ker-thump!

@dag, I think it's a mix of both. Republicans may be unanimous and vociferous about it, since the whole chest-thumping tough guy image is part of how they appeal to their base, but the people who wind up on the committees that write the defense budgets are all getting a flood of money from the military-industrial complex, regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans.

There's also the whole problem Republicans have with economics. According to them, government spending cannot possibly create jobs...unless they're defense contracts, or unless it's spending that brings money into their district. Preferably it's both. It's a politically safe way for them to bring pork back to their district, while pretending to be against wasteful government spending.

The defense companies know that, which is why they intentionally designed the F-22 program so that construction of the planes would involve parts being made in 48 different states. Makes it hard to vote to kill the F-22 program when for 96% of the Senate a vote to kill it will also cost their state jobs.

I saw Dark City mentioned in the appreciated comments and had to come running in, that's one of my all time favorites.

It was on my second viewing I realized there was something different about the movie.. something that drove the intensity in even the calmest of scenes. It's the camera cutting within 5 second throughout nearly the entire movie (backed by the relentless thumping soundtrack).

@alizarin, whether EBM was being racist or not is incidental. Racism is not a windfall to prove guilt. All we know from the video is that the two of them were giving it to each other pretty evenly, and at least the EBM tried to take a seat in the front away the other guy.

Sure, EBM continued to run his mouth, but it wasn't like he kept going to the back of the bus to thump his chest and threaten the guy. He remained seated. It was the other guy who kept going to the front of the bus threatening to stick a foot up his ass.

After that, he took a swing at EBM. It's pretty clear cut.

SWOOOMP swish swish OOOOOOOHHHHH!

Just play the last three seconds over and over. It's like a symphony of doom!


There's wind, a metal ping, a thump and a chorus of ooooooooohhhhHs'.

@kir_mokum, you hit the nail on the head. I always feel like it's a big, sad joke whenever these ideologues start calling me a socialist or accusing me of being some sort of hardcore ideologue myself. Hell, I'd likely be considered a raving right-wing crazy in any country other than this one.

What I want is a pragmatic approach to governance -- just do what works. If I thought cutting taxes and regulation would really lead to some utopia, I'd be on board too. But the reality is that this mindless drive to cut government "spending" during a recession will make the country look a lot more like Colorado Springs than some sort of Galt's Gulch.

I'm against bad government policy, and for good government policy. There is no simple, universal rule about how to tell one from the other, no matter how loudly conservatives scream that there is.

The country would be better off if people stopped screaming bumper stickers, and instead took some time to read up on history, and look at the way other countries have dealt with various societal challenges, and an objective look at the results they achieved. Then have a real debate about that instead of engaging in this perpetual cycle of name calling and chest thumping.

To attempt to ridicule THIS MAN because he has read the same material as you but forms a different opinion borders on the farcical. You engender the 'bible-thumping' stereotypes by doing this at all. Terry is more intelligent than you or i, more witty, far more experienced, he's read more than most of us ever will - yet when he expresses his opinion on a writing, you try to call him small minded.


Is 'small minded' your term of the day or something? I don't remember calling him that.

Terry is more intelligent than you or i, more witty, far more experienced, he's read more than most of us ever will - yet when he expresses his opinion on a writing, you try to call him small minded.


I get that you like him. We all get that you like him. Contrary to popular belief though, just because someone is nice and a good writer, doesn't mean the answers to the universe and knowledge of all written works is theirs. Even the smartest of people get things wrong. When the bible says, "The answer to A+B is C." and Terry talks about A+B as if there's no answer to it, it's fair to say Terry has (and as I said) missed the boat. Sorry to shatter the illusion that he is perfect.

the fundamental problem is that we know from historical data that the bible was written in a fragmented fashion by different people over different periods of time


I think you have no idea what you're talking about. I think if you tried to prove your point the first place you'd scramble for is google to look up some info on the topic. I know about that side of things, and it's not fertile ground for picking on the bible, unless you really have no idea what you're on about.

If you take the bible literally why are you not out stoning gays and doing everything exactly as it is in the bible?


That's a great question, isn't it? Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because every Christian is an idiot? Or, do you think someone out there might have a reasonable answer to it?

The answer's in the bible. Go look for it. Aside from the odd nugget I don't offer up the answers on here because people genuinely have no intention of listening to what's being said. Why waste my time? Everyone's made up their mind to worship their man-heroes (whoever they are) and defend their opinion on everything. I'm not hiding where the answers are. If you have a brain and can lay your hands on a bible, you can find the mysterious answer to this baffling question in no time at all.

If you're a person who can't be bothered looking or being open to changing their opinion, then no matter what someone says on here you will forever remain confounded by something so simple. End of story.

No offence r1ok, but terry pratchett is an intellectual of the highest order. Easy for me to say 'genius', but i won't because it's bandied around too much. His books are filled with such amazing philosophies and opinions, explained and parodied in such subtle ways often and never preachy, he always shapes it into the fiction of his novels. In the genre in which he writes, he is unparalelled. He's one of the greatest wits in the world. He's friendly, he's caring.

To attempt to ridicule THIS MAN because he has read the same material as you but forms a different opinion borders on the farcical. You engender the 'bible-thumping' stereotypes by doing this at all. Terry is more intelligent than you or i, more witty, far more experienced, he's read more than most of us ever will - yet when he expresses his opinion on a writing, you try to call him small minded.

SMALL MINDED? Terry fucking Pratchett? Who the fuck are you anyway?

And as for you mentality - that's a hard one. Discworld of course are his best books (he has done some others), and within that series of books there are different spin-offs. Some are written from the perspective of the witches of discworld, some on the wizards (unrelated to the witches), some on the police, some are randomly based on a few individuals.

My dad started with the book about the police (or The Watch, as they're known in discworld). I let him start from the 1st book and he really didn't enjoy it, too fantasy for him, but fortunately he quickly realises comedy rather than fantasy is his niche. So while the very early books are a good read if/when you love discworld or fantasy, they're not always the best starting point.

I'd recommend therefore the City Watch books, as i did with my dad. They're an easy starting point. In order:
* Guards! Guards! 1989
* Men at Arms 1993
* Feet of Clay 1996
* Jingo 1997
* The Fifth Elephant 1999
* The Truth 2000
* Night Watch 2002
* Monstrous Regiment 2003
* Thud! 2005

I would recommend starting at the start if you mean to go on. The characters become more familiar and often you find the stories more sentimental and humorous if you know the characters. This list includes my top 3 favourite books of his, so definitely a good starting point. The books about Death (the character Death) are very good too.

Atheist rage!! *thumps table*

>> ^gwiz665:
I think you are twisting my words.


No. Your words were "make better society". As in "let us social engineer society the way we want it." And then you thumped your chest with your continental pride of Europe.

My point was if you don't want to eat in a restaurant that has a mandatory tip for parties over a described number, then don't visit it. You have options; don't be so arrogant. A small business cannot levy a tax. I don't know where you're getting this bad information. They can only add charges. I wish my ass had lips like yours.

Oh that's awesome!

Now it just needs to be remixed with some thumping house bass track and it's ready to groove to.

"Carrie Prejean (the queen of morality, miss family values) has a sex tape."

Of course she does. She wouldn't be a God fearing, queer hating, abortion despising, public option bashing, Bible thumping, hypocritical Christian woman if she didn't!

I got the impression that everything after the initial thump was an attempt to escape punishment. Too bad he left his licence plate behind (along with the bumper).

I'm not going to downvote you, you raise a point.

However, I do feel the need to ask a few things.
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?

I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it. They still pay to be wed, if they want children, they have to adopt..which means a child gets much better care then it ever would if it doesn't get adopted, and that way everybody's happy.

Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.

I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.

Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"

You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.

Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.

Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I hate to say it but, despite the hypocrisy, Beck has a point.
I know I'll be downvoted into oblivion for saying this, because I've been through it before, but maybe one or two of you will hear the message and understand it.
You can oppose immigration without being a racist.
You can oppose Obama or his policies without being a racist.
You can deny the Holocaust without being an anti-semite.
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.
You can oppose the US Government without being a terrorist.
You can oppose the War on Terror without hating our troops.
You can oppose hydrogen powered vehicles without supporting big oil.
You can oppose abortion without being a Bible-thumping misogynist.
You can oppose war without being an appeaser.
Do many people oppose gay marriage because of their hatred of gays? Certainly. Do many people oppose Obama because of racism? Clearly. Are some who deny the Holocaust anti-semites? Probably.
But some people are just mislead and some people are just nuts. Some even ( gasp ) have different and legitimate opinions. We've gotten to this place where any level of disagreement warrants the most extreme vocabulary that can be conjured and the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives.
You want to know why there's no progress in government? It's because of radical preconceived notions. Anything the left proposes is Nazism, Fascism, Marxism or Socialism. They hate good Christian people and the country. Anything the right proposes is Nazism, Fascism or Discrimination. Nobody even hears the other side because they've decided ahead of time what those people will say.
And the vast majority of you here on the sift are the same way. Open your eyes and ears. There are a lot of people with differing and/or opposing viewpoints to yours and not all of them are nutcases who want to destroy the country. You serve nobody's interests by shooting them down with extremist labels before they've even had the chance to make their case.

I hate to say it but, despite the hypocrisy, Beck has a point.

I know I'll be downvoted into oblivion for saying this, because I've been through it before, but maybe one or two of you will hear the message and understand it.

You can oppose immigration without being a racist.
You can oppose Obama or his policies without being a racist.
You can deny the Holocaust without being an anti-semite.
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.
You can oppose the US Government without being a terrorist.
You can oppose the War on Terror without hating our troops.
You can oppose hydrogen powered vehicles without supporting big oil.
You can oppose abortion without being a Bible-thumping misogynist.
You can oppose war without being an appeaser.

Do many people oppose gay marriage because of their hatred of gays? Certainly. Do many people oppose Obama because of racism? Clearly. Are some who deny the Holocaust anti-semites? Probably.

But some people are just mislead and some people are just nuts. Some even (*gasp*) have different and legitimate opinions. We've gotten to this place where any level of disagreement warrants the most extreme vocabulary that can be conjured and the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives.

You want to know why there's no progress in government? It's because of radical preconceived notions. Anything the left proposes is Nazism, Fascism, Marxism or Socialism. They hate good Christian people and the country. Anything the right proposes is Nazism, Fascism or Discrimination. Nobody even hears the other side because they've decided ahead of time what those people will say.

And the vast majority of you here on the sift are the same way. Open your eyes and ears. There are a lot of people with differing and/or opposing viewpoints to yours and not all of them are nutcases who want to destroy the country. You serve nobody's interests by shooting them down with extremist labels before they've even had the chance to make their case.