Nice video, however the spin you're trying to give it doesn't quite fit. The US has been acting like an international schoolyard bully for a very, very long time now. So whats different now that causes all the outrage? That it's starting to bully its own people? That it's "Number One!" in political assassinations with non-human mediators?

Ron Paul put it nicely in that clip, when he said in so many words "at least we've tried to keep it a secret before". I wonder if you can name one administration of the past 60 years that didn't engage in these tactics.

Yes, all glory to the mother science, the teat of reason. Christianity does a lot of good in this world..you have no idea how much work Christians do in their communities and how much charity work is done, not even counting the missions done in other countries. Atheist dictators killed 10s of millions of people last century..more than the sum total of every religious inspired war, ever. Plenty or reason to mock that insanity. And I believe in God because of personal revelation, and as I've said..I used to be agnostic so I understand (slightly) your point of view, but not your attitude..its all atheists have to say really..an assertion of superiority based on mockery..its worse than a schoolyard. Instead of tearing someone elses beliefs down, why don't you show why yours are supposed to be right..because they haven't done much for your sense of civility >> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

<commercial>

THE DECAP1TAT0R (thanks @residue)!!! Illegal in 255 countries out of 257! France having the original laying down Mark I prototype version. NOW, you can have this magnificent piece of metal work for the low, one-time price of 999.99! It's available for prison and schoolyards ALIKE!

Warning: May cause Herpes.

</commercial>

Wow, someones a little sensitive. On the contrary, Hitchens struggles here to articulate his views because after he said God didn't exist the burden of proof was on him. He stutters, he dodges, he just basically flounders through the first five minutes.."that's a big question!" no shit, really Chris? WLC is a gentlemen here and doesn't call him on it.

It's amusing that you say that "The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."

lol, this is a debate, not a schoolyard..I can just imagine Christopher Hitchens going up to the podium and declaring: I'm right and you're wrong! Owned! lol...If you come to a debate you have to prove why your view is right and the others is wrong. Hitchens failed here to do that..offering no counter-evidence to any of Craigs assertions..

This was a debate on philosophical terms, and Hitchens was woefully underprepared. You probably don't know much about philosophy (or just aren't a deep thinker) so you believe that Hitchens didn't do so badly..but on the actual terms of the debate, he lost on every point.


>> ^KnivesOut:
This vid's title is just as accurate and compelling as your magic book. Your new one sucks just as bad.
It's as if Hitchens is arguing with an intellectual child. He's attempting to deal with a line of questioning that is idiotic.
It is not up to the athiest to prove that something that cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."
It is up to the thiest to provide conclusive evidence that god exists. The thiest cannot. Personal testimony is not admissible as evidence.
When was the last time god intervened in the world of man? Why are there no animals being spontaneously created to prove that evolution is false? Why would a god, supposedly so jealous and obsessed with his need for man's belief, not simply prove it, conclusively, in a way that requires no faith?
If your god does exist, he's a massive dick.>> ^shinyblurry:
Okay, since it's clear the sift bias is going to sink this video, even though the title is accurate and compelling, I'll change it.

"Class warfare" is so overused and misused that it has become an empty pejorative. Moore is wrong to use it here. Republicans are wrong to use it every time anyone proposes a slightly more progressive tax system (39% top bracket, oh no class warfare!).

Critiquing the Democrats for fleeing the state is fine, though you should apply the same criticism to minorities of both sides who were willing to grind US senate business to a halt just because they didn't like one bill or one nominee.

However, indicating that the democrats should have "stood and fought" is juvenile nonsense. The republicans have a majority. This isn't a schoolyard brawl. 14 aren't going to beat 19 if one of them shows up with a tire iron or a baseball bat.

Personally, I find the whole premise of Walker's arguments absurd. He's trying to blame teachers for asking for benefits. If my boss pays me too much and the company goes out of business is it my fault because I ask for a raise every year? Politicians have both the power and the responsibility to find the correct balance between a competitive wage and fiscal prudence for state employees. If low level bureaucrats are too friendly with unions, elected representatives should provide better oversight (or fire them). Wisconsin is in trouble because they abdicated that responsibility. Blaming teacher unions for their own failure is just another sad example of the pass the buck, point the finger mentality that has infested our political system and made us incapable of actually solving our problems.

Obama is a great orator, but man, the guy just won't stick up for himself in an interview. He doesn't even let on that he notices O'Reilley is being rude to him. He comes off like that kid in the schoolyard who likes it when the cool kids beat him because he thinks it means they're going to be his friends.

Does he have no handlers? Did nobody prep him on how to speak with such a skilled aggressive windbag hater like O'Reilley?

Note: I am not spell checking--I had surgery recently and am not in right mind. But here is input.

@ Netrunner and Jigga; this is not so much about one or two or five-hundred people. This is about societal rhetoric. Here is a post I placed elsewhere.

Sara Palin is just a woman on a path to wealth and power---not any different than most men and women out there. How she does it isn't even unique either. I am speaking of society here, of us all.

Many just lay blame at this guy's mental instability, but here is a truth, or barring that, here is a statement that is not incorrect. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. However, if the horse does drink, then you are the one that led him to the water."

My wife and I were talking the old schoolyard days. She mentioned a girl who always treated everyone nice. I listened and asked "Why is she nice?" My wife responded, "Because she never made fun of anyone or hurt anyone." I replied, "That is not nice, that is indifferent because she also never helped anyone but herself. And who did she hang out with?" And I answered for my wife. "She hung out with the bullies, the preps, and the kind of guys who would violate the weak with hockey sticks. Although I was never bullied, I know they were merciless. Now,dear, how can they be merciless? Because its popular. Because without this girl's attention, and every other "nice" girl's attention, their attitudes would change. But she encourages it, facilitates it, and does that make her a nice girl? It is just the same reason there are no "nice" guys left, because they finish last."

The "nice" girl in this story never realized she actively, unconsciously supported the Tards in school---but personal responsibility says she did. So I blame her for the punches and kicks others received? Not directly, but she had a part.

This nut job could have easily been offended by Gifford's "conservative" side, and took Alan Grayson's argument, and other left's too, and decided Gifford must die.

The problem was/is, the mentally ill are very easily manipulated, even when one does not know they are manipulating them. All he hears is "truthful" banter. He cannot see rhetoric. He believes. It is like giving a 20 dollar bill to a blind man. And so his actions are based on our lies. Of course "we" can tell which statements are lies---but as the years progress, less and less are able to because the truth is told less and less. Then, even the sane (Like nowadays) start believing the hype.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker basically every part of your response directed at me was some form of "I'm rubber and you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you!".

That's okay if you want to just have a schoolyard discussion, but I honestly can't think of any exceptions to what I asserted. Based on how you didn't even try to point to a specific counterexample, I don't think you can either.

Hell, you actually supported my argument by defending tougher restrictions on voting. These things always sound reasonable.

I mean, when we're talking about a written ballot, it should be okay to test people for literacy before allowing them to vote, right?

This is bunk. You go to schoolyards to buy drugs from kids.

I doubt any of us here are climatologists, but we are people. As people, we can expect people doing science on climate to not be entirely dissimilar to us. While they my process possess information regarding a particular area, they are not immune to the culture they live and work in. Quine talked about this a lot. That science doesn't evolve like the romantic picture that is painted. Rather, like pop culture, science shifts its entire focus from one foundational theory to another. Einstein doesn't extend Newton, it replaces it. Why do we not, rather, adapt the math of Newtonian physics to incorporate the data of relativity and keep the same mindset of forces instead of space time warps? Quines answer is that, like pop culture, a mans theory only lasts as long as he is around to extend it. Eventually, no matter if your theoretical construct was correct, if you aren't around to sort out the sometimes minor technicalities...your out. The people after you will eventually supplant your theory with something else more trendy. That science is subject to the same rules of the schoolyard as anything else. Peer review is more of a contest of popularity and not overall truth value.

As such, the very act of peer review is subject to the cultural perspective of the day. The moral and political climate of the day speaks volumes to what peer evaluated papers support or don't. Peer review is the best we have in science to approximate how we experience the universe, but it is not without its short comings. Let us not fall into the fallacy of authority, and majority in stating x group of people are more correct than y group opposed. Instead, judge things on merit of the argument.

To that end, I find that I am undecided on the whole debate. Moreover, I hesitate to put government in control of saving the environment...such was already their responsibility in the gulf. I don't want to live in a world of wrappers and smog, and to that end, I am motivated for cleaner technologies. Being wasteful has always felt somewhat despicable. To me, I remain skeptical of mans prowess of weather prediction. Year after year there is tail of "the worst hurricane season in history" that fails to show itself. If you say it enough I guess eventually it will be right, but that takes some of the wind out of the sails(har har har).

Furthermore, where is the data to support that global warming would even be bad? The only fact to the end that I am even familiar with is more extreme weather, and that dried up lake in Africa. I have lived next to lots dried up lakes and rivers...so that seems like more of a social disaster than an environmental one.

In the end, I feel like there is some snake oil salesmanship over the whole ordeal. I think we want to believe that we are the next greatest disaster. We will entwine any evidence into the web of belief . And ostracize anyone that deviates. We have always been at war with Eurasia, after all.

edited: grammar and spelling

If the following comment doesn't convince you that this is choggie:

In reply to this comment by Romero:
This, "It's only the internet" shit would apparently from the accounts from female(s) who have met this, what appears to be, developmentally disabled child gwiz665 in person does not seem to apply here-I would tend to trust the in-person meeting over the online persona, if you could call it one.

I haven't been here active until recently,but i have been watching some of the more prolific users.

Gwiz665? You need some basic social decorum lessons alla Liza Doolittle-Doesn't appear given your geographical orientation and command of a conversation that you get out a whole lot. (Note the defensive posturing of the accused in light of hard evidence and/or disagreement of any kind with his position)-schoolyard shenanigans.

Qualm? He won't leave, and he won't become any more interesting nor will his overall raw, untrained incivility falter. Feel sorry for him but don't knock his ice cream cone in the sand for good measure-From the looks of his past with other users,he ain't gonna take any advice, good, bad, or otherwise.

Shut-in douchebag?? Too much attention as a child? Legend in his own mind?



Then maybe this comment will:

In reply to this comment by Romero:
Uuugggh! Aural and ocular abuse-WPTTHTBF < whitepeopletryingtoohardtobefunny

Check out this this search of "white people trying too hard to be funny"




Banned.

If anyone has a problem with this, take it up with @dag or @lucky760. Maybe they'll give a fuck, but I don't.

And don't worry, choggie. I'll ban the rest of your sockpuppets when I feel like it.