@chilaxe, I never know if you are serious or trolling, but since you admire Cain so much, perhaps it would interest you to know that you would also consider his parents low class and not well educated, who worked 'cognitively simplistic' jobs:

Herman Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, to Lenora Davis Cain, a cleaning woman and domestic worker, and Luther Cain, Jr., who was raised on a farm and worked as a barber and janitor, as well as a chauffeur for Coca-Cola Company president Robert W. Woodruff. Cain has said that as he was growing up, his family was "poor but happy." Cain related that his mother taught him about her belief that "success was not a function of what you start out with materially, but what you start out with spiritually". His father worked three jobs to own his own home — something he achieved during Cain's childhood — and to see his two sons graduate.

Also, the uploader is obviously in the Air Force, so he must have at least graduated from high school.

"You know, we're just better than people that don't live in The City." -- That's the most common one from New Yorkers that I know.

Oh, oh. And "Minnesota/Ohio/Wisconsin/Iowa/Kentucky/Indiana/Louisiana/Tennessee/Kansas/Idaho/Missouri? Is that near Chicago?"

>> ^shinyblurry:

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.
But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.
Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins
The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.
Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?
Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."
Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156
"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"
Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J. & Weldon J. , "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.

>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?


Needs more quotes. But I guess that's what religion is all about, rely on things someone said before you and not think for yourself.

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.

It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.

Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins

The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.

Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge

Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."

Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"

Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.



>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

These are laughable. Universal education is a failure?! Uhh, on what planet? Despite the enormous problems universal education faces today in the US, it's a hell of a lot better than the last time we left education up to the private sector only. It also put the US on the road towards becoming an economic and military superpower. Social Security has been a failure? How exactly?! The US was not an economic superpower until AFTER SSI began, and amazing, we've been a superpower ever since. Not that SSI caused our ascendance, but it clearly didn't hurt at all. The Post Office is a failure?! A few money issues doesn't change the fact that the post office still delivers mail to anywhere in the US for a nominal charge.

Now, and here's the most laughable thing I've seen WP say yet. That everywhere there's socialism, there's cronyism, corruption, poor standards of living, and routinely oppress people. Uhh, dude, we're more capitalist than virtually every European country, and you're saying there's no cronyism, corruption, standards of living are good for everyone in the US, and we oppress people less than France, Britain, or Germany?! Completely laughable.

And do you know how many failed, corrupt mainly market economies there have been?! Do you understand that the US has suffered two massive recessions (1929 & 2008) after structuring itself missing very basic regulation required along with proper enforcement, right? Oh, of course you don't. Somehow, socialist agendas somehow caused each.

For every Switzerland there's a bad socialist economy. Ok, how about this? Name a single thriving economy that isn't a mixed economy.

Socialist agendas are not aimed at creating bureaucracies for the sake of bureaucracies, and advocates are not selfish. I'm a pragmatist who favors what works. I know for example a well run public education system and wide access to normal people for college educations (first introduced to average Americans en masse in the GI Bill) radically changed society for the better. It's absurd to even argue against that. The US's rise to global superpower came as generations began being generally educated. I know the Tennessee Valley Authority, a New Deal program, laid the foundation to industrialize that region of the US, which helped to produce war material to win WWII, improve the quality of life for people in that region with wide availability of electricity, and lots of jobs. It was originally one of those evil gov't socialist programs you so despise.

We can fix public education without privatizing it, btw. Across the US, there are shining examples of top notch schools that are public schools that outperform private schools, even though private schools get their proverbial pick of the litter. Across the US, there are lots of examples of bad private schools. I went to a public school, and here I am, on my second successful career, intelligent, thoughtful, and in demand by employers. I attended a public university, and I don't regret it at all.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Socialized medicine…only failing because of a lack of funding
Oh of course. Socialism never fails. Instead, socialism just doesn’t have enough money. Just keep on pouring taxes into the meat grinder, and finally socialized (whatever) creates the perfect sausages… Except it never does. War on Poverty. Great Society. Socialized Medicine. Universal Education. Social Security. Post Office. Shoot – take it all the way down to Food Stamps. No socialist program ever has ‘enough money’.
Social medicine fails because socialism is not designed to help people. Socialized systems are designed 100% to create large bureaucracies, which in turn exist only to self-perpetuate in the form of increasing year-over-year budgets. Helping people actually decreases a program’s budget-line, so they work to deny services (or waste them) as aggressively as possible so they can use it as leverage to lobby the government for more money and power. That’s the reason why the UK system (or any socialist program) routinely denies more and more ‘care’, while at the same time costing more and more money.
Guys like BS Bill brag about how wonderful socialist systems are. They ignore the reality. Socialist nations are rife with cronyism, corruption, poor standards of living, and regularly oppress their people. Socialist governments are the perpetrators of the worst tragedies of all human history. Historically, for every Switzerland there are a hundred North Koreas. Even the modern Euro socialist lite nations only work because they have capitalist wealth-creation engines to support (barely) their corrupt and inefficient socialist programs. The US is not failing because it is too capitalist and giving too much to the rich. It is failing because heavily socialized programs are doing what they always do… Collapsing because of internal corruption.
At its heart – socialism is nothing more than laziness and selfishness. People see a problem in society. They feel bad. They think, “Gee – someone should do something…” At that point you have a couple choices. 1. Be a capitalist and solve the problem yourself. 2. Be a socialist and vote for someone who PROMISES to solve the problem for you. That’s the trick of socialism. It preys on people who are well-intentioned, but who are also selfish, lazy, and a bit stupid. Socialists want to ‘help’, but are too selfish and lazy to actually do something about the problems they see. Therefore they become stupid and fervidly believe any liar (like Obama) who says they will solve the problem for them using taxes. It is stupid because there is no evidence that taxes EVER solve social problems.
Examples of lies that socialists believe…
“Aw – you feel bad when there are poor people… Vote for me and I’ll create The Great Society and eliminate poverty!”
“Aw – you feel bad about people who have medical needs… Vote for me and I’ll tax the ‘rich’ so you don’t have to pay for your medical expenses!”
“Aw – you get sad when you see pictures of polar bears… Vote for me and I’ll tax all carbon emissions and change the global climate!”
“Aw – you want children to get an education… Vote for me and I’ll create free universal public education!”
And do these systems work? Of course not. The Great Society didn’t make a dent in poverty. Social medicine denies more care than it provides. Carbon taxes don’t change the climate. Kids that go to public schools come out stupider. But the SOCIAL PROGRAMS created to address these problems? Oh – of course – they just need ‘more money’ and THEN they will start working!
Socialism. The lazy jerk’s way of destroying society while telling themselves they are ‘helping’.

Dude, you clearly can't comprehend what was said. He said European Socialism works, not that Europe is socialist. He then pointed to socialist programs in Europe, such as universal health care, paid for college tuition, pension programs, etc. How are those programs not socialist? Hint: THEY'RE SOCIALIST PROGRAMS! There's no two ways about it. How idiotic can a person be who proclaims socialism is bad, but they send their kids to public school, or they collect unemployment benefits, or draw social security, or they live in the Tennessee River Valley and appreciate the fact they have electricity, or they have an affordable federal gov't backed mortgage, or they safely assume the food they eat won't kill them, or that they can safely assume the house they live in won't fall on their heads because of government safety code, or their tires won't blow out driving down the road, or they can still get medical care if they become poor, or...

Guess what? Every single one of those above are examples of either direct gov't intervention into the economy, or were outcomes from a time when the government did. That's direct opposition to free market principles. And before anyone says it, YES, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DON'T ALWAYS WORK WELL. We know that. But it's absolutely positively ridiculous to suggest socialist ideas and solutions NEVER work. It's absolute bullcrap to the extreme that you can see everyday in your life that it does make everyone's life better.

This editorial is spot on. It's what I've tried hammering home with no effect to QM and WP that there are too many examples of ideas within the US that have or did work that were socialist in nature. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's one approach of several economic philosophies that can help solve problems, just as free market ideas can work. Neither work 100% of the time, so stop with the ridiculous notion that neither is the be all end all of all economic ideas. Every industrialized nation is a mixed economy. A completely 100% free market economy doesn't exist, and would fail if it did. (Ditto 100% true communist economies.)

>> ^conan:

WTF has any one of you actually an idea what socialism means? This rant of Bill is just useless. "European socialism"? The last socialist country was the DDR (east germany) back in the 80s. I just can't stand it anymore. Stupid throwing around of buzzwords. Socialism is a specific form of government. Switzerland is NOT a socialist country. Germany is NOT a socialist country. Sweden is NOT a socialist country. Get your facts straight and read a book from time to time!

Was this video posted from Tennessee? Because it contains imagery of Maddow's hair, which is greatly upsetting to me.

Your video, Tennessee Bans the Posting of "Upsetting" Images, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Rhodes College, Tennessee' to 'dan savage, Rhodes College, Tennessee, love in action, ken hutcherson' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^MaxWilder:

You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.


Completely agreed

Your video, Civil Forfeiture Highway Shakedowns in Tennessee, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you want to be takei make sure you clean up your santorum. I think Tennessee may be in the process of evolving a whole new language.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^MaxWilder:
You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.

I agree with you on everything except the "can't blame the cops". "Just following orders" is no excuse for committing an injustice...

While I agree that "just following orders" is not a strong defense, it's not like they are committing war crimes. For the most part, it really is drug money they are seizing. Are they supposed to throw away their careers in order to try to change something that should be changed by the lawmakers and citizens who elect those lawmakers?

Throwing away? You really think they'd lose their entire career by making such policies known to the public, or talking to the press about it? I don't.
And even if they did...I chose not to work for employers who didn't meet at least the minimum of my ethical standards, and I have no reservations in believing others should do the same. If everyone did, we'd probably not be in the shithouse we find ourselves in these days.

Who said anything about keeping silent? This whole news report may have been inspired by a cop who wasn't happy with the policy.
But if they don't carry out the policy, they will get fired. They guy in the video said so.
I applaud your ethical standards. I certainly hope I would do the same. But these days it isn't so easy to simply change jobs. It would probably involve moving to another area, maybe even another state. Not to mention a big cut in pay as you throw away any seniority. And if all the ethical people leave the force, then they will simply be replaced and replaced until the only people left are unethical. Doesn't sound like an improvement.
Why are you resisting laying the blame where it belongs?


Say what? I'm not the one saying "you can't blame X..." I'm saying there is plenty of blame for everyone involved: legislators, police chiefs, AND cops doing the dirty work. Remember, this whole discussion is about the only part of your original statement I disagreed with...the rest I'm completely on your side (so discussing those parts is rather dull).

And yes, ethics -do- have a price. In my own case, I'm quite sure it prolonged my period of unemployment (causing me to have to empty my retirement funds and put retirement into the "fantasy" category), as well as moving in order to secure another job. But if everyone simply says "I had no choice", nothing ever gets better either.

It's way past time for people to start doing what they're asking other people to do. You want ethical behavior and laws from your legislators, I'd think you'd best be behaving ethically yourselves (note, that's a general "you", not you in particular Max). That's part of my problem with the Republican party...they all seem to talk the talk, but it doesn't appear that more than a tiny fraction actually walk the walk.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^MaxWilder:
You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.

I agree with you on everything except the "can't blame the cops". "Just following orders" is no excuse for committing an injustice...

While I agree that "just following orders" is not a strong defense, it's not like they are committing war crimes. For the most part, it really is drug money they are seizing. Are they supposed to throw away their careers in order to try to change something that should be changed by the lawmakers and citizens who elect those lawmakers?

Throwing away? You really think they'd lose their entire career by making such policies known to the public, or talking to the press about it? I don't.
And even if they did...I chose not to work for employers who didn't meet at least the minimum of my ethical standards, and I have no reservations in believing others should do the same. If everyone did, we'd probably not be in the shithouse we find ourselves in these days.


Who said anything about keeping silent? This whole news report may have been inspired by a cop who wasn't happy with the policy.

But if they don't carry out the policy, they will get fired. They guy in the video said so.

I applaud your ethical standards. I certainly hope I would do the same. But these days it isn't so easy to simply change jobs. It would probably involve moving to another area, maybe even another state. Not to mention a big cut in pay as you throw away any seniority. And if all the ethical people leave the force, then they will simply be replaced and replaced until the only people left are unethical. Doesn't sound like an improvement.

Why are you resisting laying the blame where it belongs?