Last word.

⚨⚨⚨..one of the little last word Wallys', true to form.

Well done. I thought the last word was particularly cleaver.

>> ^kymbos:

So, avoid disappointment, aim low? Does America compare itself with those countries? I thought it was a developed nation. You do provide me with entertainment, I'll give you that.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Ah, no: "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>> ^A10anis:
>> ^kymbos:
Americans have a habit of shooting people in general.

What a stupid, crass, crude, comment. Or did I miss that you pressed the sarcasm button?


Statistics are limited and can be misleading in showing the big picture. Would you feel safer in Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, Somalia or Russia? (rated the most dangerous countries on earth) Check out their figures on crime and, if you still feel they offer a safer environment in which to live, feel free to visit them.


I'm pleased you are so easily entertained, though that was not my intent. It was, actually, to point out that making silly generalizations was pointless. Anyway, like my wife, I'm pretty sure you will need to have the last word, even though you have nothing rational to say. I'm done.

And NOW, with the current situation in play and we now know how Mitt feels for a vast swath of America. He most likely ALSO hated this person in a wheelchair for being disabled too.

Really there isn't a way to defend him unless you have truly given up your intelligence and given fully into opinion and ignorance, because it makes your stomach more "fuzzy".

Too many people now in America need to wake up to the reality of what this world REALLY IS! There isn't a unicorn. There isn't a mystical force stopping rape pregnancies. There isn't a magical non-person free-market that just regulates itself into pure equality and use for all. There is no Gods, which leaves you with a SERIOUS question NO MATTER WHAT FAITH you belong to, is there a God at all? The two-party setup is a mere cultural and sociological play of what is essentially a difference in people's fundamental psychology. Though we like to pretend conservative or liberal values are MORE than they really are, they are illusions created by our minds--as fake as any religion other than YOURS... That last word, really, really should mean something to somebody that doesn't quite get psychology and the absolute BLANKET and hallucinatory world it can proceed to give to our brains that is just as real as reality--so if you understand psychology is a POTENT little thing that runs our lives...

Mitt is just as lost as everyone else. Not only does he do what his idiotic psychology tells him to do, completely being an ass. But, he is fully unaware that he is FULLY inside the grip of ignorance and his own self-created ego trip. That is why it is so utterly hard to reach any of these people and talk to them about a TRUE compromise or negotiation. They just say the words and nod their heads, but you never truly got through to a person that understands themselves OR more importantly reality, even to the smallest extent.

This is why education is so vitally important, because we MUST give our kids the tools necessary to be able to make the final leap in self-consciousness that for some reason so many seem to never get there and get sidelined in the various vices of life--or more precisely the mind and your psyche.

Some people are just a record, playing in a loop. The rest are playlists, with thousands, or perhaps hundreds of songs. BUT, the people that UNDERSTAND are the people that can design the program that makes the playlists and moreover they make the music that those with the playlists or the record listen to. THAT is the difference.

They are the ones beckoning to you to LEARN, not to CHANGE, but to LEARN! Change will come when you see like they do...
----

Mitt had no reason to be like that. Something tells me if Mitt truly ever talked a mental health professional he would be diagnosed with something... Just my guess (like narcissistic personality disorder--but, I'd have to see even more of Mitt to be certain).

"He's coming over here to talk."

Hopefully those won't be my last words.

Sometimes there is such intolerance of opposition in opinion here at the Sift. When your typical liberal Sifter decries the greed of the private sector, vilifies "big business" and slams Fox News, it is hailed throughout the ranks as a battle cry, but when bobknight33 suggests the inefficiency of government-controlled industry and criticizes MSNBC, he is bombarded by the mob with accusations of naivety, not substantiating his remarks and being a "troll." For instance, take a post like CrushBug's -- "Fucking Harper. I am glad they have spent the time and money to change the name of the gov't to "The Harper Government" so once this horrible aberration of politics is voted out we can easily identify and kill this kind of evil bullshit." This is the quintessence of unsubstantiated, ad hominem attack. Yet it is met with resounding approval and hardy back slaps aplenty, buoyed up by the inertia of the throng.

"You didn't want to come. The average man don't like trouble and danger. YOU don't like trouble and danger. But if only HALF a man—like Buck Harkness, there—shouts 'Lynch him! lynch him!' you're afraid to back down—afraid you'll be found out to be what you are—COWARDS—and so you raise a yell, and hang yourselves on to that half-a-man's coat-tail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you're going to do. The pitifulest thing out is a mob; that's what an army is—a mob; they don't fight with courage that's born in them, but with courage that's borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any MAN at the head of it is BENEATH pitifulness. Now the thing for YOU to do is to droop your tails and go home and crawl in a hole. If any real lynching's going to be done it will be done in the dark, Southern fashion; and when they come they'll bring their masks, and fetch a MAN along."
-Mark Twain

>> ^messenger:

Dear all,
Stop feeding the troll please. bobknight33 is a troll, and his claims in this thread are wrong or cannot be substantiated. We all know that. I understand that "Someone's wrong on the Internet" is considered an emergency that requires your intervention, but really, it's not. bk33 has no influence here other than to disrupt threads, and it's you who give him that power by responding.
Ignoring is having the last word.
Thank you.

Dear all,

Stop feeding the troll please. bobknight33 is a troll, and his claims in this thread are wrong or cannot be substantiated. We all know that. I understand that "Someone's wrong on the Internet" is considered an emergency that requires your intervention, but really, it's not. bk33 has no influence here other than to disrupt threads, and it's you who give him that power by responding.

Ignoring is having the last word.

Thank you.

>> ^KnivesOut:

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.


Yes, but unlike you, I am able to use the mysterious key labelled "delete" to actually edit out the extraneous quotes.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.
Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.

Oh FFS. You are either deliberately misrepresenting my view or you're just really bad at comprehension.

I don't have any gender biased ideas about careers. That's my whole fucking point.
In case you missed it:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is.


I don't care if my scientist is female, my nurse is male or my mechanic is a cross-dressing splurg from omicron theta v, as long as they're good at their job. You are the one bringing gender politics into it. I am simply against trying to manipulate young women into a career they may not want. Once again, because I realise you'll misrepresent this: I am not against women scientists. I want women in science because they want to be in science, not because of some retarded ideology that says we must have a proportional representation of the population in every field.

It may be that more men are drawn to science, just as more women are drawn to teaching. No-one has answered my initial question: why is that such a bad thing?

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.

Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.
>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
He stands at the door and knocks, but He isn't going to kick your door down. It's up to you whether to open it or not.

I appreciate your concern for my soul. Your energy would be better spent on conversation between you and your god. I am as immune to scripture as you are to logic.
I assume that you'll go for the last word (I know your type) so I'll just stop here. Cheers.


I'm fine with ending the conversation amicably. Have a good one.

>> ^shinyblurry:

He stands at the door and knocks, but He isn't going to kick your door down. It's up to you whether to open it or not.


I appreciate your concern for my soul. Your energy would be better spent on conversation between you and your god. I am as immune to scripture as you are to logic.

I assume that you'll go for the last word (I know your type) so I'll just stop here. Cheers.

nah, man. he was always fairly articulate...>> ^Payback:

Remarkably well spoken for someone I've always thought was mute.

Proving my original point and showing this Sift to be a complete pile of bologna...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57408577-504083/enhanced-video-shows-apparent-injury-on-george-zimmermans-head-police-say/

CBS video suddenly, miraculously, AMAZINGLY "discovers" the injuries. Hmmm - well, the 911 tape proves there was racism...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/inside-politics-nbc-news-to-probe-misleading-edit-/

Cue up the Price is Right "Loser Horn"...

But again - I'm not saying anything about what Zimmerman or Martin were or weren't doing. I repeat - again - let the investigation take place at its own pace. Stop letting the obvious efforts of the professional race industry turn you into brainless parrots. Stop being sheeple for the blatant agendas of different groups trying to advance thier 'version' of events into the public. Ignore the whole mess and let the courts take care of things - the way its supposed to be.

Last word - the news media has proven itself to be wholly untrustworthy on this story. CBS omitting video detail that they KNEW they had? NBC deliberately editing the tape to make it sound like it was Zimmerman doing profiling? I hope the so-called "intellectual" left is starting to realize just how mentally bankrupt thier media is.

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.