Another Bothy Band fan? Fantastic!
In reply to this comment by taranimator:
Bothy Band!! awesome!!
We listened to them on a long road trip years ago.
Do you know "Fionnghuala"? I'd love to hear that again..

Ta-da!!>> ^taranimator:

Bothy Band!! awesome!!
We listened to them on a long road trip years ago.
Do you know "Fionnghuala"? I'd love to hear that again..

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Seinfield' to 'Seinfield, Micheal Richards' - edited by SlipperyPete

I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

Both liberals and conservatives base their underpinning concepts on things that are 'facts'. The interpretation of those facts is where the distortion lies. For example - Bachman’s full quote clearly proves she is talking about the dissemination of information about Cap & Trade and not violent rebellion. Obama’s “I want people angry” quote is likewise clearly not a call for violence.

Both quotes are factual. It is the interpretation that is biased. I extend both sides the benefit of the doubt and do not just go around assuming the worst on ‘their side’ and the best on ‘my side’. So when I hear leftists calling only right-wing speech 'bad' and ignoring the same crap from the left-wing, I call BS.

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Joyce Kaufman is as irrelevant to this topic as Micheal Fiengold is - the guy who said Republicans “should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” Fringe crazies do not represent the majority. And I reject as poppycock any implication that the right has a greater number or percentage of these crazies compared to the left.

Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said. The other issue is, you're quoting him way out of context

It IS in the legislation, and it is not out of context. Obamacare establishes the H&HS secretary as the party who makes decisions regarding what is and isn’t covered in plans. And his law requires all Americans to buy into these approved plans or pay fines and face possible jail time. It establishes government panels as entities that make health care rationing decisions based on economics and not doctors or patients. Calling them death panels is grandiose, but no different in concept than what liberals do when they say Bachman actually WANTS armed rebellion.

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about?

I didn’t say “Republican Plan”. I said that a private system. The systems that work best do not come from Republicans or Democrats. They come from PEOPLE in a private system who creatively seek for profit by dealing in goods and services.


I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful.

Because you agree with him. To a conservative, it is despicable. When a conservative exaggerates about a liberal, do you not find it despicable and ‘inciteful’? Is it not hypocritical to excuse it from one side, while condemning it on the other?

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own

Yes they did. Many times. Obama and the democrats rejected it and instead of negotiating they just crammed Obamacare through a midnight vote using unconstitutional processes to bypass the law and stifle debate.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/alan-grayson-to-republica_n_652244.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/best-quotes-alan-grayson
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/28/grayson-taking-opponents-quotes-context-taliban-ad/

Grayson is a source for a lot of fun stuff because he’s a certifiable lunatic.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

No –it isn’t debatable. It deliberately mischaracterizes the issue. Obama’s government solution of panel-based rationing is the exact same thing in a different form. Would you say it would be an unfair statement to say Obama’s plan is “Don’t get old, and if you get old die quickly”?

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all.

Au contraire. I understand them on more levels than liberals do themselves.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

But litanies about conservatives are fine? That was a list of ACTUAL EVENTS. Real examples of real liberals doing real violence. Why is that a 'litany' that proves I’m not interested in examining things? Sounds to me like your response shows that you are not interested in examining liberal prejudices – whereas I have examined them far more thoroughly.

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

But your litanies do no such thing, I take it? You implied that the speech of the political right gins up right-wing crazies. I ask the perfectly fair question, “Did liberal speech gin up THESE left-wing crazies?” Goose for the gander. If you make the claim that right wing speech is done to gin up crazies, do you allow the same logic to apply to the left wing crazies – of which my evidence shows there is ample existence?

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made.

Your sense is wrong. You can continue to believe it if that pleases you, but that does not make it correct.

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

Certainly. My assertion is that both sides get plenty of leeway to make strong political arguments. Free speech is hardly ever a bad thing. Let people say what they want and let the chips fall where they may. This attempt to stifle political speech has been done before, and by better people than our current crop of political doofuses. Their conclusion was the 1st Ammendment. It still works.

Automatically anything that someone else says that you individually disagree with?

For some people - yes. I like to believe that most people are more sensible than that. But when you say something in public, it reaches not just that majority of sensible people. It also reaches the INsensible minority. And sadly that noisy, nasty minority is the group that all too often has the megaphone. Case in point with this rather amusing op-ed by one Micheal Shear...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/obama-and-palin-a-tale-of-two-speeches/?ref=politics

Palin is "bubbling anger and resentment", and Obama is "soft & restrained". No bias there, eh? I saw both speeches, and this guy is full of it. He interprets Palin so as to be what she "really is" in his mind. They hate Palin, so it is 'truth' to say she is hateful, spiteful, angry, or responsible for the violence (directly or indirectly).

Two polls recently performed show that the VAST majority of the American public completely disagree with the left-wing punditry's wishful interpretation. They don't blame Palin, conservatives, Limbaugh, or anyone else except for the one deranged young man behind the trigger. But the SENSIBLE people don't have the megaphone. Instead, a tiny minority of the biased and spiteful are screaming their opinions in the hope that people will agree with them. Thankfully, that is not happening.

If I do something, like say, type "hate speech" into google, do you think I will find a more narrow definition? Is that google engaging in "hate speech"?

Normal people probably are more inclined to define hate speech as language that directly calls for or encourages acts of physical violence towards individuals or groups. They may find other forms of speech to be distasteful, insulting, or vile - but would not necessarily classify it as 'hate speech'.

Further, is hate speech some use of speech that is morally reprehensible? Should it be condemned? Or is condemnation of hate speech...also hate speech?

Calls for violence are morally reprehensible. I take your intent here to mean stuff like, "I hate minority group X" or "Group Y people are all stupid" and "gender Z should do what I say..." and that sort of thing. I.E. Words that offend people.

I believe in freedom. That means I believe in freedom of speech, even when I don't like it. My opinion is that political correctness, and other speech 'codes' are a form of soft censorship. I disagree with it, and reject it.

I believe that the nation is strengthened - not weakened - when opposing ideas collide in the marketplace of the national discourse. That means there is even room for people who believe things I find morally repugnant. I think any effort to stifle free speech - particularly one that seeks to specifically stifle only 'one side' - is misguided and destructive.

Should 'offensive speech' be condemned? Sure - by anyone and everyone who wants to condemn it. But regulated? Heck no, because what is deemed offensive or reprehensible is often a matter of personal opinion.

Sure he's a "wee bit" discontented at the current run of bankers on the economy, but mention Micheal Flately being from Chicago and it's "Fuck off!" Love it.

>> ^coolhund:

Religion is part of our world. Its even in our genes one way or the other (god gene). Thus its part of science.
You cant talk through ignorance. Just give it up with trying to explain these people that they believe in bullshit. You wouldnt listen to that either if someone came up and said science is bullshit, no matter if its true or not.


How is asking a question while admitting one's expected reaction to the reply trolling?

As expected, I got a good laugh out of this. Religion is part of our world, yes, just as astrology, witchcraft, alchemy and and other superstition-based activities are. That does not make them part of science. We can observe these phenomena, in anthropology, history, neurobiology, etc. but that does not necessarily make them a part of science. I think what you meant to say is "religion is a part of reality", which would be true (for now). So were human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, etc., for the better part of Humanity's existence. Lumping it all into science just because it exists or existed makes no sense.

As for the "god gene" business, that term is a vulgarisation (a misleading one imo) of the theory that humans are predisposed to superstitious belief. Not religion. Micheal Shermer and others make a point of explaining how this would have been beneficial to early survival (projecting agency, for example).

>> ^messenger:

Check the spelling on Michael Richards in the title.


CHECKED !

and my ability to not care less has never been more assisting.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'UHF, Micheal, RIchards, 80s, Fire, Hose, Comedy' to 'UHF, Michael, RIchards, 80s, Fire, Hose, Comedy' - edited by Sarzy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-xpJRwIA-Q, I mocked that up and its to short but I'd use that one above the sappy one, this is more happy dancy sort.

In reply to this comment by ant:
I had no problems with this music. Got an example of which music you would use?

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^ant:
>> ^BoneRemake:
I was EXTREMLY turned off by the music. WhIch is what I did with the volume.

Which music do you prefer then? Rap/Hip-hop? Heavy Metal? Ugh.

No I have a very eclectic music collection and liking, However with this video this music just goes way over the mushy feel good puff piece that it is, which is fine, its a good story. Although to put it bluntly the music makes it "gawdy" just way over the top and not fitting. Kind of a jack ass reply on your part though, so what If I where to like either of those mentioned more then I do this Micheal Bolton love fest music.

I had no problems with this music. Got an example of which music you would use?

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^ant:
>> ^BoneRemake:
I was EXTREMLY turned off by the music. WhIch is what I did with the volume.

Which music do you prefer then? Rap/Hip-hop? Heavy Metal? Ugh.

No I have a very eclectic music collection and liking, However with this video this music just goes way over the mushy feel good puff piece that it is, which is fine, its a good story. Although to put it bluntly the music makes it "gawdy" just way over the top and not fitting. Kind of a jack ass reply on your part though, so what If I where to like either of those mentioned more then I do this Micheal Bolton love fest music.

>> ^ant:
>> ^BoneRemake:
I was EXTREMLY turned off by the music. WhIch is what I did with the volume.

Which music do you prefer then? Rap/Hip-hop? Heavy Metal? Ugh.


No I have a very eclectic music collection and liking, However with this video this music just goes way over the mushy feel good puff piece that it is, which is fine, its a good story. Although to put it bluntly the music makes it "gawdy" just way over the top and not fitting. Kind of a jack ass reply on your part though, so what If I where to like either of those mentioned more then I do this Micheal Bolton love fest music.

Point? Since when has Mr. Doofus ever had a point? He's the guy that the Democrats allow to be their crazy, cat-throwing aunt. Most of the time they keep him locked up in the attic. But every once in a while they unlock his door and take off his muzzle so he can jibber jabber. Then they take his verbal diarrhea and spoon it around HufPo, DU, and other leftist house organs for the fringe kook dogs to lick for a while. That's his only function. He's a guy the leftists use to toss red meat when they think the fringe kooks need something to chew on.

So he pops up and reads a laundry list of the Bush Administration's many failures. Yawn. Old news. What he isn't so keen on doing is making a laundry list of Barak Obama's many failures and how they are as bad or worse than Bush's.

For example - I don't really see a whole lot of people getting on Obama's case for 'taking his sweet time' in dealing with Haiti. During Katrina, people whined about Bush's slow response before the Hurricane had even left New Orleans. But the fact was Federal relief was already moving before the storm even hit, and things only got really bad because of the stupidity and sluggishness of Nagin and Blanco (Democrats). Haiti is a horrible disaster and things down there are deteriorating rapidly. Relief has been slower getting there than it was for Katrina, and yet I don't hear Mr. Doofus blaming Obama for that. Why is is OK to blame Katrina's bad outcome on Bush, but Obama gets a pass for Haiti? One simple answer... Blatant, obvious, naked, politically motived BIAS.

So I'm not impressed when Mr. Doofus rattles off a series of liberal, left-wing bones he has to pick with the Bush administration. He gets no points for that. You know what would be impressive? If he rattled off the huge, massive, impressive list of failures in the Obama administration, and his own Congress. It is at that point he would deserve some props for having a pair, and would show he was a person with principles. This? This just proves he's one more in a long line of liberal, left-wing, Democrat party lapdogs.

Just like I'm not impressed when Micheal Steele rips Democrats. Yawn. Why not rip into your own party Mikey and get after them for being big-spending, government program loving special interest tools? The Democrat party is in the process of practically HANDING you the House and maybe even the Senate this year. Why aren't you prepping your party to do the right thing and cut federal spending by 50%?

Sweet, I'm excited. I haven't seen a 3-d movie since the Micheal Jackson thingy in Disney land all those years ago

In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
I saw Avatar last night. The 3D experience is simply incredible.

Good stuff. The guy who did Micheal Caine was spot on.