>> ^CrushBug:

Chrome. It is some sort of Facebook takeover, because if I click on either of the border images, it takes me to Facebook. It is pretty messed up.


I'm getting it on IE too. It's something on the front page. "Unsifted" or another tab doesn't have it. or the comment edit screen.
Looking at it quickly, it's Molson Canadian's Facebook page. As I do not have Facebook in any form, maybe that's why it's fubar.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Possible I could get a screenshot?

In reply to this comment by CrushBug:
Chrome. It is some sort of Facebook takeover, because if I click on either of the border images, it takes me to Facebook. It is pretty messed up.



Let me know if this works:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3843702/VideoSift1.png
This is what I see when I first go to the 'Sift. Then, about a second later:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3843702/VideoSift2.png
this shows up on the sides. If I click on the fireworks on the side, it takes me to Facebook.

Seems to only be on the main page and does not show up on this profile page.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Possible I could get a screenshot?

In reply to this comment by CrushBug:
Chrome. It is some sort of Facebook takeover, because if I click on either of the border images, it takes me to Facebook. It is pretty messed up.

>> ^CrushBug:

Chrome. It is some sort of Facebook takeover, because if I click on either of the border images, it takes me to Facebook. It is pretty messed up.


That sucks man.

Do you get the same result if you switch browsers?

I'm certainly not seeing any of that with Firefox.

Chrome. It is some sort of Facebook takeover, because if I click on either of the border images, it takes me to Facebook. It is pretty messed up.

@chingalera

Well stated. I agree with your comparison of the two religions, but I think my point also stands that Muslims (or anybody) in countries without basic freedoms, especially freedom of speech and a free press are bound to be a lot more screwed up than those living under democracy and the freedoms that we enjoy. I think the corporate oligarchy is a red herring here. Sure, it's real, but that doesn't mean our democracy is zero. We have lots of freedom and power, even if our governments aren't as much "by the people" as they ideally could be. Could you imagine if elections were taken away altogether, if our leaders had no accountability whatsoever, and we didn't have a free press? Muslim or Christian or atheist, we would be a lot less civilized and a lot easier to manipulate to hate the "other". I mean, does anyone have any fears of attack or takeover by Muslims from Indonesia, Mali or Malaysia? Not that I've ever heard of, yet they're Muslim majority countries. The difference: democracy.

In a nutshell, you can't impose Iran- or Saudi-style Islamic rule on an existing democracy. Western Europe might change, and sure it'll cause discomfort and conflict, but nothing even remotely approaching deserving any of the comments cited in the video.

>> ^messenger:

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?
And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:
So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.


I suggest you read my comment again, slowly. Far from putting words in their mouths, I pose the legitimate question; "how would they characterize islam?" Please observe the question mark which, funnily enough, denotes a question NOT a statement. However, they certainly DID suggest what their answer would be. My inference is based upon their demeanor of derision and incredulity at anything said by Dooley, and the fact that they openly condemn him as a war monger. The two comments that I said were "extreme" and "ridiculous," were just that. The other comments made by Dooley were legitimate. Your Brevik comment is absurd and, as such, is not worth commenting on. As for you comparing islam with christianity? What are you talking about? I am an atheist and deride ALL myths. However, in defence of Christianity; When was the last Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time Christians flew planes into buildings? When was the last time a Christian stoned a woman to death or carried out an "honour" killing, or hung gays from a crane? When was the last time a christian beheaded a non-believer, etc, etc? Comparing the two is ignorant and intellectual laziness. If by xenophobic you mean I am afraid of those who wish to radically change our lives and drag us back to the bronze age, then yes, I am very afraid. Islam is an insidious threat, one we ignore at our peril. Finally, If you wish clarification on any other points that you don't understand, I will happily explain them.

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?

And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

Sorry I had the wrong year and have been busy in responding.

In 2007, the Democratic majority in Congress enacted legislation to double interest rates on new federal student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in 2012.

The College Cost Reduction and Access Act was signed into law. In 2006, as part of their “6 for ‘06” campaign agenda, Democrats promised to cut student loan interest rates in half.


However, once gaining control of Congress in 2007, Democrats realized it was too costly to cut all student loan interest rates in half. Instead, Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proposed temporarily reducing interest rates for undergraduate students receiving subsidized Stafford loans.



The College Cost Reduction and Access Act incrementally phased down interest rates for subsidized Stafford Loans made to undergraduate students over four academic years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Per the law, interest rates are scheduled to return to 6.8 percent on July 1, 2012.


As the expiration date crept closer, Democrats did nothing to address the impending interest rate increase during the 111th Congress, despite taking action to terminate the private sector federal loan program to help pay for the president’s government takeover of healthcare law.
.>> ^NetRunner:

7 years ago, Bush was in the White House, and Republicans had the majority in the Senate and the House.
And regardless of who you think set this up to happen, you still have Republicans voting solidly against extending the low rates now.
>> ^bobknight33:
The Democrats passed the law that set the doubling increase 7 years ago.

I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

Yes, you are correct. This was the point I was trying to make that, in light of what the founders said and did, that the way the establishment clause has been interpreted in recent decades could not be accurate. The founders had no issue with government endorsement of Christianity; in fact they frequently endorsed it. On that point the evidence is overwhelming.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

I don't think the founders intended any of this. The constitution was written 11 years later, after many of those state constitutions were written. Written by the same people who had written the state constitutions. Considering that there was no action to enforce the interpretation we have today, but that we see quite the opposite, I don't see any justification for thinking they did intend it. The establishment clause was never actually applied this way until the 1960, which in itself was based on a supreme court decision in 1947 involving a school district using public funds to transport kids to a private religious school.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

I think it's important to understand that it wasn't written out of fear of Christian theism, as some people are trying to say today. It was understood that Christian theism was the default doctrinal state religion. Neither did the founders write it to be inclusive of other doctrinal religions, like Islam and Hinduism, or something like atheism. They wrote it, as you are saying, to prevent any federal takeover of a particular denomination of Christian theism. It was written for denominational religion, not doctrinal religion. A fight between denominations could have torn this country apart. It scarcely needed to said though that Christian theism was the default doctrinal religion of this country.

>> ^Barbar:

Snarky responses miss the point. One of the next bubbles on the horizon is the education bubble. Obama's takeover of the student loan racket has in essence created an environment of government subsidized college. That's bad. It is artificially inflating the cost of higher education to the point where even community colleges are overpriced.

Couple that with the widespread fact that colleges at all levels are underperforming and highly questionable in value. The ROI of a college education is plummeting to the point where an Associate's degree is worthless. A Bachelor's is rapidly reaching a point where its value is dubious at best - especially in the Arts & Humanities. The only Bachelor's really worth anything is a BS.

So why tell thousands of kids to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a year or two in college when it is overpriced and gives them no return? Just to say they did? A lot of them would be happier and get a better 'education' just by getting a job, or going to a technical school, interning, or some other option than just droning up and marching through college like a good little worker bee.

the federalist papers should be mandatory reading in high school.
at least then students would understand the fundamental discussion about federal government vs states rights.

while i agree with some of ron pauls positions and respect his steadfastness concerning issues i cannot in good conscience support someone who admires the infantile philosophy of ayn rand so much as to name his son after that sociopath.

at face value ron pauls schtick sounds all well and good but when you come to understand just how far right and out of touch his policies actually are you should become wary..veeery wary of the ideals he proposes.

you think you are a slave now?
you aint seen nothing yet.
welcome to the united states of corporate america.
because in ron pauls world the government would become an anemic entity that would have no punch to stop the absolute takeover by corporations.
the entire working class would become enslaved by a system where money became speech.

oh wait......

It'd be refreshing if people would want public policy to be about the public good and not about animosity for the other tribe. It'd also be nice if people on the right had even the slightest grasp on reality.

The whole thing about Romney and healthcare is indeed a perfect example -- Romney should be proud of Romneycare, and should be trying to take credit for Obamacare because people on the right and left should consider that a reason to vote for him. The left because it's a massively empowering system for the average man, and the right because it takes us a long way towards getting a properly functioning market in the healthcare sector, rather than one rife with perverse incentives and government subsidies of big business.

But instead the people who like to vote Republican think that Obamacare is some scary Soviet-style takeover of American society, and that the Republican nominee will be the shining knight to save the world from this threat. And of course, they think that because the Republican party has told them that, and told them that anyone who says different is "liberal" and therefore the enemy of freedom.

I'm pretty tribal myself these days, but my tribe is "sanity", and I'm a partisan against insanity.

And Ron Paul...Paul clearly plays for the other side in that fight.

>> ^jmzero:

In general, it baffles me that the Republicans can't find better candidates; but then again look at the hoops you have to jump through. Romney is a perfect example; as NetRunner says above, it's clear he supports a health plan substantively the same as Obama's - but he HAS TO say he hates it to have any hope. They have to walk a tightrope on social issues and toe a very narrow line on economics. Pander, pander, pander, never be candid, never just say what you think.
...
How refreshing it would be for people to be picking the candidate who actually agreed with them, rather than whoever pretends the best.

@NetRunner
I wanted and want the same things, although it wasn't so clearly realized in my mind. You are a very good writer and elucidate very well, especially, I think, to those of us inclined to stream-of-consciousness ranting.

I'll give over on health care somewhat. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm somewhat pessimistic in nature, and I admit to being of the mind/club that anything short of single payer was a failure. It will (eventually) help millions of people who need it, if it survives, but I still don't think it was the HUGE change that I alluded to above. Change that would catch us up to the rest of the industrialized world. This whole conservative notion that Medicare for everyone is a restrictive government takeover of health care is ludicrous. Imagine living life and not having to worry that health issues will financially waylay your life or that of your family. That's more freedom. My employer pays almost $1300 a month for health insurance just for me. Who, besides insurance companies, wouldn't benefit from lower payments?

Anyhooo... I'll stop there. Preaching, choir, etc.

Good talk.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?
This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.


I took that from this, starting around 0:53:

The more liberal stations some of them wouldn't dare want to talk to me because their agenda is Democratic party politics and they're not for liberty, they're just for Democratic party politics and big government. But even on those stations, you will have a few very honest people.

Which is followed by his comments about Stewart being "honest" because "when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em." Because apparently it's rare that liberals ever deviate from just toeing the line on "Democratic party politics".

Because, you know, nobody like Olbermann, or Maddow, or Cenk Uygur, or Ed Shultz, or Lawrence O'Donnell, or Sam Seder, or Thom Hartmann, and nobody on blogs, or anywhere else has ever "gone after" Democrats for screwing up.

Granted, I didn't get my entire view of Ron Paul from this video alone. I've been listening to this guy off and on for years now.

I guess I know Paul best from the Campaign for Liberty e-mail list. See, way back in 2007, I used to think Paul was a different kind of Republican -- a softer, kinder, more honest sort, who would be willing to work with liberals on important issues, so I signed up for his e-mail list. Back then, the e-mail he sent out matched that first impression.

At least, they did right up until Obama became President. Ever since it's been 3 years of pure vitriol and hatred. Here's some highlights from one from earlier this year:

Fellow Patriot,

Big Government took a huge leap forward in 2010. And you and I will suffer the consequences unless we take action today.

You see, the statists look for every opportunity to gain more power over our lives – and they found another one in the ObamaCare scheme.

It is a huge step toward a full takeover of our personal medical decisions, as well as a massive tax increase and a huge loss of liberty. It will also cause further destruction to our already fragile economy.
...
Please read the email below from Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. Campaign for Liberty has a great plan to help me win this fight, but they are going to need every Patriot in our Revolution to join them.
...
[Letter from John Tate that Paul wants us to read]
Dear NetRunner,

The ObamaCare scheme is designed to do two things statists love more than anything else: vastly increase the size and power of government and give our federal masters more control over our personal business.

Power over our very lives.

It's getting harder and harder for them to conceal their true intentions - and people are waking up to it.

You and I saw the results of this in the recent elections, giving us an opportunity to take action.

Ron Paul has a plan to fight back and END THE MANDATE, but Campaign for Liberty needs your help today to get the battle really moving.

You see, the debate over nationalized health care isn't about what Congress wants to "give" Americans.

It's not even about health care at all.

It's about power.

It's about what THEY take.

It's always been about what they take.

And their "take" is staggering.

Delightful bunch of two-faced psychopaths, if you ask me.