...or jawing snachtes from the victory of defeat. >> ^brycewi19:

>> ^Trancecoach:
or defeating snatches from the victory of jaws.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.


Or... jawing defeat from the snatchy victors.
This is fun!

>> ^Trancecoach:

or defeating snatches from the victory of jaws.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.



Or... jawing defeat from the snatchy victors.

This is fun!

Ha! I remember this. I don't think I've heard it since the 80s, unlike so much other 80s music which just never went away. There's an interesting page explaining the radio messages of the troubled flight - http://www.ommadawn.dk/design1.php?sideid=30&snak=

Between Maggie Reilly's vocals and the lyrics, this always sends a shiver down my spine.

Mike Oldfield - Five Miles Out.

What do you do when your falling,
You've got 30 degrees and you're stalling out?
And it's 24 miles to your beacon;
There's a crack in the sky and the warning's out.

Don't take that dive again!
Push through that band of rain!

Five miles out,
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out.
You're number 1, anticipating you.

Climbing out.
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out.
You're number 1, anticipating you.

Mayday! mayday! mayday!
Calling all stations!
This is golf-mike-oscar-victor-juliet
Imc cu.nimb...icing,
In great difficulty, over.

The traffic controller is calling,
"victor-juliet, your identity.
I have you lost in the violent storm!
Communicate or squawk 'emergency'!"

Don't take that dive again!
Push through that band of rain!

Lost in static, 18,
And the storm is closing in now.
Automatic, 18!
(got to push through!) trapped in living hell!

Your a prisoner of the dark sky,
The propeller blades are still!
And the evil eye of the hurricane's
Coming in now for the kill.

Our hope's with you,
Rider in the blue.
Welcome's waiting, we're anticipating
You'll be celebrating, when you're down and braking.

Climbing out.
(climbing, climbing)
Five miles out.
(climbing, climbing)

Five miles out,
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out....
(climbing, climbing)

Five miles out,
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out....
(climbing, climbing)

Climbing out.
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out....
(climbing, climbing)

Five miles out,
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out....
(climbing, climbing)

Climbing out.
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out....
(climbing, climbing)

Climbing out.
Just hold your heading true.
Got to get your finest out....

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Well, I have read them and I think it's fairly obvious that I understand the subject matter.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

...degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research)...

....illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics....

I never made the argument that entropy can never decrease in a system. I made the argument that even if you want to use the energy of the sun to explain why life is becoming more complex, you haven't explained the information that makes that possible. More energy does not equal more order. I also don't know why you keep bringing up articles from the institution of creation research and expect me to defend them. I am more than willing to admit that there are some terrible theories by creationists out there, just as there are terrible theories by secular scientists.

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

I can understand your position as a materialist, having formally been one. I did not see any evidence for God or spirit either, and it really rocked my world to discover that there was more, and that material reality is only a veil to a larger reality. It is mind blowing to discover that everything that you know is in some way, wrong.

I think there is some very good evidence pointing towards a Creator, but that isn't going to get you there necessarily. It seems to me though, after talking with you a bit, that if there is a God, you would want to know about it. Maybe you're not terribly interested in pursuing the subject at the moment but you now strike me as someone who is open to the truth. If He does exist, would you want to hear from Him? If He let you know, would you follow Him?

On the scope of evidence, I think the two of the most powerful arguments are the information in DNA and the fine-tuning of physical laws. There is no naturalistic process which can produce a code, and that is what DNA is. It is a digital code which stores information and is vastly superior to anything we have ever designed. It is a genetic language which has its own alphabet, grammar, syntax, and meaning. It has redudancy and error correction, and it is an encoding and decoding mechanism to transmit information about an organism. Biologists actually use linguistic analysis to decode its functions. You also have to realize that the message is not the medium. In that, like all information, you can copy the information in DNA to storage device like a hard drive, and then recode it later with no loss in information. This is a pretty good article on the information in DNA:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

The fine tuning evidence is also very powerfully because it is virtually impossible for the laws to have come about by chance. It's important to understand what fine tuning actually means. I'll quote Dr Craig:

"That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist."

So it's not a question whether the Universe itself is finely tuned for life, it is a question of how it got that way. In actuality, the odds of it happening are far worse than winning the powerball lottery over 100 times in a row. Random chance simply cannot account for it because there are dozens of values that must be precisely calibrated, and the odds for some of these values happening by chance is greater than the number of particles in the Universe! For instance, the space-energy density must be fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power, an inconceivably huge number. That's just one value out of dozens. Many scientists understand this.

Here are some quotes from some agnostic scientists, which a couple of Christians thrown in:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

But if that were true then the Universe is designed, and this is simply some kind of computer program. In any case, although we could imagine many scenerios I am talking about something very specific; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. Moreover, that you can know Him personally, today.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe

The primary question is whether the Universe has an intelligent causation. You believe that Universes, especially precisely calibrated and well-ordered ones just happen by themselves. I happen to think that this is implausible to say the least. You're acting like it's not a valid question, and because we can describe some of the mechanisms we see that we can rule out an intelligent cause, which is simply untrue. You could describe every single mechanism there is in the Universe, but until you explain how it got here, you haven't explained anything. The real question is not how they work but why they work and that question can only be answered by answering why they exist in the first place.

It is also just a fallacy to say that because some peoples beliefs about God have been proven false, that means all beliefs about God are false. Scientists used to believe that there were only seven planets and that the Earth was flat. Does that mean that all ideas scientists have are false? No, and neither does it mean that all beliefs about God are false because people have had ridiculous beliefs about God.

The God I believe in is not ridiculous, and the belief in His existence has led to ideas that formed western civilization and propelled modern science itself. The idea that we can suss out Universal laws by investigating secondary causes is a Christian one, that came from the belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws.

It is also not a brake to doing science to believe that God created the Universe. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God. People like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Max Planck, Mendel and Einstein. It certainly didn't stop them from doing great science.

Also, as I have explained, it is not a God of the gaps argument when God is a better explanation for the evidence.

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

The ultimate cause of the Universe must be timeless because it must be beginningless, according to logic. I'll explain. You cannot get something from nothing, I think we both agree on that. So if the Universe has a cause, it must be an eternal cause, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes for the Universe. The buck has to stop somewhere. This points to an eternal first cause, which means that cause is timeless. If it is timeless it is also changeless because change is a property of time. If it is changeless it is also spaceless, because anything which exists in space must be temporal, since it is always finitely changing relation to the things around it. It's timelessness and spacelessness makes it immaterial, and this also makes it transcendent. I think it is obvious that whatever created the Universe must be unimaginably powerful. So we have something which already closely describes the God of the bible, and we can deduct these things by using logic alone.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

“A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny

British physicist P.C.W. Davies writes, “The coming-into-being of the universe as discussed in modern science…is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Physicist Victor Stenger says “the universe exploded out of nothingness the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

I think we can both agree that it is better to know than not to know. That's been one of your primary arguments against the existence of God, that we simply cannot rest of the laurels of God being the Creator because that will lead to ignorance. I have already demonstrated that there is no actual conflict with belief in God and doing good science, so your argument is invalid, but I think it's ironic that on the other side of it, you are arguing that ignorance is a good thing and leads to better science. That you're even intellectually satisified with not knowing. I hope you can see the contradiction here.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

As I explained above, we can make several predictions about God based on the evidence. Belief in God is rational and can be justified. However, I understand that until you have a personal experience, it is probably going to be unconvincing to you, since this is way you see the world. You demand evidence, and lucky for you, God provides evidence. If you asked Him to come into your life, He would demonstrate it to you. He provided evidence to me, and I know you He will provide to you, especially if you take a leap of faith ask Him for it.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

Thanks for the promote, can't hurt to give the old boy another shot.

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Amazing Juggling from Victor Kee (Dralion Act in Soleil). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

>> ^G-bar:
just to put a face to that video recording B th of a mom, check this - she's basically the first blondish girl with the glasses. [url redacted] her other videos are awful as well... I wonder in what area do you live that to be speaking like that means your'e cool and hip.

The person in this video, is not his mother. It's his brother! @1:35 you hear him calling out for his mother in spanish, "ama! ama!", when the teasing(abuse is too much). I visited the youtube account you referenced, and upon further review, these are all videos posted by his crossdressing brother Victor(calls himself Vicky). It's an abusive household nonetheless. Big brother's got issues, to say the least

>> ^quantumushroom:

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."

Ann "Mad Dog" Coulter

Look for the Union Fable


As a public employee, I can assure you that no one I've ever worked alongside with or even met on the job thinks that our bosses want anything other than to make us work as hard as possible for the least amount of money possible. Not to mention the fact that, ultimately, our bosses are our citizens, and they've never wanted anything else either, especially in the current climate where attacking unions and blaming all of society's problems on them is the most popular thing to do for any elected official.

My co-conspirator bosses here in Oregon are now charging me $45 per month until I can get my waist down to 34 inches (regardless of my height). That's for the health insurance that costs me $900 per month already. And here I had spend a year trying to convince them to let me stand while I work.

If we didn't have the ability to threaten a strike this year, I'd be making 25% less wages as well, starting in January.

My favorite part of your post is that you're quoting Coulter in a time when literally every politician, including my Democratic governor, is sanctioning attacks on public employee unions across the board.

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.

Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.

Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."


Ann "Mad Dog" Coulter

Look for the Union Fable

What's amusing to me is that Mr. Comfort probably thinks he was the victor in that exchange.

That lady is my new favorite. I wish I could give her a high five.

I used to have a SuicideGirls account. It was pretty cool back in high school but...meh.

After watching this though I think they've rather missed the point of "Fight Club" as a movie. Whereas Fight Club was about brotherhood and finding manliness again and such this seems more like celebrating a victory and brutalizing your opponent. Fight Club was much different in that after a fight it was customary for the two men to hug, it wasn't about celebrating the victor, there was no real winner in a sense. In fact the time when Jack (narrator) wins and then brutalizes a fellow participant so he cannot get up on his own is one where everyone acknowledged he deviated from the spirit of what Fight Club was about. He was cast as the villain for what he did to Jared Leto's character.

SuicideGirls may have tried to show how it would be if women got together topless to fight in a warehouse but this isn't anything to do with Fight Club. Whoever wrote and directed this just missed the mark and I'd like to see it again done right.

...Or maybe I just want to see topless girls hugging after getting all sweaty...dismiss me if you wish.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or get a job somewhere else with "help..."
I guess I think status-quo bias is mostly just baked into the way Congress was set up in the Constitution. More recently, it's baked into the idea that the Senate can't pass a damn thing without a 3/5ths majority, which is really pretty much something new as of 2009.
To the degree that politicians themselves work to maintain the status quo, I say that's usually lobbyist pressure talking. Businesses don't want the environment fixed, they want the freedom to make a profit polluting the world. Businesses don't want health care universal and inexpensive, they want it to be a huge profit-making industry.
Businesses also have wealth that makes the government's budget look like a triviality, and certainly have more wealth than any individual politician does. Bribery can be a strong motivator, and it's effectively legal now.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either the man is mildly brain-damaged, or the quo was kept by two opposing allies. That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"

In this case, I just don't think you have your facts right. Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, who stepped down to run for Senate as a Republican. Democratic party officials didn't really think they stood much of a chance against Crist, so they didn't really try to recruit a strong candidate, or devote much money to the race. Essentially, the Senate seat was going to be Crist's.
But, Crist made the fatal error of publicly endorsing the Obama stimulus package, and the rabid crazies that run the Republican party demanded he be primaried. In comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the Republican nomination for Senate. This turns into a big, ugly battle, and both Crist and Rubio spend boatloads of cash on the primary. Rubio ultimately wins in a landslide -- 20 points, and gets endorsed by all the bigwigs, i.e. Boehner, McConnell, the NRSC, Michael Steele, etc.
Instead of taking the defeat and walking off the stage, Crist vowed to keep campaigning. At that point there was a ton of talk about whether Crist would run as an Independent, or a Democrat. A bunch of Democratic bigwigs, including Bill Clinton, personally approached Crist about running as a Democrat, even though Meek had already won the Democratic nomination.
Crist rejected that offer, and immediately started running ads slamming both Meek and Rubio. He burned his bridges with both parties.
So the election was a big three-way clusterfuck. Rubio was the Republican nominee, Meek was the Democratic nominee, and Crist chose to try to fight both parties. Even so, Democrats asked Meek to drop out and endorse Crist, but Meek thought that was a bridge too far -- Crist had not made any commitment to the Democratic party, and he was a Congressman and a full-fledged candidate for Senate in his own right, why should he drop out to help someone who wasn't a Democrat?
In the end, Rubio came out on top, but that was because he was the only one with any serious backing to his campaign, both monetarily and in terms of grassroots support (Rubio was a Tea Party darling). Meek had no money, and no grassroots support, and neither did Crist at the end of the day.
I remember it vividly because I was tantalized by the possibility of flipping Crist to the Democratic party and turning a sure Republican hold (due to Crist) into a situation where it became a likely Democratic pickup (due to Crist!). That kinda thing doesn't happen too often. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


Christ to me will always have lost because he was tag-teamed. Meek was asked to drop out because he was a loser that siphoned votes. He intentionally stayed for what purpose? I can't think of one besides pride, and that doesn't motivate politicians often enough to be valid.

Crist had a huge grassroots, and large support even if it wasn't tea party fanatics. He should have never been the one to walk off stage. He did the right thing, but right typically loses to the wrongs. I think Crist would never have been happy being a slave to either party--and that's why he left the insanity that is Florida's republicans.

He supported the Obama stimulus and that's fine. He went on attacks but even then kept a positive attitude. And this is why winners cannot be politicians.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:


My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or get a job somewhere else with "help..."

I guess I think status-quo bias is mostly just baked into the way Congress was set up in the Constitution. More recently, it's baked into the idea that the Senate can't pass a damn thing without a 3/5ths majority, which is really pretty much something new as of 2009.

To the degree that politicians themselves work to maintain the status quo, I say that's usually lobbyist pressure talking. Businesses don't want the environment fixed, they want the freedom to make a profit polluting the world. Businesses don't want health care universal and inexpensive, they want it to be a huge profit-making industry.

Businesses also have wealth that makes the government's budget look like a triviality, and certainly have more wealth than any individual politician does. Bribery can be a strong motivator, and it's effectively legal now.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either the man is mildly brain-damaged, or the quo was kept by two opposing allies. That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"


In this case, I just don't think you have your facts right. Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, who stepped down to run for Senate as a Republican. Democratic party officials didn't really think they stood much of a chance against Crist, so they didn't really try to recruit a strong candidate, or devote much money to the race. Essentially, the Senate seat was going to be Crist's.

But, Crist made the fatal error of publicly endorsing the Obama stimulus package, and the rabid crazies that run the Republican party demanded he be primaried. In comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the Republican nomination for Senate. This turns into a big, ugly battle, and both Crist and Rubio spend boatloads of cash on the primary. Rubio ultimately wins in a landslide -- 20 points, and gets endorsed by all the bigwigs, i.e. Boehner, McConnell, the NRSC, Michael Steele, etc.

Instead of taking the defeat and walking off the stage, Crist vowed to keep campaigning. At that point there was a ton of talk about whether Crist would run as an Independent, or a Democrat. A bunch of Democratic bigwigs, including Bill Clinton, personally approached Crist about running as a Democrat, even though Meek had already won the Democratic nomination.

Crist rejected that offer, and immediately started running ads slamming both Meek and Rubio. He burned his bridges with both parties.

So the election was a big three-way clusterfuck. Rubio was the Republican nominee, Meek was the Democratic nominee, and Crist chose to try to fight both parties. Even so, Democrats asked Meek to drop out and endorse Crist, but Meek thought that was a bridge too far -- Crist had not made any commitment to the Democratic party, and he was a Congressman and a full-fledged candidate for Senate in his own right, why should he drop out to help someone who wasn't a Democrat?

In the end, Rubio came out on top, but that was because he was the only one with any serious backing to his campaign, both monetarily and in terms of grassroots support (Rubio was a Tea Party darling). Meek had no money, and no grassroots support, and neither did Crist at the end of the day.

I remember it vividly because I was tantalized by the possibility of flipping Crist to the Democratic party and turning a sure Republican hold (due to Crist) into a situation where it became a likely Democratic pickup (due to Crist!). That kinda thing doesn't happen too often.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.



My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or grab another seat with unnatural ease... Either way, the loser still wins so long as he keeps the "R" or "D"

For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either Meek is mildly brain-damaged, or he kept the quo by pretending he opposed the "R."

That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"

To me, the funny part is that she doesn't know the passage or understand what it means. What Jesus is getting at (according to a mainstream interpretation of this scripture) is that we won't be able to predict who will be saved based on the work they do, their associates, or likely anything else outward. If she actually knew the passage well, and knew its historical context (ie. why men would have slept in the same bed in that time), she could have answered him calmly and he would have looked silly if he tried to press the issue.

Knowing the historical context, there's no reason to think two men in a bed was significant - and if she'd stayed calm here it would have been easy to make this point. The genders were the same in service of the point that "among these two outwardly similar people, there are internal differences we can't see". But because she can't calmly refute his points, she just shinyblurries it up, spazzes out on him, and generally makes him look like the victor (even though, obviously, he was just having fun with her).

And, honestly, the passage could be taken as a rebuke to those who assume no gay men will be saved. Part of the point is that it won't work to guess whether a person will be saved based on what you can see. At the time, the likely distinction would be "Jews vs Gentiles" (and that was partly the message here: don't assume you're saved because you have the right lineage and hang with the right crowd) but thinking of it now as "gays vs straights" isn't a crazy extrapolation. In general, one of Jesus's big themes was tolerance - there's lots of what he says that could be taken as supportive of inclusiveness and acceptance of gay people, so it shouldn't surprise her to hear a passage that goes against their tactics.

But you can tell right from the start that she doesn't know her Bible - she doesn't even know what he's going to read and she's already (incorrectly!) gainsaying his attempt to provide context. She also straight up fails when she suggests that the men are in different beds (despite having just heard him read it). But I suppose if she had any sense or reason, she wouldn't be where she is.