Point 1: If by misquote, you mean substituted a larger term (religion) for a smaller one (churches), I suppose I did. But without religion, there -are- no churches. I don't see any meaningful difference.

Point 2: Texas has worked damned hard to earn its reputation as a major-league collection of wingnuts. I'm not sure how you can justify getting upset when that reputation is assumed to be true. You have a problem with the reputation, maybe you should start blaming the people who are going out of their way to earn it...like Rick Perry, or the Texas Board of Education. As long as the state is trying to rewrite history to eliminate reality's liberal bias, you're going to be stuck with that.

Point 3: Perhaps I should have slowed down and spent more time in the step-by-step logic...I really thought most people who read her could follow the shorthand, but I did indeed jump about a bit.

In many ways, churches are no different than any corporation. They exist as a means to concentrate funds and offer the controller(s) of those funds a method of avoiding personal responsibility for misuse of those funds. On top of that, churches pay no taxes, although they still make liberal use of publicly funded services, -and- in many cases, they keep lobbying for public funds to be handed over to them as well. Now add how many churches are politically active and advising their cult members how to vote, and you might begin to see why I refer to them all as corporate welfare queens. Or maybe not...I don't know if you're even going to try to follow it or not, and don't much care at this point.
>> ^chingalera:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^chingalera:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Someone just explained separation of church and state to him.

Jeeez dude, you are about a party-liner ain't ya?? Texas would be the first state to "separate" from the diseased political system you so faithfully believe in and, as we observe, believe in as fervently as any bible-thumping proselytizer determined to beat a moot point into oblivion.
As the government of the U.S. continues down her retrograde path, churches will become for many, a last bastion of sanity exempt from a really retarded form of totalitarianism and fascism. Retarded, because folks who talk shit from the comfort of their programming who belie intelligence with their words should have seen the shit coming from miles away but were too comfortable in their delusion to see the boots and badges-

I was gonna...but then decided it's not worth it, then changed my mind one last time.
I suspect aAnyone who can call religion "the last bastion of sanity" is too far gone to make sense, but... Religion supplies a cushy lifestyle for priests...that's the sum total of it's accomplishments. Churches have, if anything, helped push the government down the path you so self-righteously condemn...and they preach and stump political issues all without paying any taxes. Yet more corporate welfare.
It's time for the -real- welfare queens to start paying their share...churches, Wall Street, Defense contractors, big Pharma, etc. Time to either start contributing to the upkeep of society, or be broken up (or strung up, as the case may be).

No, you misquote me and then infer bullshit in that same smug manner that libby there used and that anyone on the receiving end of such smug could expect after reading a gajillion similar quips. I said CHURCHES and meant the members of the same whose communal efforts keep the building's physical plant in order and supports the members in time of want or need. You know...The first places to get raided and ransacked when the jackboots come??
This didn't start about about religion: I started it when Potato-libro there took a jab at Texas and lighted upon another opportunity to bash "them ignernt conservatives, etc.", NOT UNLIKE a shitload of folks with "holier than thou" attitudes concerning politics and government. QUITE laughable really, because the opinions they have and the conclusions they have arrived at, are based on limited and incomplete information or worse, they have been programmed to do so through systematic efforts by do-nothings in colleges or universities.
Stormsinger, YOUR rant began with religion and politics and manically concluded with corporations and Wall Street....WTF??!! By the way, my solution as an anarchistic, soon-to-be expatriate is to use the BIG TEX method on governments and corporations. You hate em so much, be like the Hulk. SMAAAASH! Then burn, repeat.
Can we talk about how fucking progressive IDAHO is now??? Jesus Christ, Allah Mustapha!!
I suspect anyone who can start with anti-religion rants, switch to blaming churches for the state of America's demise, bash tax-exemption and somehow blame corporate welfare (whatever the fuck!??...see where this is going?) and arrive at a total solution by blaming BELTWAY INSIDERS AND THE SENATORS/CONGRESSMEN THEY HAVE BOUGHT for pharma, defense, etc. shifting the blame to people without any power or influence???....I'd have to call them schizophrenic! Which is how most rabid concerning politics ion one side or the other are to me. ALLL OF THEM, conservative or liberal. I could give a fiddler's fist-fuck about working within a failed system. I prefer to keep to the fringes of this broken machine and put as little of my resources or mentations into it.
But some, like stormie and libby here...well, hopeless fiends and junkies for the dance politic. Playing right into the hands of the corporations iffn ya axe me!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

The bottom line here is that you lack the courage for your convictions. Take the license plate off of your car, cut up your social security card, and stop paying your taxes. Otherwise, you're just contributing to a system that you believe is impinging on a majority of the populace's freedoms (a hypocrite).

Actually, the reductio ad absurdum goes a little further. If you think the government "owns" the people because it can collect taxes from them with impunity, and you claim to really believe in the idea that liberty is indistinguishable from the unfettered exercise of property rights, then really, you should be defending any government exercise of power over its property, because it owns the people, and anything it does to its subjects is a legitimate exercise of liberty.

You already see them trotting out a form of this argument anytime there's a major management/labor dispute in the press. From there, you only really need to change a few words, and you wind up with almost exactly the rationale given by royalists in favor of hereditary monarchies in middle-age Europe.

Conservatives are more or less living out the final chapters of Animal Farm now. Their supposed dedication to principles born from a rebellion against authoritarian monarchies has, over the ensuing decades, been slowly twisted until it's become a rationale for establishing a new monarchy on this side of the Atlantic.

I keep waiting for the day I see a clip of some wingnut on Fox News declaring four legs good, two legs better that monarchy is a superior form of government to democracy because then those undesirable people we're always bitching about would truly know their place...

Rather than a return to Clinton-era tax rates, I would have liked to see him pledge a return to Reagan-era tax rates. It's not that I think it would necessarily be a good plan, but it would have been fun to watch the wingnuts try to simultaneously hold up the Gipper as The Superpresident while trying to trash his 50% tax rate on people making over $70k as anti-American class warfare.

Someone has been reading too much InfoWars. Alex Jones, that fucking wingnut, is a predictable source of batshit crazy ideas.

Yes, it's possible to hide evidence. Yes, it's technically possible there were WMDs and they were missed somehow. But all sides who are close to the issue now agree there were no WMDs. It's only wingnuts like you who haven't gotten the memo who still think that's the party line. It's OK, you can now drop the Fox talking point. Even Fox has dropped it. Or don't. It makes for entertaining poll results.>> ^lantern53:

If I think you have peanut butter in your house, and I announce that I am looking for it and am preparing a warrant to search for it, how difficult would it be for you to remove it?
Hey, isn't Keith Olbermann on? I think Rose O'Donnell is making an appearance! Joe Biden will make a prepared remark! lol
See how easy that is?

Asking citizens for their papers is against everything I was raised to believe our country stood for. Perhaps the rightwing is fine with the US becoming the Soviet Union, but I'm not.

It's really not that hard to stop illegal immigration...crack down on those companies that employ them. If no one hires them, they'll stop coming. Of course, that would require putting some requirements on businesses...which we all know will never be an option for the wingnuts. Better to just demonize those with darker skin, regardless of the facts.

>> ^Quboid:

I've no idea actually how large a portion of the American public cared about his lapel.

Nobody I personally know, including Republicans, gave a shit about the lapel pin. Even the biggest wingnuts I know were only concerned with his policies, even if they were totally misinformed about them.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

This is like these mystifying conversations I have where I say racism exists and is bad, and in return get flack from some wingnut who claims I'm making racial problems worse by saying racism exists and is bad.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida.

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

And BTW, that's what me perpetuating the partisan fight looks like.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.
When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.


I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

Upvote for extreme wingnut insanity.

Moving this video to wingnut's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Moving this video to wingnut's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter wingnut.

Permanently discarding this video - kill requested by wingnut.

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry