain faithful person is and choose to embrace the faith as well. I honestly think certain people are happier and more productive when they are practicing a religion and others are happier and more productive when atheist. It just depends on the individual. And I absolutely agree with justanotherday that it is entirely possible for all of us to get along... if we all learn some respect.

That said, there are serious problems within many major organized religions, and these do need to be addressed. But I see that as a separate issue from that of faith (in Christianity), which is mostly what the video was about.

Thanks. Fixed.

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
hey ...
I was doing a dupeof over here and when I pasted the link it looked fine in the submit comment box, but it broke when I submitted it.

edit ... it's breaking the link in my comment above as well and I can't fix it because when I go to edit, it isn't broken.
http://videosift.com/video/Girl-freaks-the-hell-out-of-people-walking-into-a-building is the link.

btw, I did a dupeof over here as well:
http://videosift.com/video/A-Bit-of-Fry-and-Laurie-Does-this-make-you-happy?loadcomm=1#comment-965909
and it wrapped the line where it shouldn't have, but didn't break the link.

hey ...
I was doing a dupeof over here and when I pasted the link it looked fine in the submit comment box, but it broke when I submitted it.

edit ... it's breaking the link in my comment above as well and I can't fix it because when I go to edit, it isn't broken.
http://videosift.com/video/Girl-freaks-the-hell-out-of-people-walking-into-a-building is the link.

btw, I did a dupeof over here as well:
http://videosift.com/video/A-Bit-of-Fry-and-Laurie-Does-this-make-you-happy?loadcomm=1#comment-965909
and it wrapped the line where it shouldn't have, but didn't break the link.