>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Corporatist idiots.


Speaking of corporatists, why is it he seems to get left out of the debate when the corporate media covers the primaries? Obama gets plenty of attention from the corporate media, and so do the neocons and dominionists from the GOP.

For example, this article just came out yesterday. Ron Paul polled in 2nd place, but the headline reads: "Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth". Looks like the big corporatists are afraid of Paul yet love them some Obama. They practically pitched Obama into the White House like a softball to the voter's.

Although I love seeing Bachmann squirm, I don't perceive Jay being a champion here.

Don't for a second think he said what he said without running it thru some kind of demographic/ratings analysis. It was totally softball, which makes CrazyEyes2011™ look even more pathetic by comparison.
Cue "conservative" backlash against the Tonight Show and a written statement from NBC apologizing like the dickless, sycophantic bastards all major network execs are.

>> ^quantumushroom:

A perfect example of why this man cannot be President. Does he really think of the Iranian government (militant nutball-run theocracy) as merely the shortest kid on the softball team, intimidated because everyone else is taller? The kookiness is mixed in with the common sensical good things he says like rat droppings in rice.


TBH, as long as they just nuke their neighbors, who cares! We could sell the glass and solve the energy crisis.

A perfect example of why this man cannot be President. Does he really think of the Iranian government (militant nutball-run theocracy) as merely the shortest kid on the softball team, intimidated because everyone else is taller? The kookiness is mixed in with the common sensical good things he says like rat droppings in rice.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by gwiz665.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Re-cut-Talkin-Softball-song-from-classic-SIMPSONS-episode

Damn you oldies and your "memory"
>> ^Stingray:

http://videosift.com/video/Re-cut-Talkin-Softball-song-fro
m-classic-SIMPSONS-episode

http://videosift.com/video/Re-cut-Talkin-Softball-song-from-classic-SIMPSONS-episode

Gee, why still all the interest in that 'dummy' Palin? Is the left desperate to topple this threat to their power? I don't recall any of these "journalists" poring over Obama's emails, stalking his friends, spying on his home, researching his "church", college and early years. Fraud Edwards got the same softball treatment when he ran in '04.

What a weak arse, softball interview. How about that these leaks will force governments to act more ethically, since the more reprehensible their activities undertaken in our names, the more likely it is that a conscientious staffer will want to blow the whistle?

There was more in the cables released at the time than simply how much of a dickhead any given head of state is.

The only pointed question she asked was about how ethical it was for Hillary Clinton to order diplomats to gather personal information on foreign dignitaries. For Brzezinski's assertion that this was nothing illegal to go unchallenged is absolutely astounding. Her only concern seemed to be that 'on balance' this would effect diplomatic relations.

The deference to power on displayed here is palpable.

>> ^legacy0100:

LOL I wish they would do this every game! I would totally pay to watch it, as long as I don't have to watch any baseball!


Ditto. Baseball/Softball makes me sleep.

http://videosift.com/talk/Letter-From-Senator-Tommy-Banks-to-Stephen-Harper>> ^ghark:

So how much better are the Harper alternatives?

All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers

Jewish ethical philosophy was existant before the Mycenaean age, let alone the Classical or Hellenistic. Christ was Jewish, and there is no record of him receiving secret ethical training from Greek philosophers. This statement is absurd prima facie.

But – as I said before – I never claimed that religions (the organizations) were perfect or ideal. I merely stated that they provide ethical training to people in an organized fashion, and that is beneficial to the concept of “making better people”. I even predicted your hostility (or at least its potential) because I know there are those who are hostile towards “churches” for a variety of reasons.

communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved

No one is saying that religion is the sole originator of societal good. I merely stated it is AN important source of societal good and should be fostered rather than treated with hostility. Or if “fostered” is impossible for some to whom religion is not acceptable, then it should at least be treated with deference rather than anger.

Of course there are lots of places people can do good things. However, it must be said that churches have one of the most organized and systematic approaches. For example - let’s say you volunteer at a soup kitchen. Cool – you’re ‘doing good’. But in what way does a soup kitchen train you to understand WHY you’re doing something? You are pouring soup. A monkey could do that. Just as important is the moral philosophy behind why you’re doing it. You do not get that sort of training from soup kitchens, book clubs, softball league, art house, chat groups, or even most actual charities. I participate in a lot of state & municipal groups, and not once have I ever received “moral training”. But every Sunday in church I get some.

Again – I’m not trying to tell you such things are not possible. Of course they are. However, church is just one of those places where “morality” is taught as a matter of necessity rather than as an incidental suggestion or inference. Isn’t that something we should be supporting rather than attacking?

You cannot speak for all churches no matter how much you would like to.

If you go around the country and eat at a bunch of diners, you are then able to report certain facts about them without claiming that you are “speaking for all diners”. And thus it is here. You’re complaining about something that doesn’t matter here.

Their point is not to make people moral, it is to teach their religion.

I’ve been in a lot of them, and I’d say your characterization is inaccurate. I would say that their first objective is teach a morality system, and that their second objective is to obtain converts to THEIR specific organization.

The first thing that happens when I sit down in any particular denomination is I get a belly-full of moral instruction. They talk about faith, good works, Christ, love, sacrifice, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan, and that sort of thing. If you keep showing up at their building, then they will start inquiring about whether or not you are a ‘member’ of their denomination. It is at THIS point that people like yourself & Enoch start parting ways with them.

And it is true that a lot of religions place more importance on being a ‘member’ than on learning the morality. Which is really too bad. I don’t disagree that this kind of “join us” pressure is distasteful. Ideally, religions would do nothing more than teach their morality beliefs and “invite” those who wish to join them at their own pleasure. Quite a lot of them do this. But there are those who are much more insistent, and it is a bad thing. Totally on your page in that regard. But I disagree when you say that their only purpose is to push a specific denomination. I’ve seen dozens of churches that have sermons, help people, teach gospel – and ask nothing in return.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the purpose of a church and acting like the unquestioning following of a supposed supernatural entity isn't the entire point of the organization.

I disagree with your opinion that the purpose of a church is to foster unquestioning belief because I’ve seen otherwise. Many good religions encourage seeking and questioning – so your premise here is false.

This is a straw man that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

No, it’s a great example that has everything to do with what you’re saying. You just don’t like how effective it is, which is why you entirely ignored the substance of the argument.

Religion isn't needed for people to do good.

Of course not. I never said so. But religion does lead people to do good things. Even if you don’t agree with “religion”, isn’t that beneficial? Why stop it?

And in what way am I hassling you or your religion?

I didn’t say you were. If you’re feeling guilty on this point, then it is entirely from your own conscience that this is originating.

You brought it up and suggested that everyone should be religious

No. I never said that. Again, you’re using absolutes to imply meaning that does not exist. All I said is that churches teach morality, and that morality instruction is what a lot of people above said was necessary to “make better people”. I went on to suggest that such a thing should be encouraged, rather than treated with hostility. And I also predicted that some people would react hostilely to the suggestion. As usual, I was 100% correct. It is a burden to me sometimes to be so prescient, but such is my lot.

the questions asked were useless self-propagandist softballs. This man has represented credit card companies his whole senatorial life..

>> ^quantumushroom:

For fencing stolen information and releasing classified documents which harmed the US military and diplomatic relations, Assange should be considered another foreign enemy, just like bin laden.


Giving away something free now equals fencing? Lol.

Assange is not a US citizen, so he could give a fuck about 'classified'...

As for the bin Laden comment, your government has been incapable of catching the guy that orchestrated the biggest mass murder on US soil. It's understandable why they'd go after a softball like a journalist instead. Gotta make sure the right wing racist morons have someone to cheer for... ; )