>> ^bobknight33:

And some want to ban guns. Things will get worse and you will wish you had the right to arm yourself. -- But then it will be too late.


WHO wants to take your guns? You are either just regurgitating provocative crap, or paranoia has taken over as you enter the procurement phase of your own massacre.

If a revolution did happen, and "they" did come for our guns, the tree of liberty would be well refreshed on your blood, Mr. Patriot, but history will look back on said revolution as the Great Nutter Purge.

Videosift should be purged of Jenna Marbles videos and disinfected.

Okay, so I had wrote out a response and saved it in MS Word--and it got deleted somehow on my comp before I posted it. Then I gave up...because that took a long time to write out thoughtfully.... But now that have the free time, I will attempt it again. Plus, I have OCD...

So;

1-Haven't we all? And even if he hasn't, I certainly am not the man to judge.
2-I do assume he would be neutral on race. The problem is his convictions, right or wrong, ere on the side of a dogma-like belief system. His ideals of "liberty" (Whatever that means) above all else is neutral; unfortunately America is not neutral and would turn those ideas into racial superiority somehow. (I.e., he is to stupid and would advocate "freedom" that would open the door for employers to be racist and oppressive, I thinks...)
3-I think John Edward's cheating on his cancer-afflicted wife is far worse than manipulating for power. Nearly every single politician has in some manner stoked the race fires--but not all have betrayed those who loved them personally. Look at the Zimmerman bs and the stoking of that fire pit. America is one big stoke factory whether we like it or not...
4-You don't need to forgive me for being racist, and you don't need to forgive Paul if isn't any longer a racist. In fact, in my case where open and malicious racism was instilled in me early--you should thank me for figuring out a better way. I don't need pitied with forgiveness...and I wish America would stop putting so much emphasis on forgiveness and just move on...
5-Nope... Read 5...
6-Its because its one thing to betray the public--its another to betray those who have loved you. In certain countries or the military Edwards would have been punished with severe prison time or even death. Why? Because such a barbaric betrayal is hard to forgive. A different kind of animal. One is psychotic, the other is opportunistic asshole-ism.

And then

1-When you find yourself smiling at your friend who you have hung out with for over a year, thinking to yourself how much lower he is than you because of his skin, then regretting those thoughts--I attribute it to racism. When you think that his pride in his Hispanic background is nasty--racism... When you try but can't care about his plights of racial injustice, when they stir nothing in your heart--racism.

I am trying to work on it, but that's all I can do. Try. That and be the damned nicest guy I can be, and treat him fairly as a human being should be treated...guess that's all I can do.

2-People can change and they change all the time. I used to hate gays, as I have noted, but now I do not. However, that is not saying I am capable of any change. For example, I doubt I will ever be gay. But who knows--it just isn't happening any time soon. I am more Buddhist in my ways of thinking---it will either change or it will not, and we will either live with it or will not. But try to be the best person you can with what you have and make it the best you can.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.

Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people? Or says that black people are superior? While he talks about about race, complains about racial issues, and blasts the government, what racist thing did he say? 'Cause I can pull out reams of quotes from those Ron Paul newletters that denigrate blacks and push white supremacy.

You do know that that church recorded years of its Sunday services? That's how journalists could find a few choice quotes in years of sermons. But even with all that material to sift through, they found alot of nothing.

Where's the video where Reverend Wright stands in front of a black power flag and spouts off revisionist history to a the black version of neo-confederates?

I think its a shame that Obama had to ditch that church because some of his white supporters don't realize that black americans still complain loudly about racism in America.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.
As soon as his loyal Democrat mainstream media lackeys warned him, Obama abandoned the church he "loved" like a true politician. If that satisfied you enough to consider him electable, than a few ragged newsletters no one has seen isn't going to throw off Dr. Paul's base.
I don't know who among you voted for The One way back in 2008, but even if you did not, if you lost no sleep over Obama's questionable past (the parts the loyal MSM lackeys didn't or couldn't hide) then your arguments against Dr. Paul's past are moot.


>> ^NetRunner:
@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?

I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

As soon as his loyal Democrat mainstream media lackeys warned him, Obama abandoned the church he "loved" like a true politician. If that satisfied you enough to consider him electable, than a few ragged newsletters no one has seen isn't going to throw off Dr. Paul's base.

I don't know who among you voted for The One way back in 2008, but even if you did not, if you lost no sleep over Obama's questionable past (the parts the loyal MSM lackeys didn't or couldn't hide) then your arguments against Dr. Paul's past are moot.




>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

It's like the world has been taken over by a flat earth cult, isn't it?

I like the religious angle of this video -- I think that's more likely what's really driving this policy than anything else. People have gotten it into their heads that debt is a sin, and recessions are a purgatory that must be suffered in order to purge that sin.

More and more, it seems like everyone everywhere needs to go see a good psychiatrist. People need to learn that the human mind usually works the wrong way around -- people often decide what conclusion they want to come to, and then try to build a logical justification to support it.

Unfortunately at the extreme, this leads people to hang onto a belief by the thinnest thread of support possible, even when there's overwhelming evidence for an alternative way of looking at the world.

IMO, things like climate change denialism, creationism, and anti-vaccination movements bear a huge similarity to the austerity movements in the Western world. It's a certainty borne more of prejudice than reason.
>> ^radx:

So why the fuck would they push these extreme austerity measures on GIPSI?

@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

1. I don't presume to know you better than you know yourself, but I don't think you're a racist...
   
2. And if I take what you said at face value, it implies that people don't change (i.e. you don't like being racist, but can't help it), and that people can't just purge that from their system and become pure as the driven snow in a short span of time.
   

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through your comments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

We Are The Many

Ye come here, gather 'round the stage
The time has come for us to voice our rage
Against the ones who've trapped us in a cage
To steal from us the value of our wage

From underneath the vestiture of law
The lobbyists at Washington do gnaw
At liberty, the bureaucrats guffaw
And until they are purged, we won't withdraw

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

Our nation was built upon the right
Of every person to improve their plight
But laws of this Republic they rewrite
And now a few own everything in sight

They own it free of liability
They own, but they are not like you and me
Their influence dictates legality
And until they are stopped we are not free

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You enforce your monopolies with guns
While sacrificing our daughters and sons
But certain things belong to everyone
Your thievery has left the people none

So take heed of our notice to redress
We have little to lose, we must confess
Your empty words do leave us unimpressed
A growing number join us in protest

We occupy the streets
We occupy the courts
We occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You can't divide us into sides
And from our gaze, you cannot hide
Denial serves to amplify
And our allegiance you can't buy

Our government is not for sale
The banks do not deserve a bail
We will not reward those who fail
We will not move till we prevail

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We are the many
You are the few

>> ^hpqp:

Different strokes...
>> ^jmzero:
A few good points (particularly that "pray in your closets, not to be seen of men" is consistently ignored) but mixed in with a lot of ham-handed and pointless non-humor. Americans have large waistlines. Nice. I could see having that as a placeholder, like "make fat American joke here" - but at some point you have to either come back and put in an actual joke or you need to just skip that line.
It's hard to do both commentary and humor - this video did a very lazy run at the former and almost no attempt at the latter. That said, regardless of content, the stupid vocal affectation would have still made this unwatchable. Yes, I get the general reference. No, it doesn't add enough to the video to outweigh the annoyance.
But it'll get a pass, I'm sure, because it's making fun of the right people to be accepted in the political climate here. Make no mistake; I don't like the people this video is making fun of, it's just not a good video.



People who don't agree must be PURGED!!!

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

... Dick Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay.

In fact, 5 war games were scheduled for 9/11, including games that included the insertion of false radar blips onto air traffic contollers’ screens. Specifically, on the very morning of September 11th, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes.

Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm">video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html">official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that on 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft posing as hijacked airliners.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that “Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens”. This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers’ screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were moved up to September 11th by persons unknown.

Now here’s where it gets interesting … Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y]

(this testimony is confirmed here and here).

So even if 9/11 wasn’t foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney – who had been attacking democracy for nearly 40 years – as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon.

>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner