Upvote. I love RJD2. My favorite work of his has got to be without a doubt Ghostwriter. I feel more RJD2 submissions coming on. If someone else doesn't do it, I will.

Upvote for Albert quote there at the end.
Now, I pose a question: just what is time?

Hmm. Well, I left a comment on the Hip Hop Culture collective comment page, but have gotten no reply. Seeing as you are the founder, I suppose I could ask you. May I join the Hip Hop Culture collective?

_{"Because it requires that I vote for someone that I do not think would do the best job."}

"NO. It requires that you vote for the person you think will do the best job AND CAN GET THE JOB!!!
I think Nader can be president if people would stop accepting the excuse that you have been giving me. The only reason why we still have a two party systems is the acceptance that we cannot change it. That is it.

_{"As for the arguement you used, I am not even going to bother with it. It uses the assumption that there is only two possible choices for election. I whole-heartedly disagree with that."}

"It most certainly does not. It relies on the assumption that there will only be two candidates that have a chance to win. These are very different assumptions (I thought you assented to this upthread when you said "Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates"). Besides, my argument was EXPLICITLY structured to offer THREE choices. This is not a subtle point, and it's a rather cheap dodge of you just to dismiss the whole post like that."
Allow me to reiterate. Your arguement uses the assumptions that only two choices offer an "effective" result. Plus it also assumes that everyone except me takes your advice. Also, I think it is rather cheap to simply say that I should change my vote to democrat simply because democrat isn't republican and democrats stand a better chance. I tend to think that apples that fall from the tree are usually easier to pick, put often have worms in them. The same can be said of politicans. I wasn't dodging the question either. If I wanted to vote for democrats, I would vote for them.

"Nonetheless, I have no intention of sacrificing the good for the perfect. There are some people who are worse than others, and I'll not use a protest vote so I can knowingly help Republicans commit war crimes."
Is this what all of this is about? Republicans? Geez, you want me to throw my vote to someone I do not think would be a good canidate simply to give you one more vote over the Republicans? This is what I am talking about. This whole two party system makes it where there is no middle ground, no room for what you think, just black and white. I am not for that and never will be.

And as for my comment about thinking for yourself, I said that because I thought some campaign worker had convinced you that either you are with democrats or against them. Little did I know that it was infact you who as the campaign worker. Small world after all, eh? Well, anyhow, do me a favor and let me do what I thought you should. That is think for myself. By the way, how did we get into political parties? If I knew it was going to end up like this, I don't think I would have even mentioned the word vote. The word is to politicans like money is to a salesman. They will tell you anything to get it and get a bit ill if they don't receive it.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to piss you off. I should have realized the rhetoric I was hearing was indeed coming from a political worker and not hand-me-down rhetoric from someone who hung around a campaign worker too long. For now, lets agree to disagree when it comes to my vote.

"SilentPoet:

the christian mythology states the following:

god knows everything
god created everything
god created humans
god placed a condition on humans (don't eat the fruit)
god knew that humans could not meet that condition

Thus, god created humans knowing that they would fail.

god punishes humans for doing exactly what he created them to do."
Wrong. That is like saying a father who raises his son and knows that he will eventually do something wrong, be it chop down a cherry tree or steal from the cookie jar, raised his son to do so. It doesn't work like that.

"god then hides, whispers secrets into the ears of various nomadic folks over several hundred years, sends his son who is himself to die, and continues whispering secrets to a select few.

god then states that he will forgive us for doing what we were designed to do, only if we believe in him based on the writings of men who hear voices in their heads."
We were not designed to sin, God simply knew we would and allowed us to. Saying that God meant for us to sin is like saying any inventor who knows that his invention cannot last forever explicitly meant for it to break.


"in the old testament, god repeatedly shows great joy at making people suffer who are not His Chosen People."
I disagree. God did many harsh things in the Old Testament, but it was to protect His people, be it from physical harm or falling into sin. It seems harsh, but His people had a really hard time following Him. Unfortunately, force was the only thing that got their attention sometimes.

"It makes perfect sense; you've just misunderstood the point. You don't end up with someone worse than the 2 candidates. Rather, you end up with the worst of the 2 candidates that have an actual chance to win, and the one farthest from your optimal outcome. Nader can't win, whether you vote for him or not. Hell, SP, he couldn't win even if everyone who was a true Green disregarded my advice and voted for him TWICE. There just aren't enough people as yet who support his ideas.

Given that fact, a vote for Nader is a vote to facilitate making the world more crappy (by your own lights) than it is right now. It purposely endorses the worst outcome--a Republican victory--over a better outcome, where the outcomes are ranked only by reference to your own values. Worse, it does so out of a misguided belief that somehow that's what the "meaning of democracy" requires. How is that NOT irrational?"
Because it requires that I vote for someone that I do not think would do the best job. Surely, you know there are better people to choose as president than those of the two major parties. Forget who everyone else is voting for. Who do you really think would do the best job? I have seen too much of both of the major parties to think that they could offer up the best canidate. I really just wished people would stop looking over their shoulder to see if their vote matters. It already does. The only thing that has stopped us from getting a decent president is this countries acceptance of the lie that we can only have two choices. Trust me, there are much greener fields than those of whom we are told to vote for. Think for yourself.

As for the arguement you used, I am not even going to bother with it. It uses the assumption that there is only two possible choices for election. I whole-heartedly disagree with that.

_{"People see what they want to see."}

"Look who's talking."
Tell you what, you can say that and when I actually start being closed-minded, it will actually mean something. Until then, its is simply all sound a fury, signifying nothing. I am open to opinions other than my own. If I only saw what I wanted to see, I probably wouldn't have watched this video, no? Take a look at some of my comment history. I do not shy away from opinions different from my own. Nor do I ignore them.

_{"Some just want another reason to bash religion."}

"Look who's talking 2. And some are just looking for any opportunity to proselytize.
The same can be said of any video here that promotes atheism. I am not doing anything all together different than what has already been done here. The only difference is the subject. Atheist can proselytize as well.


As for comment concerning religion bashing, I said that because I highly doubted that someone posted this to help raise awareness of intolerance. There are much better examples out in the world. Perhaps I assumed too much of the intention of this video and for that I apologize. I have simply seen too many videos that do nothing but bash Christianity because of the actions of a few. But from the way some of the comments were heading, this was definitely about to become a religion bashing fest, no?

"Voting for Nader and atheism are the same: no one cares and it doesn't change a GOD-damned thing."
Then that would imply that one vote does not count. Which leads to no votes counting since every single person who counts has only one vote. Your statement is incorrect, sir.

_{"Ok. Just who, pray tell, should I vote for? I see corruption and lies from both of the major parties.
I have no intention of choosing between the lesser of two evils."/}

"Then you won't choose between them. And in failing to do so, you'll end up with the worse (by far) of the two evils. Yippee for you! The problem is, so will the rest of us.
That doesn't make sense. Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates. How do I end up with someone worse than the two canidates by voting for someone who I believe would make a better canidate?

"There is corruption in both major parties. But it doesn't follow from that that each member of the party is corrupt, or that there aren't politicians running for president who would be positive forces for cleaning up the District. What evidence do you have, say, that Obama is corrupt or a liar?"
From the fact that most politicans promise positive change, yet most serve their own intrests. I see this trend from both parties, so I look for canidates from other parties or an independent canidate.

"Now, I might not have jumped all over you so quickly if a vote for Nader actually stood any chance of changing things, either in the short term or the long term. It doesn't. He won't win, and he'll make it a good sight more likely that a Republican will take office. They are precisely the party that, once in power, will work tirelessly against achieving the goals you value most (I assume that if you'd ever vote for Nader, you are likely to the left of current Democrats)."
I will vote for whom I believe to be the best canidate. I only wish others would do likewise instead of settling for crooks.

"What I'm getting at is that a vote for Nader (or any candidate like him) is IRRATIONAL. All it does is help to make the world worse--by the voter's own lights--than it is right now."
How is choosing the canidate whom you believe would serve best irrational? That seems to simply go against the very meaning of democracy to me.

"Oh, and choggie can't even construct a sentence. If that doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence, then....well.....I was just hoping we could set the bar a little higher."
I admit that I usually have to read his comments several times before I figure out what he is saying. Like I said, he rambles a bit, but there may be some method in that madness.

Ummm...If I am not mistaken, she seems to be distracting the man praying beside her. I do not think she is pro-life. Infact, it would seem that she is trying to mock or distract the people at the pro-life rally. It is sad, really. She seems to be so caught up in disrupting the the pro-life rally, she fails to realize she made a complete jerk of herself.

Both my father and mother made bad decisions when I was younger. I don't plan to mimic them because I saw what those decision ended up doing to them.
I am still upvoting this though because kids normally do emulate thier parents.

I didn't care for the video, but poking fun at Choggie made me smile. Upvote.

lol. I just found out I had this titled "Strigfever". It is now "Stringfever".

"Theo: He's close. I think he's second to choggie."
I disagree. Choggie may ramble a bit, but he strikes me as someone intelligent.

"Oh, and SilentPoet: congrats in advance on helping Giuliani or Thompson get elected. We all appreciate it.

Ass."
Ok. Just who, pray tell, should I vote for? I see corruption and lies from both of the major parties.
I have no intention of choosing between the lesser of two evils.

_{"I think a prayer vigil outside the senate would have been a much better solution.}

"That would indicate that there was a "problem." I didn't see one."

They saw a problem. I was simply offering a solution if I was in there shoes. Personally, I really don't think Christianity and government systems of any sort were meant to "get along" anyhow. Given how governments can easily become corrupt, it would be a bad decision to have the two working hand in hand. Government + belief system = theocracy.
I tend to think that is a bad idea in general.
praying should either be a private thing between you and god, or you should admit that you are just showing off and causing trouble.

"freedom of religion" means "freedom to not have any religion promoted by government whatsoever"
No, freedom of religion means that our government shall neither support or interfer with any religion. It goes both ways, but generally it isn't followed. Personally, I think some politicans are allowing it for votes. I can see through that though. Once they actually do something useful, like say...help end poverty, go after corruption, do their job, etc. I might vote for them. Until then, I am voting for Nader.

Personally, I think a prayer vigil outside the senate would have been a much better solution.

Hindu has its extremists as well, but whatever.

Yeah, that Gandhi - where the hell did he get off NOT using violence? It's un-American!

Congrats on the dumbest defense of religion I've ever heard.
DING! DING! DING!
You just won a free lesson in Hindu caste systems.

Just claim your price <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit">Here.

Oh and that was not me defending the actions of the protesters. While I may agree with them on some points, I do think it is best to respect the beliefs of others. I simply thought it ironic that people are more interested in posting the intolerance of some, mostly Christians and Muslims, yet totally ignore some of the horrendus acts of intolerance elsewhere, like <ahref="http://www.savetibet.org/news/positionpapers/religiouspersecution.php">this, <ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_in_China">this, and <ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJM3BoBNrdk">this.

I see a trend. People see what they want to see. Some just want another reason to bash religion.