I find it difficult to disagree or agree with him, not on the historical context he gives which I don't know much about but on the principle. I would presume in the vast majority of regions in the US, institutional racism simply doesn't exist any more. Sure, there's the crackpot here and there who's openly racist, there's the few here and there that harbor racist thoughts but on the whole it's simply not there.


Study after study have proven this is not true, both in the private and public domains. I'm speaking about overt and institutional racism. Heck, they just codified a racial profiling and banned ethnic studies in Arizona.


I think the Civil Rights Act as it was, applying to both public and private entities served a purpose. It made people come together and realize that much of the animosity was more fear of the unknown and a lack of intercommunication between two cultures that had simply grown apart. Heck, there's a whole litany of (terrible) black/white buddy cop movies that symbolize bridging this gap.

In the South, there had always been interpersonal communications and relationships between individuals of different races. The problem was the discrimination,i.e., forced to give up your seat for whites, not being able to use the restroom in certain parts of the city, being banned from attending most Universities, etc.

So I don't think that it was really the legislation that changed the state of society but the effect that forcing two cultures to become accustomed to each other had on perceptions.

The civil rights act didn't just magically change the country when it was passed. It took years of enforcement and civil agitation to bring the spirit of the law into reality. The legislation was a crucial step, though.

As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot.

May I assume you have the luxury of not having to take that risk?

Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?

In a world where one both has to eat, and is a minority, what is desired is not to change the hearts of the whole country, but to be hired. I think that a significant amount of people in the US are racist, you think they aren't, but ultimately, it all about ensuring behavior (e.g., hiring, service) fits the law, not someone's thoughts.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Enoch, what is the point of this video: http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/anti-atheist-christian-
tv-commerical/
To convince theists that without god the world is fucked? No, they already "know" that.
The point of these videos is three fold -
1. Present a compelling argument/message/premise
2. Assure the indivdual that there is a community that shares their belief
3. Catch the confused doubtful little fishes on the fringes
Could you explain how the producers are retarded for attempting to get a thoughtful reaction out of people?
Or if that just an ad hominem at work because you're offended?
>> ^enoch:
that makes no sense...
convince an atheist that there is no god and religion is bad...
if you are correct,and the point of this video is a "shock and awe factor for those on the fence"then these creators of this video are retarded.


you are coming at me from the wrong angle scooter...check yourself.
you dont know me,nor my beliefs,thoughts,dreams or visions.
so please dont leave your dick waggling in the breeze acting like you do.
i shall ignore the first part of your post,
not because i am "offended" but because it is irrelevant.

now the points you made,especially number 2.
i never thought about it from that perspective.that there would be people who no longer believe but may be surrounded by people who do.i know this occurs on an intellectual basis but did not think about that in this context concerning the video.
on that note i say thank you genji.
that not only answers my incredulity concerning this video but it's actual purpose.
i think thats what you were trying to say in your previous post but it made no sense.
now it does..thanks.
now concerning number 1 and 3..
meh../shrugs.
compelling argument?really? come on man..not even close.
and catch little fish?since when is atheism like scientology?or jehovas witness? mormons?
naw..if the video is to let people who no longer believe in god or religion know they are not alone then i am all for that and retract my retarded comment.
you can email them and let them know you defended their honor justly.

as for me being offended...well...i'll play nice.
i was not offended in the least.why would i be?
thats just a concentrated drop of pure silly.
and what i wrote was not an ad hominem.
if i had written ONLY that they were retarded,or satan spawn..blah blah blah..then you would be correct.
but i made a statement and ended it with an opinion on the producers mental capacity=not an ad hominem attack.

let me conclude with a hearty thank you genji.
but i still stand by my statement if the purpose of this video was to change the hearts and minds of religious folk,or convert in some bizarre way an atheist.but to let a person know they are not alone?
thats ok in my book.

"I'm not gonna stoop to his level by name-calling"... why the sudden change of heart, Bill? Nothing's stopped you from name-calling before.

I think this has been a fully fledged character assassination attempt and I am disgusted by it. I am not afraid of what you'll think of me, because the truth is on my side.

This thread, or rather all the rumblings behind this thread, is filled with vicious lies which I can only assume stems from peggedbea. I am deeply troubled by this.

Rasch, this will be my last message directed to you, because I really don't like you and I haven't for a long time. I will make this as delicate and level-headed as I can. You have been misinformed. My messages to both AC and bea after my texas trip have been different ways of asking "What happened?" because none of them would tell me what they were upset about.

I don't know what you and the rest have been told about the trip to Texas, but I am very much not in denial. I do know what happened when I was there, and it was what I wrote in my message above.

Furthermore, where else have you read about my trip to Texas? If it's anything I've written then please present it. I know I talked to AC about it before I went over there, but I've never talked to you about anything? How can you know anything that doesn't stem from peggedbea? Is it not possible that she's the one that's either in denial or just lying for the hell of it.

I have heard a few rumors about what I allegedly did over there and elsewhere. Here's what has been relayed to me

1. You flew to Texas to visit Bea, out of the blue and without an invite.
This is false. We discussed it in the lounge and later on messenger and she invited me. I don't know anyone that currently live in Texas, why in the hell would I book a (very expensive, I might add) trip to texas out of the blue? How could I ever even expect to be allowed to stay with her then? It just doesn't make sense.

2. From the beginning you engaged in a lot of sexual talk with her, some of it around her kids- to the point of telling her 5 year old that she could legally have sex when she's 15.
The latter part is a bold-faced lie. I never, ever talked to her kids about ANYTHING sexual. I talked to bea about it, but that was certainly as much her as it was me. We talked a bit more subdued, but like we've talked in the lounge. Anyone who has ever been in the lounge knows that she talks way more shit than I do, and people who know me in real life know I'm not nearly as sordid when I'm talking face-to-face. And I would fucking never talk about sex to a child. Fucking hell, that's pure evil spreading a lie like that.

3. You grabbed InflateableVagina's ass and boobs while staying with Bea, and generally freaked everyone out.
No and yes. I didn't grab her ass, I think I smacked it. The boob thing was just an immature prank that turned out to be way out of line. I acknowledged that above, and I have apologized to ivy about that. I can't say that I generally freaked everyone out, but I suppose I could have freaked the three out that were there, bea, ivy and their friend rick. The kids were long gone to be by that time, and they certainly liked me both.

A little context as well, this was the second day I was there (tuesday). I was there from monday till thursday morning. I do remember that after it happened ivy or bea said that it was inappropriate, but ivy seemed to laugh it off and I did the same. I shrugged it off as an immature prank gone a little overboard. We were all a bit drunk and I acted like a high-schooler, that was it. I've apologized for this on many occasions now to ivy.

The next whole day, we went to Six Flags and not a word was mentioned about it, so I thought, that I stepped over the line, but it looked like they forgave me, so let's just move on. We were still having fun and bea and I were still talking fine together, so I assumed everything was alright.

The next morning at 4 or 5 in the morning, she knocked on my door and woke me up and explained that someone in her family had died and she had to go away to another part of the state to deal with it. She was very distraught and I've not brought it up before because I don't think it's nice to share such things here, but that's what it's come to. I'm sorry in advance to bea for this, but she's made it abundantly clear that she has no trouble lying to people about what happened, so I have lost all esteem for her and can't be concerned with it anymore.

We drove to the airport in the morning with the kids half-awake on the backseat, she dropped me off and drove on to what she had to deal with.

I wrote Ivy a text message later in the morning asking if she had heard anything from bea and if she was alright, so she can attest to that as well. After that bea blocked me on facebook and ignored all PMs on videosift (and promptly deleted them) and AC wrote me that she didn't want to speak anymore out of the blue. What am I to believe here? I mean, can't you see a possible connection? If bea spread a lie to AC about me that was a terrible as the one above, I could understand that AC reacted the way she did. If only she had told me that, if that's the case.

4. You have been communicating with Alien Concept - planning a visit, and claim to have pictures of her that you found somewhere.

I have indeed been communicating with alien_concept. We've been communicating a great deal since the lounge started, I think. We had a good talk in the lounge, and I'm pretty sure there were other people in there as well. I can't remember which of us asked for a messenger address, but in any case we started talking on messenger as well, because I thought she was fun and I can only assume she did the same to me (well, she said as much at least). I've never been planning any visit to her. I've talked to her about it; that it could be cool to meet up at some point; but she's always wanted her boyfriend to come over before any other sifters. And I can respect that. I did some friendly jabs at her about how cheap it was to go to London, but there were never any plans to go anywhere. We had talked about me coming by after new years, or maybe make the siftup then, when her boyfriend was there as well, but it never panned out to anything concrete. I certainly don't have any pictures of her that I've "found somewhere". She has sent me exactly 5 pictures over messenger herself, nothing sordid or anything. At some point, I think during this winter, I sent her some videos of myself playing guitar like the blog posts, which she at the time thought was fun.

When she all of a sudden wrote her "I don't want to talk anymore" I was completely baffled and saddened. Mostly because I didn't understand why she did it. She said that I "didn't respect her and her boyfriend's relationship", but I never saw it as me trying to horn in on her, we were just talking and having fun. We were both in our talks, I didn't just yap at her leg all the time at all. So I pestered her a bit after she wrote it, because I wanted her to reconsider and at least explain to me why the sudden change of heart and because I considered us friends, and friends do have at least a little lee-way to deserve an answer.

I still very much like the rae that I've talked to and I like ivy still too. I'm completely disillusioned about peggedbea. I liked her, but I don't anymore - this is just vicious and she should be stopped. Rasch, you and some others in here are so quick to judge me and deem me guilty, when it's just not true. This is not denial talking, this is reason talking. If you have heard any other rumors about me, bring them out! We're already doing the laundry in public, we might as well do it proper.

I'm am still not the crook in this and by now I've laid myself bare and exposed more about people I liked that I would have wanted to. This disturbs me, it really does.

I am glad that there are some sifters who still have my back and support me, because the truth is still on my side.

I know what the word neolib means because I'm the one who invented it, so your accusation that I am misapplying it is erroneous. And I'm very certain that neolibs such as yourself can find any number of excuses to justify knee-jerk opposition to every conservative policies.

But you know what? As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to bother justifying your opposition. You come from an opposing political philosophy. That's perfectly OK with me. What makes America great is that people can oppose their government freely for whatever reason they wish. I support and applaud your particular brand of mindless, propoganda inspired reactionism.

Sadly, this kind of generosity is not mutual on your side. Pelosi, Reed, all the liberal pundits, Obama, his advisors, Gibbs, and just about everyone who opens their mouth on the neolib side of the aisle... They all have suddenly had a change of heart on the issue of freedom of speech and expression since the election. Now, conservative opposition is 'obstructionist', and is even referred to as 'dangerous' and 'counter-productive' to the country. Basically, now that they run the show the neolibs want to kneecap freedom of speech & thought whenever it slows down their agenda, or make 'their guy' look bad.

Pretty sad really. I didn't agree with the tactic when conservatives tried to shut up opposition under the guise of 'patriotism'. I sure as shooting don't agree with it when snooty neolibs are doing it for no reason except to grease the skids of an unpopular political agenda.

A side note on the Golden Rule you mentioned: It has its origins in Matthew 7:12 which refers back to the 6th through the 10th commandments given by Moses in the Pentateuch. The Golden Rule is merely a summary of the way we ought to interact with fellow man. (It does not address how we ought to act within our own minds or with our Creator.) Rather than 'some' morals deriving from the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule is derived from 'some' morals.

You're correct that Marijuana use doesn't directly injure anyone else (though everything indirectly affects others around us). Just like smoking cigarettes or over-eating. Yet, Marijuana use harms the user far less than either of those two. But one truly has to understand what the very purpose of his existence is in order to understand that Marijuana use is contrary to those purposes.

The big problem I have with this whole "this should be illegal, this shouldn't be illegal" stuff is that I do not see a disparity between the moral code and legal/lawful code. If something can be demonstrated to be immoral using Foundational Law, it is irrelevant if the current governmental powers recognize it as such, in determining it's immorality. The question then is, in structuring our governments to abide by and recognize Foundational Law, should those governments have corporeal punishments for violations of that Law. Each law is different, and carries different punishments. For the case of Marijuana use, I would argue that there is no punishment at all that can be carried out by what most people call the US GOVERNMENT that would be fitting to the 'crime' so committed. That is to say, in common parlance, MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. And I think that NO ONE should smoke it! If (and when) they do, they have their own reward and punishment in the same instant and they will be ostracized by their own families to the extent of their misbehavior.

I think cigarettes are just fine. Crudely speaking, they kill those stupid enough to use them. The crime isn't in the cigarette. The crime is in the heart and mind of the user. Just as are ALL crimes. Controlling materials is not going to change the heart and minds of men. That requires spiritual powers. To answer you succinctly: CIGARETTES SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL.

Once again, drugs ARE morally wrong, but that does not mean the US GOVERNMENT should carry out the punishments for the violations. The US GOVERNMENT and it's subsidiary STATES are HORRIBLE at correcting the mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and moral errors in the hearts and minds of men. Last time I checked, the US GOVERNMENT doesn't even try.

In reply to this comment by brain:
The arguments in the video actually do make sense when you keep in mind what you're talking about. Of course the same arguments don't make any sense for theft. There is an obvious reason for this: The logic of morals. Pretty much all morals come from the golden rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.

Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.

Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?

Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.

Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.

P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!

I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.

Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.

One year and one month later...

I've had a change of heart and now agree w/ Thylan above. Who was I kidding? This is now where it belongs as I have added it to the terrible channel!

Young Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay) was only 18 years old,
He was the youngest of nine children, never spent a night away from home.
And his mother held his photograph, opening the New York Times
To see the killing has intensified along the road to peace

There was a tall, thin boy with a whispy moustache disguised as an orthodox Jew
On a crowded bus in Jerusalem, some had survived World War Two
And the thunderous explosion blew out windows 200 yards away
With more retribution and seventeen dead along the road to peace

Now at King George Ave and Jaffa Road passengers boarded bus 14a
In the aisle next to the driver Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay)
And the last thing that he said on earth is "God is great and God is good"
And he blew them all to kingdom come upon the road to peace

Now in response to this another kiss of death was visited upon
Yasser Taha, Israel says is an Hamas senior militant
And Israel sent four choppers in, flames engulfed, tears wide open
And it killed his wife and his three year old child leaving only blackened skeletons

It's found his toddlers bottle and a pair of small shoes and they waved them in front of the cameras
But Israel says they did not know that his wife and child were in the car
There are roadblocks everywhere and only suffering on TV
Neither side will ever give up their smallest right along the road to peace

Israel launched it's latest campaign against Hamas on Tuesday
Two days later Hamas shot back and killed five Israeli soldiers
So thousands dead and wounded on both sides most of them middle eastern civilians
They fill the children full of hate to fight an old man's war and die upon the road to peace

"And this is our land we will fight with all our force" say the Palastinians and the Jews
Each side will cut off the hand of anyone who tries to stop the resistance
If the right eye offends thee then you must pluck it out
And Mahmoud Abbas said Sharon had been lost out along the road to peace

Once Kissinger said "we have no friends, America only has interests"
Now our president wants to be seen as a hero and he's hungry for re-election
But Bush is reluctant to risk his future in the fear of his political failures
So he plays chess at his desk and poses for the press 10,000 miles from the road to peace

In the video that they found at the home of Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay)
He held a Kalashnikov rifle and he spoke with a voice like a boy
He was an excellent student, he studied so hard, it was as if he had a future
He told his mother that he had a test that day out along the road to peace

The fundamentalist killing on both sides is standing in the path of peace
But tell me why are we arming the Israeli army with guns and tanks and bullets?
And if God is great and God is good why can't he change the hearts of men?
Well maybe God himself is lost and needs help
Maybe God himself he needs all of our help
Maybe God himself is lost and needs help
He's out upon the road to peace

Well maybe God himself is lost and needs help
Maybe God himself he needs all of our help
And he's lost upon the road to peace
And he's lost upon the road to peace
Out upon the road to peace.

@MINK
I see your Matthew 6:5-6 and i'll raise you a Matt. 5:16

"In the same way, let your light shine before people in such a way that they will see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

Now, was i praying in public for show or was i letting people see some of the good works that God has inspired me to do?

And again, you like so many christians and non-christians, fundamentally misread the Bible by thinking that the external action is the point. No, the external actions are merely inconclusive evidence of internal motivations. This is why God alone is judge, we can only see the surface, but God sees the heart. Jesus was not criticizing public prayer; he was criticizing those who prayed publicly from selfish, prideful motivations.

@chilaxe
I also despise it when christians try to legislate based on de-contextualized scripture as well. Actually, i don't particularly like it when they try to legislate based on scripture at all. Legislation can only deal with surface actions, not the heart of people. As such, it is ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROPERLY LEGISLATE ANY MORALITY. Attempts to do so are inefficient, idiotic, and counter-productive. Such things just encourage people to stay on the surface level and ignore the needed change of heart.

>> ^doogle:
I'd like to hear this whole speech recited by a white person and see what the reaction would be by whites and blacks alike.
This guy needs to be reminded that Obama is half-white. And half-black. He's more white or more black as you want, as you like to fit it into any argument you pundit want to craft your Obama criticism.


I've been saying he's more white than black forever. Don't try this sudden change of heart now that it's more convenient to defend Hussein boy.

I actually shed a tear when I saw this.

Things have just been so horrible for so long, and these guys just seem to keep doubling down on how inhuman they act. To see McCain not just relent, but say "You can trust Senator Obama" gives me hope that America isn't dead after all.

I don't think it's a sign that they're going to stop doing what they've been doing, I don't think it redeems him for what he's been doing, and his history certainly gives me reason to think this personal change of heart is self-serving and not an ethical objection.

But for a little while, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, because I want to believe that maybe, just maybe, there's some shred of humanity in these people.

I don't buy it and Obama's speech in Fredricksburg is why...

He has had years of doing the same thing, but after all the policies, ads etc, Sarah Palin (who, let's face it, is around more for the "oooh shiny" factor than she is for political accumen) he suddenly has a change of heart?

Seriously, this is the guy that referred to Obama as "that one" not a couple of nights ago? Now he has the deepest respect for him?

The fire is lit and burning, the house has started to collapse and he thinks a thimblefull of deceny at this late hour is going to save it.

As Obama said, he can't just grab a "For change" poster now and have a change of heart in the middle of a crisis. It's disengenuous and too little too late.

I'm not John McCain, but I approve this message...

^ Yes, now that the dupe fiasco is over, and after viewing this video again, I've had a change of heart and decided that this woman is in fact, a shit stain.

There's a perfectly reasonable and innocent explanation to her changes of heart.

At any given time she takes the position that most benefits her personally.

Isn't that what you want in a President?

Because they were adamant to cover up and contain his friends change of heart against the firm. Then he found the document. His friend's sudden death, the firms sudden need to settle a case that was going on for 10 years and his own discovery of the documents and following assassination attempt sealed the deal.

This was a good classic 70s style thriller.