>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Perhaps I am naive, but the trollish observations of "race-baiting and victimology" do have some significance. Racism still happens, and when it does it needs to be righted, but this constant heehawing about supposed acts of racism seems to just prolong the healing.


So if black people just shut up and stop 'heehawing' about racism, everything will get better? It seems to me that a lot of good has come as a result of heehawing by the likes of MLK, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Langston Hughes etc. Heehawing ended slavery. Heehawing got the right to vote. Heehawing ended Jim Crow. Heehawing got the civil rights bill passed. Instead of telling black people to shut up, maybe you should listen to them?

A black man telling a white man to sit at the front of the bus?! Rosa Parks just rolled over in her grave.

@Drax, if someone re-aired Babylon 5 three years ago, it'd be accused of having a horrible left-wing message about Bush the evil warmongering President.

Re-air it today, and conservatives would take it as supporting their view that Obama is entirely held aloft by a fraudulent media arm.

And of course, even when it aired in the 90's, everyone was trying to argue over which middle-eastern country the Narn were supposed to represent, and which western power was supposed to be the Centauri.

@blankfist, as far as kid's stuff, most of what I remember was as much individualistic as anything else (e.g. lots of "don't be afraid of bullies", "be yourself", "speak up when you see someone doing something wrong", "if your friends all jumped off a bridge..."). Virtually all of history is taught with the "great man" theory, where single individuals change the worlds by simply standing up for what they believe in (e.g. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and presumably there's someone from the individualistic right who did something individualistic too).

I know it's terrible for you to think it blankfist, but a balance of collectivism and individualism is really necessary for modern life. Yes, you should be able to be who you are, and do what you want, but you shouldn't get everyone killed by waking up a dragon, or poisoning the planet. Expectations of social behavior, including things like respect for property rights, are collectivist ideas.

Personally, I think it's perfectly fair to teach kids that what they think isn't always right, and that sometimes it's wise to listen to other people. I agree, it'd be bad if the lesson was "thou shalt always subvert thine will to that of others", but you have to be able to strike a balance between individualistic conceit and deference to others.

In the example given above, "If all your friends want to go get pizza and you want a burger, you should bow to the will of the majority and go get pizza with them," it seems to me that this is less about indoctrinating people to always bow to the will of the majority, but that sometimes it's better to compromise with other people for the sake of establishing relationships. Put in selfishist language, that it's sometimes better to pass up some of your immediate desires to make an investment towards earning something much more worthwhile.

Think of it as teaching the value of savings, or the value of human relationships.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Didn't anyone ever tell this moron that it's not smart to tease wild animals? What he's done here is essentially equivalent. Bait them until they do something he can get attention with...
I fail to see the value in his moronic attempts to (at best) waste people's time.

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, she was baiting a response. She was wasting government resources. From the perspective of the bus driver trying to enforce the rules, and any law enforcement people that got involved later, I'm sure she was taking "moronic" actions that willfully disregarded the status quo. She was an instigator, a trouble maker, a rabble-rouser.
And I'd suggest that her actions were worthy of the utmost respect.
Comparing this dude to Rosa Parks is perhaps overstating his case, but I think that civil disobedience of this sort that brings attention to the utterly pointless waste of ...everything that is the TSA does actually serve a worthy purpose.

Said everything I think needed to be said. Good one, milkman. I cannot see how using a personal camera is equivalent to teasing and baiting wild animals and how standing up for your rights once challenged can be considered by some to be a waste of people's time. Some, I suppose, like to apologize for the atrocities of bad policy and bad departments.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Didn't anyone ever tell this moron that it's not smart to tease wild animals? What he's done here is essentially equivalent. Bait them until they do something he can get attention with...
I fail to see the value in his moronic attempts to (at best) waste people's time.


When Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, she was baiting a response. She was wasting government resources. From the perspective of the bus driver trying to enforce the rules, and any law enforcement people that got involved later, I'm sure she was taking "moronic" actions that willfully disregarded the status quo. She was an instigator, a trouble maker, a rabble-rouser.

And I'd suggest that her actions were worthy of the utmost respect.

Comparing this dude to Rosa Parks is perhaps overstating his case, but I think that civil disobedience of this sort that brings attention to the utterly pointless waste of ...everything that is the TSA does actually serve a worthy purpose.

Yeah.

Saw the DVD and the bonus part showed that they lost that after a while.

He was guerrilla cooking for a while, cooking in a place next to another kind of mall restaurant but sub rosa.

I don't know how anybody can make a run of it in NYC when you're paying, what? Ten grand a month in rent?

Our Lady Rosa Mystica has been a source of friction between Catholic and Buddhist communities in Crooswatta for years. In the last four years, extremists have stopped the construction of the church, which is near a Buddhist monastery. In 2006 and 2007, the Church was targeted by Buddhist extremists, and construction was halted.

(source)

There is an ongoing problem with over-aggressive Christian proselytizing conducted in a dishonest and unethical manner by some conservative evangelical groups. Missionaries have targeted the poor with offers of money if they would renounce the Buddha, for example. They have distributed inflammatory literature, such as pamphlets condemning the Buddha as a reincarnation of Satan.

(source)

Yeah, those innocent Christians just minding their own business....

Sometimes it's really easy to hate Christians, and totally understandable, too.

They prey on the weak. They constantly go around pushing their beliefs onto other people, and then they call anybody who finally gets sick of their shit and stands up to them an "extremist."

They've been doing it for hundreds of years.

Winstonfield

Are you arguing with this boy's opinions, or as you assumed, the opinions of others that propose equal rights for all citizens, including those not belonging to a Religious belief or doctrine? Or arguing that the fact he has these opinions or any opinion for that matter, is somehow misguided because he is ten?

Being apprehensive about dinner table values is one thing, especially when they are backed up with generalities. However, Gay rights are modern day civil rights. To deny them isn't a responsible, respectful protection of those "morally opposed to homosexuality," but instead a willful denial to respect the rights of others protected by the Constitution. Religion does not have a stranglehold on the meaning of Marriage, and the government should recognize a meaning that applies to all citizens, not just those part of an exclusive ideology. Your attacks on the validity of using the PoA as a place to express discontent are albeit right because, as you already said, the arguments for liberty and justice can be used just as easily by any opposition. But fuck semantics, those critiques don't change the validity of the boys opposition.

The hardest part of reading your posts isn't that you say things that are wrong, but snide. To have a lot of adult friends, "let alone gay ones," isn't nearly as disconcerting a thought as your clear assumption that having "gay ones" is somehow dangerous. You have an opinion just like this kid, and it seeps through. Except this kid expresses himself genuinely and makes his arguments unashamed, while you use formulated 'unbiased' criticisms to muddle the issue and confuse it with an argument about whether the chosen platform is philosophically sound.

Criticizing this kid for his refusal to stand and say the PoA as a show of his support for gay rights is comparable to criticizing Rosa Parks for boycotting public transportation, or civil rights leaders organizing sit in's in public courtrooms and offices because of the unequal rights African American's were subjected to. Don't confuse your opinions with unbiased criticisms about the nature of how someone expresses themselves.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by rasch187.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Raffaele-de-Rosa-Outrageous-save-at-Mugello

AN ITALIAN BOY'S CONFESSION


'Bless me Father, for I have sinned.
I have been with a loose girl'.

The priest asks, 'Is that you, little Joey Pagano ?'

'Yes, Father, it is.'

'And who was the girl you were with?'

'I can't tell you, Father.. I don't want to ruin her reputation'.

"Well, Joey, I'm sure to find out her name sooner or later
so you may as well tell me now. Was it Tina Minetti?'

'I cannot say.'

'Was it Teresa Mazzarelli?'

'I'll never tell.'

'Was it Nina Capelli?'

'I'm sorry, but I cannot name her.'

'Was it Cathy Piriano?'

'My lips are sealed.'

'Was it Rosa DiAngelo, then?'

'Please, Father, I cannot tell you.'

The priest sighs in frustration.
'You're very tight lipped, and I admire that.
But you've sinned and have to atone.
You cannot be an altar boy now for 4 months.
Now you go and behave yourself.'

Joey walks back to his pew,
and his friend Franco slides over and whispers,
'What'd you get?'

'Four months vacation and five good leads

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." - Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschilds wife.

-

"I am one of those who do not believe the national debt is a national blessing... it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."

Andrew Jackson, Letter to L. H. Coleman of Warrenton, N.C., 29 April 1824

-

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had mens views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), Doubleday

-

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Winston Churchill, "Zionism versus Bolshevism", Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

-

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few."

Henry Ford, My Life and Work, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922

-

"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment or bank sale destroys a deposit. And they who control the credit of a nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

Reginald McKenna, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing the shareholders as Chairman of the Midland Bank, at the Annual General Meeting in January 1924.

-

"The present Federal Reserve System is a flagrant case of the Governments conferring a special privilege upon bankers. The Government hands to the banks its credit, at virtually no cost to the banks, to be loaned out by the bankers for their own private profit. Still worse, however, is the fact that it gives the bankers practically complete control of the amount of money that shall be in circulation. Not one dollar of these Federal Reserve notes gets into circulation without being borrowed into circulation and without someone paying interest to some bank to keep it circulating. Our present money system is a debt money system. Before a dollar can circulate, a debt must be created. Such a system assumes that you can borrow yourself out of debt."

Willis A. Overholser, A short review and analysis of the history of money in the United States, with an introduction to the current money problem (1936), p. 56

Liberal Lies in National Health Care: Second in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."

Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as "the Carter years."

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.

You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."

That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.

I'm not sure what to think, but I'm gonna give some benefit of the doubt. The man's an idiot although I don't think he was against Rosa Parks, I think he just didn't like this liberalness or whatever. Also I don't really fault the police, an altercation happened, they separated the two parties and escorted them out of the hall, seems like the way to go.

Edit: "...only Winfrey was arrested. He was held on suspicion of misdemeanor assault." Winfrey is the Old White Dude. So yeah the police handled this correctly, which is the first time I've ever said something like that.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by arvana.