If men of GOD trip and fall, they're usually landing penis first in other men or children.
I loathe gay clergy not for staying in their closet of self-hatred, I loathe them for actively speaking out against their own nature and therefore making it harder for those who chose not to be liars.
I chose to discard the bible because of the immoral, unethical, cruel and simply made up stuff that's written in it. That should be reason enough.
I detest christian churches for supporting pedophilia and actively covering up pedophile's crimes while having the gall to tell me what I should or should not do sexually. I detest them for claiming the authority to make up rules of morality when they refuse to obey the rule of law and human decency. The Duggars are just a recent example of that.
The reason society won't allow sexual relationships with children is simply because we recognise that children aren't able to make informed choices regarding sexual consent. That's why the world frowned on Courtney Stodden and Doug Hutchinson, because everyone knew it was a shitty idea made by weird, creepy people.
Consent is something grown ups can give. And millions of gay men do it all the time, without your approval or not. All they want is equal treatment.
If pedophiles wanted that (and they did try in the past), we tell them to go fuck themselves because the people they want to, are simply too young to make that choice. There's a legal limit for drinking, driving and fucking and it's there for a reason.
If they claim "I was born this way!", which they often are, we tell them we have therapies for that. They don't go there because their sexuality is weird, out of the norm or gross, it's because it always hurts the other people involved. Always.

You are the one ranting "But what if you take away the rule book?! Goats will rape our children!" You seem to be the one worried that all goes Mad Max if we're not threatened with eternal damnation anymore.
I for one are not worried any place turns into Sodom and Gomorrah. You want to know why? Because I have all those gay, lesbian and transgender people to remind me that everybody deserves respect. They can walk up to me and start a conversation and don't have to worry I will yell "Abomination!" and start throwing my own poop.
Maybe I can learn something from their expirience. Maybe even somebody like you could. I hope somebody you truly love turns out to be gay, it would be quite educational for you to know what they know.
And you're right, I don't know anybody called Jack. I can only offer a Johannes but he was an idiot.

Many people seem confused about our government's origins.
Wiki- Treaty Of Tripoli-unanimously ratified by congress and President John Adams 1797
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The constitution and bill of rights were based on English Common Law, which existed long before the Romans brought the idea of Christianity to England....so if people insist our laws are based on religion, remind them the religion in power where/when they came from was Pagan religion, and they should be worshiping Odin.

I didn't say they were killing millions, I said they were trained to kill...

US police conflict resolution is at the point of a gun as the first step. Most other countries where a reasonable rule of law exists teach conflict resolution prior to drawing weapons on people.

APC's, body armour, fully automatic weapons etc are not the tools of a police force, they are the tools of an army, but somehow small towns now feature APC's and heavily armed under trained SWAT or tactical response forces. Even US military personal have made the comment, all of the equipment, none of the training or discipline. If you are armed to the teeth and taught to shoot first/ask questions later, it's no surprises that your death by cops tally is so high...

For example, total Australian police shootings in the period 2008-2011 (for a population of 25 odd million or 1/13th of the US) came to /drumroll .... 14

And 7 deaths in Victoria over that time raised eyebrows.

http://theconversation.com/shoot-to-kill-the-use-of-lethal-force-by-police-in-australia-34578

US police, on the other hand, eclipse that total every single year, often by more than the per capita average (often by much more than the per capita average).

2015 (total: 150)
2014 (total: 625)
2013 (total: 342)
2012 (total: 611)
2011 (total: 165)
2010 (total: 227)
2009 (total: 63)

And it's just amazing in how many of those cases, the words "cleared of wrong doing by the district attorney, city paid out to a civil trial for wrongful death" appear. Or "shot while running away", "shot while unarmed" etc.

And to be absolutely clear, I have nothing but respect for most of the people that choose to bear that duty, but they are being trained to go to the gun first and foremost. If that is the first and last tool to resolve conflict, it's no wonder there are so many deaths...

How fucking broken does the police force need to be for this to happen to an elderly, skinny man? HOW FUCKING BROKEN?!

The police are not there to give out punishment. They are there to bring the guilty before the courts. They have certain powers to issue tickets, but beyond that it is not their place to decide if someone is to be punished or not. That's the court's job.

Even if they had watched the guy do something illegal, if they have hold of him and he is no threat to them there is no reason, at all, for them to use any force beyond what is necessary to get him before the courts. None. This guy was no threat at all physically. Even if he was swearing and abusive, even if he called the officer's mother a whore, or his kids fucking retards it doesn't matter. The police should be above that. They should record it, make sure there's evidence of it and bring him, safely and with as little force as necessary before a judge.

At what point did America hand over the rule of law to the police? At what point did they make it OK for the police to dole out physical punishment? Even if the guy had done something illegal they can't just choose to hurt him.

The fact that not only had they not seen him doing anything wrong, and the call to them didn't allege any crime, just a suspicious person, and that person turned out to be a skinny Indian granddad who had done nothing wrong and posed no threat at all and the TRAINING OFFICER felt it was OK for him to throw the man to the ground shows the system is completely and utterly broken.

I hope this guy gets the book thrown at him. I hope his life is fucked. I hope this piece of shit goes to prison and gets his fucking ring torn to fucking shreds.

But most of all I hope that that isn't seen as and end to it. I hope that cases like this will lead to real reform of the police service in America because it fucking needs it. I've heard the 'few bad apples' bullshit and it's bollox. This guy did an appalling thing, right out in the open. He clearly believes that it's OK and that he won't get in trouble for it. We can all speculate as to what would happen with this case if there hadn't been video footage of it, and you can believe they'd still be prosecuting if you like. Good for you, you fucking idiot.

All police need to be held to account all the time. they need to be wearing cameras, and there needs to be strong sanctions against those officers who's cameras just happen to have been left off, or keep breaking or whatever else they come up with.

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

my comment was pointed directly at the government,corporations do not create laws.

since you acknowledge the perversion of the rule of law i can only assume you are referring to an idealized memory of said rule,which no longer exists in reality.

so when i read your answer to the question "which side are you on"? it comes across as "the idealized version from beginning of our country".
which,according to your own commentary is pure fiction...it has been perverted.

i actually agree with the tenor and flavor of your comment,i just dont understand choosing a fantasy side when this video draws a pretty clear line in the sand.

this video really touches me for that very reason.incredibly powerful,yet simple message.i love how dolan uses depression era union organizing folk music to accompany his ridicule and disdain for the fake and ineffectual person who thinks wearing a t-shirt or colored ribbon is somehow helping the plight of the common man.that it is time to choose sides.

my jesus reference was not intended to shock or offend,but rather point out a hypocrisy i am encountering daily,and with increasing frequency.jesus walked with the oppressed,the disenfranchised and the abandoned.his ministries were directed at these pockets of humanity.he was an insurrectionist,a radical and a dissident.he was always on the side of the powerless.

so how i look at it,to choose the "other" side is to choose an ever-increasing authoritarian powered elite that is systematically stripping you of the very ideals you propose to support.the very power structure that robs and steals your grandkids future,commodifies human beings and criminalizes the poor.

or a more apt analogy:you have chosen the plantation owner and the slave master.

which is why my reaction is a visceral one.

my faith has always dictated my politics,and i cannot,in good conscious,choose a side that seeks to crush my fellow man for its own continued:greed,luxury,social status,political influence and social relevance.

the price they demand is too high.
it is time to choose sides.

as for being vulgar piece of trash..yeah..i dont see it.
maybe the music is not your thing or the video production value is low,but "vulgar piece of trash"?

sorry man..just dont see how this music video can be placed in that category.

You point the finger at wall street when you government is at fault.
The rule of law have been perverted year over year since the beginning and been sliding ever so fast the last 100 years.

Vote for Joe lunch bucket next time time around, Forget Hillery and any of the mainstream Republicans. That are all puppets.

But the people are more concerned for their single issue than the betterment of America. Corporations are no different but they have the $ to hedge their best by playing both sides.


And yes the video is still a vulgar pile of trash.

rule of law?
really?
you mean the law that ignores the lying liars on wall street?
the law that criminalizes the poor?
you mean THAT law?
a criminalized elite that legislates laws that benefit them and their cronies while crushing the working class.
wrong side bob.
thats ok..seems @ant agrees with you.

i find it hypocrisy of the highest order those who claim to be christian and follow the teachings of jesus,who will abandon his teachings when it becomes uncomfortable and inconvenient.

nevermind that many of the laws and rights you so enjoy nowadays were hard won by the sacrifices,and sometimes deaths of those who think and feel exactly as this video portrays.

hypocrites......the lot of ya.

I'm on the side for the Rule of Law which is not anywhere in this trash.

As you wrote " As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy" shows your lack of understanding of political systems.

You can 100% government control on 1 side and 0 government power at the other end

At the 100% you would have labels such as Communism
Socialism,Fascism and such. At 0 would be Anarchy


Our government is in the middle but sliding towards more and more government control and morphing into some for of Oligarchy by buying votes via socialist programs promised by the left.
Then the pudendum swing back and the republicans buy votes by promising to "undue" what the left has done.

Either way the people loose because nothing get totally undone. More and more government control ensues.



1 Yes I would like there to be ZERO dollars donations by corporations and people. Since the government owns public airways and grants them via FCC, hence ABC, CBS, NBC etc let these station allot public time for equal debate for ALL parties and persons. TAKE the money out of politics.

2 I do agree what you indicated by the Republicans and did this week was reprehensible. A passing a trillion + bill and and worse the extra "shit" to help banks and such. But to be fair to republicans , Democrats over screw corporations and republicans attempt to unscrew them.

3 school lunches - Government should not be in regulating school lunch- it should be a local thing. Republicans are just undoing Michelle Obama failed school lunch program. Just more finger pointing points for bloggers to use.

4 Federal government controls the laws in DC Its their little kingdom. They can re ban pot all day long.

Generally speaking there are 5 types of government:
Monarchy - rule by one - never truly exits
Oligarchy - ruled by few - most governments today
Democracy- rule by majority - Majority rule is a failed system.
Republic- rule by law - Law limits Government powers
Anarchy - every man for himself- Always short lived due to power vacuum.


You say " America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism" Well they are basically neighbors in the political spectrum which would be some form of Oligarchy. Neither necessary serve the people freely.


Both Democrats and Republicans are sliding headlong towards Oligarchy. One party is just trying to get there quicker than the other party.


Both parities have utterly failed its people. There is only 1 party that desires to steer this country back towards a Republic and that is the TEA party. They get stronger and stronger every time their party fail its constituents. Were not all right wing lynching nuts. That's just a myth promoted by left wing media to color you thinking to stay on the Democrat plantation.
Truth of the matter is that four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents. Go to a rally and see for you self.

you had me until "i am glad the kid is dead".

you appear to be fighting a battle based on dissimilar distinctions.
you point out (rightly in my opinion) that there is evidence mike brown went for officer wilsons gun.while there is contradictory eye-witness accounts in that regard,if it had proven true,wilson would have been justified.

but...

this has zero to do with the evidence presented in this video.
which is exactly what people here on this thread have been trying to point out to you and you keep ignoring.either willingly or otherwise.

i do not understand conservatives such as yourself.you seem to adore the rule of law,but only when it is subservient to your own prejudices.

so let us break this down a bit.
if it were proven in a court of law that mike brown DID go for officer wilsons gun (which is possible).then under the current federal law wilson would be justified in this particular shooting.

then WHY did the D.A and A.D.A so obviously manipulate the grand jury?
why did they sabotage their OWN grand jury?
there are only two possibilities:
both the D.A and A.D.A are a level of epic incompetence,as to justify an immediate termination,OR their malfeasance,manipulations and LYING were intentional.

they never truly sought and indictment but rather a no-indict.which is a perversion of the system and goes against the basic principles of due process,equality and justice.

and now we will never know and neither do you bob.
this will never see the inside of a court and the rule of law has been raped by these two district attorneys.

so you can armchair lawyer all you like.it is meaningless in a system that has been so thoroughly corrupted and you cheer like a 12 yr old tween at a beiber concert.

glad someone is dead?
you should feel shame not pride.
a boy is dead and the system has been perverted.

there is nothing to be proud of...nothing.

The most fucked up thing here is that, probably, no one familiar with the US Justice system would bat an eye thinking it was fake (it's not fake, it's just so insane that most *sane* people would question such a ridiculous scenario).

How can we make the rule of law also fair? It's so self-defeating.

No nation would want law to be horribly alienating to the majority of the populace, but in making it so based in logic (which I completely agree with, with our current situation being the only example I don't), it becomes such a nuanced system it defeats the purpose of equality in court.

I both agree and disagree.
Cops should try do de-escalate when possible, but also should not allow felonies to continue unabated and/or felons to just walk away from the violent crimes they just committed in front of officers, as they did.

Like you said, if Wesley Snipes had called out the crips and bloods (not to be racist, it's an extreme example) to protect his right to not pay taxes, the cops would almost certainly NOT have 'backed off'...I would like equal treatment across the board. They didn't back down in Waco, or Boston, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq....why start now to 'save lives', especially the lives of admitted traitors to the USA? (if you proclaim your readiness and willingness to fight an armed battle against the federal government that you publicly denounce, and ask others to join your armed insurgency, you ARE a traitor to the USA, period, in my opinion...look up "the whiskey rebellion" for historical context.)
EDIT: I think they should have called the national guard to restore order, since the local officers were so outmatched. A couple of heavy armored vehicles and a few hundred machine guns and/or a few attack helicopters buzzing about would have made them think twice about advancing, unlike the smattering of officers with pistols that backed away and allowed the theft (and killing) of confiscated cattle.

Some human lives need to end. :-) In this situation it's not about putting one person away, it's about upholding the rule of law, which is being publicly broken not only by one jackhole, but by all the armed 'terrorists' that have proclaimed 'war' on the federal government with him, and therefore on the USA.

It does 'blow a hole' in that 'tyrannical state' argument, but that argument was so full of holes to begin with it didn't need another to prove it wrong. He doesn't even believe in the federal 'state', so how can it be tyrannical? :-)

I'm also certain this isn't over, the first time he or his wife go to town without their private army they'll likely be going to the pokey. I also assume their accounts have been frozen (I hope so anyway) and the title to their family land has a federal lien on it. I also hope all federal welfare support for his family has dried up, along with his mail service and any other federal program(s) they take advantage of. He has no right to federal services, he's a tax cheat and felon.

I'm trying to point out the dilemma posed by stateless criminals operating in parts of the world where they are not liable or accountable to anybody. They are not within your own borders, so domestic law and order can't reach them. They are not operating within an extradition country, so that is out too. They in truth are not operating in a region where any country can bring it's own rule of law to bear on them, so even a declaration of war on Pakistan or Yemen doesn't really even fit.

When criminals operate from these regions, demands they be treated like a regular suburbanite, with a reading of Miranda rights before a bail hearing and formal trial including a state funded defends attorney is ludicrous. Acting like that extreme is mandatory is akin to rejecting the real world and demanding we all just pretend hard in some fictional world that is possible. I'm not advocating unlimited executive powers, I'm just observing that stateless criminals can NOT be dealt with through the same channels as domestic thugs.

Wow. Interesting discussion going on here, and I say "interesting" because there's a lot of conflict between people who share the same vision of what society should be, but place blame for the reasons why it's not (in the context of this video) in completely different pieces from one another.
I've never posted to a thread this long before because I assume that it will get lost in the shuffle/argument/whatever, but I wanted to share how I broke the scene down and what I gathered from the video.
The fundamental problem here, which is subjective so I understand if someone doesn't agree, is that:
"most people" would not be comfortable walking down the street in this neighborhood.
"Most people" want safety, or more specifically; as much of a chance to not fear for their lives while existing.
What would remedy this? The hard rule of law? Or let it pan out as-is. The former has never stopped me from an action that society might not agree with. I don't run people over or shoot guns into the air because I believe in not hurting others, and both those actions either do, or have a decent chance to.
On the other hand, I really believe this is one step removed from a war-zone. Not to mistakenly define this scenario as a binary gradient between order or chaos, but if one group of friends became violently entangled with another group of friends, that's exactly what would result: armed, faction opposition.
Most people seem to argue over the solutions we know of, rather than the problems that exist, but it seems to me that none of those are working.
So I guess my question is: how would you make these neighborhoods "safe" for non-violent people to live in that isn't attributed to some form of government?