It seems to me that the people who this is most likely to affect, e.g. the people making more than 1 million dollars a year, are the most likely to be in support of raising taxes.

And by the argument that "those who pay the most should have the most say", I would venture to guess that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have the most say. So you lose Winston, you get no lifetime supply of chocolate.

Also, I can't stand how you pick and chose sentences to address in a rebuttal instead of considering the entirety of the comment. It is annoying habit that you frequently exploit.

You should apologize.

Winston, you're just plain stupid. Admit it.

Like William F. Buckley, who used his "intelligence" and gift of gab to make his horrendous positions seem almost sane (like involuntarily tattooing the ass of every AIDS victim on the planet) your words, no matter how many 10cent phrases you use, are utterly hollow.

Just like what this video is about, you try to change the subject, or just bore the shit out of other readers with how unbelievably verbose you are, so people just drop the debate/argument altogether. It's a cunning ploy, but seeing as you've now been on VS for three years now and HAVE YET to post a single fucking video, we all see that you're just here to spread your bullshit, as opposed to actually contributing anything of any value to the Sift community.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you, the white Herman Cain (meaning, complete fucking idiot)

Winston tastes good like a cigarette should!
Back when product placement was the show.

The only reason a significant portion of the population believe that crap is because it's repeated so many times, people actually think there's legitimacy in their arguments. So, I take a few minutes out of my day to prove how obviously wrong their arguments are.

>> ^VoodooV:

At what point do you accept that Winston and QM are trolling you guys.
They don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. They're not arguing their case. They just drop their bomb and leave.

At what point do you accept that Winston and QM are trolling you guys.

They don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. They're not arguing their case. They just drop their bomb and leave.

come on winston!
anecdotal evidence does not an argument make and you should know better and whats with the name calling?
this is not a political ideology problem but a greed and corruption problem which is more a personal flavor than a political one.
leftie,rightie,neolib,spendocrat,rethuglican...
who cares? they are all paid whores for their corporate and wall street masters and by the looks of your previous comments you have bought their line of tripe hook,line and sinker.

the fact of the matter is that after WWII america became a manufacturing juggernaut (mainly due to other manufacturing countries being leveled from bombings).our government dealt with the public in a pretty straight forward manner (relatively speaking of course).the unionized american work force set the standard and helped usher in the middle class,a hard fought standard i might add.this was the first appearance of the "middle class" and it was not just handed over but fought for tooth and nail by our grandparents and their parents.

the 60's were a time of great changes,not only politically but socially and marked a definitive change how our government dealt with the people and thus began the slow march we find ourselves in today.
consider this:
1.in 1972 the dollar was worth .78 cents on the dollar (22 cents interest per dollar)
in 2011 the dollar is worth .03 cents on the dollar.that loaf of bread didnt increase in price but rather the purchasing power of your dollar decreased.
2.in 1968 the phrase "for the public good" was removed from the corporate charter.hows that been working out for us?
3.in the 60's the middle class was roughly 48% of the american population and controlled 72% of americas total wealth.this was unheard of on a global scale,this sharing of wealth and was one of the main reasons why so many wished to come to america and take a swing at opportunity.fast forward to the present the "middle class" is roughly 11% of population and controls less than 10%.
4.while america still outproduces the rest of the world,has the largest and richest economy (yes,we still are the biggest).now lets consider the fact that the american worker produces more,works longer hours (on avg),yet receives less benefits in the forms of health care and retirement and the wages have stagnated since the 80's and when you factor in inflation,american workers are actually making LESS than their counterparts from 40 years ago.

let us all be clear on one thing.
capitalism,socialism or communism are NOT political ideologies but rather ECONOMIC systems and right now the system is rigged.
lowest tax rates in 40 years right along with interest rates.
this is NOT a coincidence.
you are being robbed.
at least the blacks KNEW they were slaves.
you on the other hand...remain clueless.
the fox is in the henhouse and people waste their time waxing poetic about political perfunctory.

@marbles
right on man.

Thank you, winston for putting reality back in order.

And thank you, netrunner, for posting a thought provoking video =).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

A rather simplistic, populist bit of tripe.
To start with, if this guy thinks that things were so great back in the 1960s then maybe he should think again....

>> ^soulmonarch:

You can choose to say the 'magic words', but obviously your mind isn't convinced, so you still aren't saved by it.


@soulmonarch
I agree with the logic of thisbut I have to ask how you, as a Christian, don't find this remark kind of .. disturbing? It reminds me of one of the more grueling aspects of George Orwells "1984", namely how you're not only forced to comply, and forced to accept as unchangeable all the lies and distortions of "The Party", they are not happy with you lying, you have to actually believe it.. So for instance, in one scene Winston Smith is subjected to torture, and the interrogator shows him 3 fingers and asks how many it is, and then how many it is if the Party says its 5. The natural thing for Winston is to answer correctly "three", or to lie and say "five" to avoid torture. But his interrogator calmly explains to him that lying or playing stupid wont work. Eventually he gives up and says "I dont know!" "Better", says the interrogator.


If you genuinely think that I wont be "saved" unless I actually believe in something I really cant make myself believe, and I cant even lie and pretend to believe.. Don't you find that unsettling? What does that really tell you about Christianity?, about God?

Winston Churchill: (1947 House of Commons)

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

thanks for the props bud.
just so you know i am vehemently anti-religious but i am not against religious people.
which was the point i was trying to make with bid.
that while the institutions dogma and doctrine can be debated and discussed and in some peoples case...reviled.
it is the people of that community that are our neighbors,friends and family and in my opinion can be such a vital component in raising well balanced children into productive adults.

fundamentalism (of any kind) is the enemy but most church goers are not fundamentalists.they are regular people.
so i found bids commentary very much on the arrogant side to so broadly group an entire population of people into his extremely narrow view.
he was presumptuous and with only a rudimentary knowledge of religious history.
i tried to point out that his premise was extremely flawed and that winston would take him to task for his hubris and thats exactly what winston did...and bid totally did not get it because i dont think bid WANTS to get it.

i teach cultural religious history and am well versed in many religions but am not a religious person myself.
my faith has no need of dogma nor doctrine...they are irrelevant.
my faith is also my own and not something i seek to perpetrate on another.
again...irrelevant to do so.
religions on the other hand HAVE to keep themselves relevant and viable in order for continued existence.
and is the main cause of my disdain for such institutions.
in order for them to remain relevant they HAVE to...by design..suppress the very people keeping that institution viable.
THIS is where..i believe..bid was trying to address and i would agree on that point but to so easily and callously dismiss the people who go to church as all being idiots is just myopic and self-defeating.
and shows a total lack of imagination.

ah well.
the thread got derailed and i fear i may have contributed to it.
and nothing got accomplished in the end.
damn internets!
again.thanks for the props bud.
until next time.
namaste.

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.

If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:

1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.

Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?

>> ^Bidouleroux:

>> ^draak13:
It's too bad that this all became about religion; we had a lot of worthwhile discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping until it became a religion slugfest.

Well, religious idiots think such reforms must come with some kind of religious doctrine attached. Wintstonfield et al would deny it so as to appear virtuous and selfless, but ultimately indoctrination is the goal of religions themselves even if it may not be the goal of every individual member. And as every dealer knows, giving the first dose free is the best way to create addicts.
This is the original "religion is good and should be encouraged" argument by Winston:

(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society

(A) is of course. Although I prefer "ethics" because it refers to strictly to actions.
(B) is a load of bullcrap. Churches, or any kind of religious organizations, don't have the development of a moral belief in the population as their primary function. Their primary function is the indoctrination of people in the belief system of said religion. That these belief systems come with moral/ethical precepts is irrelevant here.
(C) is dubious, at the very best. Supporting a religion's effort for morality development is akin to endorsing the underlying metaphysical nonsense of that religion. The problem is knowing whether the good brought by a religion's moral development outweighs the bad brought by the indoctrination into that religion. I do not accept any indoctrination at all, so religion is out of the question for me, but some may think that it is a good tradeoff. Most of those people are either already indoctrinated or morons.
So I agree that religions, or Churches or whatever, have no place in a discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping. Now, if only those religious idiots would stop trying to attach religious doctrine to every piece of ethical advice they give we could actually get this discussion somewhere.

>> ^draak13:

It's too bad that this all became about religion; we had a lot of worthwhile discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping until it became a religion slugfest.


Well, religious idiots think such reforms must come with some kind of religious doctrine attached. Wintstonfield et al would deny it so as to appear virtuous and selfless, but ultimately indoctrination is the goal of religions themselves even if it may not be the goal of every individual member. And as every dealer knows, giving the first dose free is the best way to create addicts.

This is the original "religion is good and should be encouraged" argument by Winston:

(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society

(A) is of course. Although I prefer "ethics" because it refers to strictly to actions.
(B) is a load of bullcrap. Churches, or any kind of religious organizations, don't have the development of a moral belief in the population as their primary function. Their primary function is the indoctrination of people in the belief system of said religion. That these belief systems come with moral/ethical precepts is irrelevant here.
(C) is dubious, at the very best. Supporting a religion's effort for morality development is akin to endorsing the underlying metaphysical nonsense of that religion. The problem is knowing whether the good brought by a religion's moral development outweighs the bad brought by the indoctrination into that religion. I do not accept any indoctrination at all, so religion is out of the question for me, but some may think that it is a good tradeoff. Most of those people are either already indoctrinated or morons.

So I agree that religions, or Churches or whatever, have no place in a discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping. Now, if only those religious idiots would stop trying to attach religious doctrine to every piece of ethical advice they give we could actually get this discussion somewhere.

>> ^Bidouleroux:

You don't seem to know anything about churches, which is probably why you're religious. A church is a community, yes, but is also much more. Before anything else, it is a place of worship (church comes from "house of the lord"). Whether you're talking about a church like the building/community or a Church the organization, it is the same: an institution. Two sides of the same coin. A church is nothing without its Church. Otherwise you would call it a community and not a church.
But saying that communities reinforce morality is like saying that butter is made of fat. It's an obvious, trivial fact. The point I was trying to make and which you seem to have totally missed is this: communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved. Religions only murk things up by attaching useless intellectual garbage to good old ethical wisdom. It is how they reproduce and why they should all be destroyed, so that secular communities can take back ownership of what they hijacked.
Nothing good comes out of anything that is purely religious. The good they do comes from hijacked behavior and beliefs that existed before. By attaching these good behaviors/beliefs and claiming universal truth, they make people believe that everything they say is the ultimate truth. It's not. Any good that religions do can be done by something else. The rest is pure garbage.
And if you think Winstonfield's exposition or arguments are good, then you're even more of an idiot than him. But seeing how you write, that should be obvious to anyone.
>> ^enoch:
@ Bidouleroux
i know you meant that comment for WP but you may wish to reconsider your premise because your fly is WIDE open.
what winston spoke of was people,communities of them who go to church.
you speak of the institution.
winston spoke of how morality can be re-enforced in group settings (church).
you speak of the clergy and preachers.
see where i am going with this?
winston laid out a very well thought out argument to back up his premise and you not only call him an idiot but then add an argument (i think thats what you were attempting) that really had nothing to do with his points.
winston and i are usually on opposite sides of the fence and i truly enjoy engaging with him but on this one..i agree with him.
and winston is far from an idiot.



ok man.was just pointing some stuff out.
but by your response it has become you clear you do not know what you are talking about and i have lost interest in continuing this any further.
"You don't seem to know anything about churches, which is probably why you're religious."
really?
ok.../shrugs

You don't seem to know anything about churches, which is probably why you're religious. A church is a community, yes, but is also much more. Before anything else, it is a place of worship (church comes from "house of the lord"). Whether you're talking about a church like the building/community or a Church the organization, it is the same: an institution. Two sides of the same coin. A church is nothing without its Church. Otherwise you would call it a community and not a church.

But saying that communities reinforce morality is like saying that butter is made of fat. It's an obvious, trivial fact. The point I was trying to make and which you seem to have totally missed is this: communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved. Religions only murk things up by attaching useless intellectual garbage to good old ethical wisdom. It is how they reproduce and why they should all be destroyed, so that secular communities can take back ownership of what they hijacked.

Nothing good comes out of anything that is purely religious. The good they do comes from hijacked behavior and beliefs that existed before. By attaching these good behaviors/beliefs and claiming universal truth, they make people believe that everything they say is the ultimate truth. It's not. Any good that religions do can be done by something else. The rest is pure garbage.

And if you think Winstonfield's exposition or arguments are good, then you're even more of an idiot than him. But seeing how you write, that should be obvious to anyone.

>> ^enoch:

@ Bidouleroux
i know you meant that comment for WP but you may wish to reconsider your premise because your fly is WIDE open.
what winston spoke of was people,communities of them who go to church.
you speak of the institution.
winston spoke of how morality can be re-enforced in group settings (church).
you speak of the clergy and preachers.
see where i am going with this?
winston laid out a very well thought out argument to back up his premise and you not only call him an idiot but then add an argument (i think thats what you were attempting) that really had nothing to do with his points.
winston and i are usually on opposite sides of the fence and i truly enjoy engaging with him but on this one..i agree with him.
and winston is far from an idiot.

@ Bidouleroux
i know you meant that comment for WP but you may wish to reconsider your premise because your fly is WIDE open.
what winston spoke of was people,communities of them who go to church.
you speak of the institution.
winston spoke of how morality can be re-enforced in group settings (church).
you speak of the clergy and preachers.

see where i am going with this?
winston laid out a very well thought out argument to back up his premise and you not only call him an idiot but then add an argument (i think thats what you were attempting) that really had nothing to do with his points.

winston and i are usually on opposite sides of the fence and i truly enjoy engaging with him but on this one..i agree with him.
and winston is far from an idiot.