2.5 million people coming out in Tehran is a beautiful thing. Please get rid of that theocracy.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Iran is living proof of my attitude towards religion, it is a theocratic dictatorship, and exactly what you'd expect when secularism is denied its rightful place. Islam, like Christianity, is explicitly totalitarian, whenever you hear the phrase "moderate", bear this in mind, what it means is "less religious" and "less in line with what your religion actually says". It means that reason and outside factors have eroded your religion, and not, as most moderates contend, that you are closer to the true meaning of your religion. If in doubt, simply open any "holy" book and simply read its message: submission, ignorance, thoughtcrime, a jealous, petty, unjust god on a mission to make you his slave, and rambling, powerhungry, sadistic middlemen like Moses or Muhammed acting as gods messengers on earth. Just like the theocratic bullies who are in charge in Iran right now.
My best wishes to the Iranian people.


Uh, no.

So-called theocracies that trample on people are what happens when leaders are corrupted by evil, not 'inspired' by God. They may cloak themselves as getting instructions from above, but that's clearly untrue and only makes their crimes worse, since they give you what you consider license to indulgent in flagrant attacks on what is actually a message of love and respect towards everyone - which sadly is trampled upon far too often by religious and secular types alike.

Religious Fundamentalism rears it's ugly head.

This man has more in common with the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan than a mainstream American. They want to impose their religious beliefs using government, too. Theocracy = fail fail fail. Religious Freedom (and by extension Freedom FROM religion) is a cornerstone to a strong democracy.

What an arrogant prick. He may as well be an accomplice. I'll upvote this terribly terrible person.

"The problem in the (middle east) region is not of theocracy but of autocracy." - Reza

This is such an important point that slips most analysis of the problems in the Middle East.

Howard reiterates something I've been saying for a while now - the moderate majority of the GOP is drowned out by louder, richer neo-conservative and right-wing extremist voices.

Social conservatism is turning into a platform pushing only state-sponsored hate - hate for sick, the poor, and the queer. The platform will continue to divide the GOP until the party is torn asunder. Moderates will continue to jump ship, re-register as Democrats or Libertarians, and eventually, the only base the GOP will have left are the under-educated, rurally-located peons that have been the backbone of all the worst, dirtiest, and most ethically-impaired political parties in history - your typical backwaters, gun-toting, cheap booze-swilling, hate-and-tobacco-spit-spewing hick, the type of person most easily swayed into voting against their best interests, the type who latch on to catchy expressions, no matter how patently false the statements may be, the type that can be manipulated and prodded into action and response far out of proportion to the given problem.

I also view Social conservatism as really just a backdoor to theocracy (let's see the anti-socialists bend their heads around that...). Every theocratic regime has always enforced a strict, socially conservative cultural and moral code. They have more in common with the "ter'rists" they purport to hate than they would like to publicly admit, and should rightfully be called out for it.

Tags for this video have been changed from '1986, freedom of speech, lyrics' to '1986, freedom of speech, lyrics, fascist theocracy' - edited by jwray

>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
he's not his usual disheveled self here...
many so-called intellectuals, such as chris hitchens, argue a case for anything that would serve them purpose, rather than being open to other possibilities. in this case it's how he slanders anyone that thinks september 11th may have had more to it than the official story lets on. just because there are some unfounded theories doesn't mean that they all are.. he takes his side and sticks with it because he's so blindly pro-american.


Actually I read his manner as simply having zero tolerance for ignorance and stupidity. He opposed the first gulf with equal fervor and conviction but was not so set on not changing his position that spending time with the Kurds changed his position. He's one of the only people in the world with strong opinions and the conviction to physically go over and see for himself if his beliefs are well founded. He tested his convictions on action/inaction against Saddam by spending time with the Kurdish people. He's founded his opinions on the theocracy in Iran by going there and spending time with the Ayatalloh's own grandson. He's even spent time in North Korea as a visiting professor to see first hand what things are like there. I do no think that just because he is dismissive of opinions he is certain are wrong makes it in any way wise to try and dismiss him just as lightly. The truth of the matter is in most cases he's better informed than his critics and has been open enough to change his position on both the handling of Saddam and waterboarding.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
It is a similar institution to a theocracy when "do gooders" take control of policies to archive their own moral prerogative. There is no difference between health care for all or prayer in schools in a absolute morality since. "Progressive" ideals are just that, personal ideals, and have no business in government as much as religious ones. We created this nation to escape moral tyranny only to create a new one.
There is no difference between the moral planning of any sort; be it religious or otherwise.


The hardest part is to realize that a person may think they are doing good, but in reality they may not be doing good.

I think it has something to do with proximity. The fact that this person may be surrounded by persons who say "YES THAT'S GOOD STUFF" to every thing this person in power does.

So in total: This hypothetical person may have no Idea what their good intentions are doing. Compound that with group think, and we have a damaging situation.

It is a similar institution to a theocracy when "do gooders" take control of policies to archive their own moral prerogative. There is no difference between health care for all or prayer in schools in a absolute morality since. "Progressive" ideals are just that, personal ideals, and have no business in government as much as religious ones. We created this nation to escape moral tyranny only to create a new one.

There is no difference between the moral planning of any sort; be it religious or otherwise.

>> ^smooman:
that's a bold statement mate. The majority eh? You sure its not just the "loudest" ones?

When I look at the passage of faith based propositions that essentially legislate Biblical bigotry, election of hate mongering Evangelicals that are amazingly unqualified for their position, etc., I can't help but conclude that either sensible people of faith do not speak out, or they are outnumbered by the lunatics.

and HollywoodBob, consider this: it can be stifling to try and assure a social group that your social group is trying to help when the rest of your social group hurts, offends, and turns away so many.
As a analogy that's a bit silly, If everyone hated McDonalds because their food wasn't that great and the service was awful and the staff was rude, how hard do you think it would be for that one McDonalds establishment with the good food, and friendly service, and staff that cared about the customers to get any kind of business?

I think this illustrates my point exactly. Others here seem to think that, to maintain the analogy, a single franchise is telling their patrons to eat shit and then serving it to them. They promote the "don't hate them all because a few are crazy, stupid and mean" mentality, but I just have difficulty following that line of thinking when I see far more of the crazy, stupid and mean believers, than I do the rational, intelligent and kind ones. And I am genuinely afraid that left unchecked, the lunatic believers will continue to gain power until we're left with in fascist Christian theocracy.

This may not mean much, but rest assured, there are many like me who commit our lives to rectifying the state that the Church is currently in and reconciling ourselves to the world around us.

To be honest it means a lot. I wish that I had more interaction with people like you, so that I'd have a better impression of the faithful. I know I come across as a total asshole when it comes to how I view people of faith, if I wanted to divulge my personal history, I'm sure you'd understand my vitriol. And believe me when I say that I'm not happy with how much I automatically dislike people because of their faith. But encountering a few nice people doesn't repair the damage done during a lifetime of dealing with scumbags. Maybe in another 35 years I'll have met enough people like you to tip the scales.

You realize the literal definition of "laissez-faire" means that you can do whatever the hell you want to make money?

It's an economic system that breeds corruption. It is impossible to eliminate *all* corruption in any governmental system, whether democratic, communist, theocracy, monarchy, or dictatorship. It just happens to be that a democratic socialist state based on a moderately regulated capitalist system - if history is any indication - minimizes corruption.

*long


>> ^gwiz665:
"We tried it" Buzz, no.
This is not a problem with the free market, laissez-faire or not, it's a failure of corruption.

>> ^peggedbea:
1) americans dont even realize the canadians are there.
2) they WANT their theocracy damnit
3) all of the socially conservative religious zealots i know feel that the talibans socially conservative religious zealotness is a good reason to go to war, to liberate, to spread democracy. do all zealots lack a sense of irony?


The South used to want slaves. Some cultures still do. Some cultures want cannibalism. Where should the line be drawn? When should outside influences intervene? Isn't that what this is all about?

1) americans dont even realize the canadians are there.
2) they WANT their theocracy damnit
3) all of the socially conservative religious zealots i know feel that the talibans socially conservative religious zealotness is a good reason to go to war, to liberate, to spread democracy. do all zealots lack a sense of irony?

>> ^RedSky:


I have to agree on your first point, PEPFAR did a lot of good, and it's probably the most common thing people put forward when asked "what did Bush do right?" Still, the point Olbermann makes about not funding groups who promote condom use goes to show how petty Bush can be, even when he's doing something that's working out well.

The Muslim theocracy in Lebanon is referring to the elections Bush pushed for that resulted in a big, legitimizing win for Hezbollah -- something Bush's own advisers had predicted. You can argue that maybe other courses of action might have had the same outcome or worse, but you can't argue that giving Hezbollah legitimate influence over a country's government is anything but a lost battle in this "war on terror" he's so fond of.

As for the Mumbai bombings, and Benazir Bhutto's assasination, they're outgrowths of a policy towards Pakistan that involved simply trusting Musharraf, and giving him buckets of aid with little to no accountability. Instead, all we ever hear is "Pakistan is on our side, Iraq is the main battlefront on the War on Terror." Looking for bin Laden in Waziristan is off the table.

You have a point about North Korea being a global failing, but they were trending towards dismantling their nuclear program during Clinton's diplomatic efforts. Bush stormed in with his "we don't talk to bad guys" policy, dismantled the talks, and North Korea responded by reverting to their old ways. They were left unchecked (again, Iraq was to be our main/only focus) until they were able to build a nuclear weapon.

As for the one-sided nature of Olbermann, there's not much to argue there other than to say "they started it first." Are Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly some sort of multifaceted objective political commentary? I don't want MSNBC to become the left's Fox News, but I think the media environment can tolerate one Olbermann, and many Maddow-like personalities, for there to at least be two sides doing the whole spin-as-news shtick.

If it were me, I'd love for the media to give believably objective reporting of current events, facts, and history, but all of the outlets that try to do so are either a) struggling to "prove" their objectivity by trying to show that both parties have equal responsibility for all failures or b) are flagged by people as being left-leaning because objectively speaking, Republicans haven't gotten anything right in quite a while.

We'll see how long people keep accusing, say, PBS or the NYT of being "liberal" now that Democrats are in power. I suspect even HuffPo and TPM will get credit for doing fact-based reporting, now that Democrats are in the driver's seat. After all, the "liberal" press loves to attack authority, no matter who they are. "Conservative" press will keep doing what it's been doing; smear Democrats at all times, praise conservative Republicans at all times, and frame all failures as a direct outgrowth of failure to adhere to conservative principles, or failure to pursue them drastically enough.

How about religion sticks to its churches and private worship and stay out of public policy and schools.

There is a war being waged by religions to worm their way back into US politics to make it more like a theocracy. Religious people have gotten all sorts of public funds (like from the prison system).

So, how about if you are religious you take your pompous pious knowledge from the 1st century and leave it the hell out of schools and any governance and then atheists can go back to ignoring you as harmless kooks, instead of maliciously dangerous lunatics hellbent on dragging everyone down with their particular brand of righteous knowledge.