@newtboy,

Hate to single you out, but your missing most of poolcleaner's points by focusing exclusively on one. And your even doubling down on 'proving' the sentence you object to.

You first object by saying:
Atheists give theists much more respect than theists give us.

But then one sentence later:
Theists beliefs deserve no respect, neither do beliefs in Santa, Krampus, fairies, Lord Zenu, Ookie (my brother's imaginary friend), or any other belief in fantasy. You don't respect an inability to recognize reality.

And then your next post leads with:
Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?


It is EXACTLY your extremely vitriolic responses that poolcleaner was no doubt referencing in saying Atheists are often the worst for disrespecting the beliefs of others.

Read over the balance of comments above, particularly including Shinyblurry's unapologeticly evangelical one, and tell me which group's representative in this thread is showing the most contempt and disrespect for the beliefs of the 'other'?

Atheists give theists much more respect than theists give us. About 75%+ say being atheist makes a person untrustworthy and ineligible for public office, but an IQ of <80 doesn't.
Theists beliefs deserve no respect, neither do beliefs in Santa, Krampus, fairies, Lord Zenu, Ookie (my brother's imaginary friend), or any other belief in fantasy. You don't respect an inability to recognize reality.

EDIT: Also, theists are FAR MORE disrespectful of any other theists beliefs than atheists are. Atheists have never once started a religious war because 'they worship wrong'.

I have just laughed so hard that i was nearly sick at the "you look like you've got Whoopi Goldberg in a headlock."

Even though i've got no respect for twitter trolls, sometimes the insults are sublime.

Its called leading the nation. Obama did do that.

He is a pussy on the world stage. Line the sane -- nope he backed down,,
He also backing down to Putin.

Even North Korea call him “wicked black monkey” .

Obama and Dangerfield - No Respect.

His has failed on domestic and national policy.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

Kids these days...no respect for their Donald Trumps.

OMG...I was SOOOO hoping you would make that argument.
The 'blanket' minimum wage is the minimum we have decided that those living in the cheapest places to live should be paid. I agree, it should be based on cost of living...but the $15 an hour standard is what we've said should be the minimum in back woods Appalachia, and in larger cities it should be well over $20. Reduce the pay at the top to a reasonably high level and that won't cost most businesses another penny.

OK, bay area....you said ""those who choose to live there need to consider their income" ....ignoring the majority of people who are 'stuck' there without sufficient income; those who've lost financial stability, or those born there to poor parents who have never made any choice, and usually their parents who no longer have a choice to make at this point. They simply can't afford to move. The same goes for most low income people anywhere, they don't "choose" to live there, they don't have the luxury of a 'choice'. ...or are you lobbying for free moving and relocation services for the poor?

10 years ago, $15 an hour was not a living wage in many places, the bay area for one. I left there 20 years ago, and $15 an hour was pretty hard to live on as a single man sharing an apartment THEN, I can't imagine how it is now, especially for those with children.

No, you didn't say ONLY kids living at home have minimum wage jobs, but you did mention them as if they are a large percentage of minimum wage workers, and the group we should focus on, and implied that wages should be determined (at least in part) by THEIR needs. They are in fact the smallest group of minimum wage workers, and even they need more money to eventually move out.

Really? " those unwilling to put in the effort and gain the skill required to actually do a decent service to society." If you really believe a large percentage of people working for minimum wage are "unwilling to put in effort" to better themselves, I just don't know what to say. That's completely batshit insane, they work insanely hard for little compensation, with little respite, and absolutely no respect. Most are putting out more than a reasonable maximum effort just to go deeper into debt constantly, there is no amount of effort that makes more time to make more money to pay for training, or an amount of effort that makes tuition free. Also, who do you think will take over for them if they all put in the effort and gain the skill required to actually do a decent service to society"...(whatever the hell that insulting statement is supposed to mean besides implying they aren't decent or serving society today...by choice)?
What are you talking about "Complacency shouldn't be allowed to make life more difficult for all of us"? WHAT?!? OK, yes, so stop being so complacent about the horrendous way we treat those at the bottom of the financial system because that makes life more difficult for all of us by forcing those with 'more' (but not enough 'more' to avoid taxes) to pay higher taxes for welfare, prisons, policing, housing, etc....by making the nation more crime ridden because it's the only way to make a living for so many...by overtaxing our medical system because so many can't afford to be preemptive with their health and only accept medical help when it's at emergency stage...etc.

If the funds to raise the lowest wages don't come from the extravagant pay that goes to the top and are instead being transferred directly to consumers, yes, it's a vicious cycle. That's why you have to ALSO lower top compensation by law, like maybe tie it to the lowest paid worker in the company. That would stop inflation from being a feedback loop with wages.

New paved road and they already pissed and shit all over it. No respect.

"these are human beings and they're tweeting us. Do you have no respect for them?"

"No"

This. For the love of all that is holy, THIS.

The ability to be heard does not make you worth listening to.

What I mock are the institutionalized versions of spirituality...organized religions. They all have stories/mythos that, when looked at from outside, are simply silly and ridiculous...and I often oblige by ridiculing them. They are also all quite dangerous, easily abused and, IMO, a net drain on society/humanity. I did not ONLY mock religion though, there were many valid points expressed, but with too much snark for your taste.
That said, I will apologize for being rude, even though it was all in jest. While I have no respect for the ideas/stories I discussed, I was not trying to upset you. When you proselytize here, posting walls of scripture, it often gets my hackles up right away and I get snarky. Think of it as a balanced equation...when you add religious positive, it should be balanced with religious negative...religious respect/religious disrespect. I would think you would expect that reaction from many regular sifters by now. But wouldn't you say that's just how god made us? ;-)
Don't take it personally.
EDIT:...and keep in mind, if you're really secure about something, you can always joke about it.

As it feels a bit strange siding with the cop on this one, lemme stretch.

The dozens/hundreds of other cops who use unnecessary force will only contribute to situations where citizens have apparently little to no respect for the police in general - as appears to be the case here.

For my part, I would say this...
Often you at least SEEM to be defending bad behavior or bad cops. That's when I take issue. For instance, you just said it's fine for cops to 'bluff' or lie to gain compliance, or as an investigative tool. Many people, like me, would say that IS bad behavior, the kind only done by bad people/bad cops.
EDIT: When you clearly denounce bad cops and/or their actions, you often get an upvote from me.
I would suggest that you have inside knowledge of how it looks from your perspective, just as we have an 'inside knowledge' of how it looks from ours. We are sharing our perspectives with each other. Neither of us owns the 'truth'.

"Truth" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person...but you don't need to know the "truth" in order to not lie. -Mr. Newt Sr. (dad)

I must think you put me in the rabid cop hater set, but you would be wrong. (please see the 'tough cop does good' video I posted as proof) I don't even feel 'hatred' towards you at all (maybe frustration), I just often disagree strongly with your position. I simply WANT to hold cops to a higher standard and to feel it's proper to give them more respect, not a lower standard than ordinary citizens without authority, a standard which deserves and garners no respect. When too many cops are liars, thugs, thieves, and a vast majority of the rest are protectors of liars thugs and thieves, that's impossible for me and others to do. That hurts 'good cops' more than anyone, but please realize it's the bad cops that did it to you, and they are the one's to be blamed, we are simply reacting to them in understandable ways out of self preservation.
We are seeing that bad cops are less of an exception than previously thought. When we are getting 10+ new abuse videos a week, there's been an escalation in this 'bad behavior' or 'bad cops' that has yet to be addressed, and the only one's that can address it properly are other cops. My position has always been that the perpetrators of these abuses are a minority (I hope), but they are supported and protected by near the entirety of the force. Until that changes completely, you must understand you are in a close group that's looking worse and worse daily to the public you 'serve', and offering less and less benefit to us. If you look at it from that position, you will understand the frustration and anger you often receive here.

To me, if you believe you can lie (bluff, trick, obfuscate the truth, intentionally misdirect, whatever you wish to call the lie) to get evidence or compliance with your wishes, you are a liar. Period. If you do it once, you are a liar. If you do it often, you are a habitual liar. If you do it in court, you are a perjurer. Cops are caught lying in court all the time and rarely if ever see any consequence, certainly not one the public sees. To me, I think it's important that they should be prosecuted publicly to the fullest extent of the law EVERY time, because it's a dereliction of duty and an abuse of power that damages the entire force and to an extent, society (by damaging trust in authority), on top of the crime of perjury, and every time it happens 'good' cops get less and less respect and trust. If only good cops were as upset about it as we are, they (you?) would do something to change the culture and stop ANY abuse you might see, not excuse and explain it away.
Just my 2 cents.

Specifically, what 'references to deficiencies in your character and process' appear clear? I think you're reading into what I wrote, because I didn't mention your character, nor reference a 'process' that I know of (except a thought process of some people that believe disproven theories, like the one that claimed vaccines cause autism. If that's what you mean, be honest and say so clearly please, as you have indicated it is not the reason you are upset and that you have no clear position either way, leaving me with no explanation whatsoever).
I did re-read my post and response and can't tell what you're talking about. As I read it, it was a flat disputing of the content of the video, a question about why you found it inappropriate, and a request for clarity about your disjointed responses.
Yours however were clearly disrespectful ad hom attacks ("I have little to no respect to offer." and "I do, however, have a disdain for apparent character deficiencies") without adding to discourse or discussion of the content of the video, only rant about how nasty I am for saying it was BS (a position backed up by facts and data) or asking why you downvoted (apparently inappropriately, as you can't find an answer to "what's inappropriate or offensive")....but I'm the mean nasty guy referencing deficiencies in YOUR character and process? Huh?
I'm also unsure what you mean by "my opinion of you remains intact and as I would prefer it."...as you neglect to mention what that opinion is. The implication is that you have a low opinion of me, because you prefer it that way. Am I missing something?
I again note you have still not answered the original question that set you off, so I'll ask once again....What did you find offensive or inappropriate in my original post that caused you to downvote the comment? I'll add a second question....Why does that question make you apparently so angry and disrespectful? There was obviously something you found worthy of all this angst, but you still have not said what it was. PLEASE be clear and succinct if you care to answer.

It is with disappointment that I find your comments. ...belittling, condescending, and insulting. After the many comments privately exchanged up to this point that this one is not proffered so is indicative of a lack of respect I can only find interesting and telling.

As to the video, its merits or lack thereof and for the various opinions about same, it may be that in the fullness of time consensus will change...or not. As to my investment in the matter, I presently have none. To knee jerk, in your vernacular, comments or opinions garnered from snippets, headlines, media articles, predilection of personal beliefs,etc,. I have little to no respect to offer.

I do find the subject of this video interesting and have done enough research to find merit in further evaluation and a skeptical eye towards purported findings. But, that is neither here nor there. I posted it primarily for my own archival purposes fully expecting the reaction received with no concern about it. This practice will be repeated exercised if not often so. I will admit surprise at the development precipitating this exchange. Oh well.

I do not need to agree with others, as is often the case, to respect and even like and care for them. I do, however, have a disdain for apparent character deficiencies as is evidenced by behavior. Also, oh well. Neither do I suffer the defect of ego that I must defend a point of view or opinion or engage in any allied exercise of futility and certainly not in this environ as the honored civilized pursuit of intelligent discourse is so oft shunned in favor of banal, insipid and vitriolic attacks.

Enjoy and thank you for the many civil, kind and pleasant exchanges this one notwithstanding, of course.