That's not what he's saying at all.

The bible, or the Quran, or many other texts, just like historical events as they were, or works of literature, or other even historical texts as complex as this often have contradictory ideas. The US constitution is founded on a set of beliefs and ideas that almost all of us subscribe to, yet there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, pragmatists, etc. all deriving very different ideas from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and more. The reason this is true is because those values often come into conflict, and can outright contradict each other. Freedom vs security, equality vs prosperity, I could go on and on.

With the Bible, you have Catholics, Protestants, subdivided into a plethora of different religions in their own right under the umbrella of Christianity. You have the running joke even within Catholicism that American Catholics aren't really Catholics at all. Not only do different Christians interpret the bible differently, the amount they count on the bible varies between fundamentalists like Jehovah's Witnesses who take the bible extremely literally to extremely secular Christians who have absolutely no problem discarding any part of Christian doctrines when scientific evidence proves otherwise.

You have Christians who act as saintly as Mother Theresa to mobsters.

That's just Christianity. There are extremist Islamic groups that sound more like the Westboro Baptist Church than other Muslims.

But within Christianity, there's "honor thy mother and thy father" and "thou shall not kill". What if your parents are murderers?

That's a crude, and obvious example of conflicting values, but the 10 commandments are simple rules that don't completely resolve every situation.

What's stupid is to believe that you can know about a person's specific ideology just by their religion. Does their religion play a role in their ideology? Absolutely, but how it impacted their ideology has much more to do with their experiences, their natural tendancies, etc. than necessarily their religion. If you grew up in a mob family, honor thy mother and father was more likely the lesson you took from the Bible than thou shall not kill.

And if you look around you, this is plainly obvious. Even look within yourself. We're all a melting pot of lessons and ideas we've learned from school, personal life experiences, our religious beliefs, our parents, our socio-economic backgrounds, our friends, etc. That's why you are different from everyone of your religion, your friends, who you went to school with, your socioeconomic class, etc.

I'm all in favor of Walmart paying their employees more than they are, which is horsecrap...

BUT...

This video is a crap argument.

The statistics are riddled with problems.

Just off the top of my head the problems with it...

*They picked Ohio, which isn't indicative of what a living wage would be across the US. It's 16th in cost of living by state rank. That's a crap state to select.

*They picked a 68 cent box of macaroni to show the increase in prices. I completely agree the amount they determined by percentage isn't much, but still, pick a reasonable item to show. Better yet, just say if your average grocery bill is $100, it'll go up X amount.

*As many as 15% of Ohio Walmart employees isn't 15%. Just because you make something that would qualify for food stamps doesn't mean YOU qualify for food stamps. If you're a dependent on someone else is makes a lot of money, you don't qualify as an example. Get the actual amount of people who do if you're going to project numbers about how much food stamps go to Walmart employees.

*I completely am in favor of everyone who works a full work week should get a living wage. 30 hours isn't a full work week! 40 is. Yes, EVERY Walmart employee who works 40 hours a week should earn a living wage. I saw that and wanted to throw things because it completely undermines a good policy idea with crap like that. Nobody considers 30 hours a full work week.

With all that said, bobknight33's argument is horsecrap. Food stamp measures in this case come into play as a reaction to underpay by the employer. Walmart is not paying its employees $8 because they know their employees can get food stamps to make up the difference. They pay their employees $8/hr because they don't have to pay more than that either because of market forces or because gov't regulations don't force them to pay more. If they could, they'd pay $4/hr, food stamps or not.

To argue it's because of any other reason is an exercise of complete naiveté towards the benevolent job creators who are only trying to do good by society.

And to think workers would just not work for such a low wage would only occur if they had other opportunities that paid better. They already don't have those options as is. This would magically change because you took away food stamps?!

Without food stamps to make an unlivable wage a living wage, here's what would happen - Walmart employees would have to work other jobs in addition to their Walmart job with similar low skill requirements. This would increase the labor pool (same number of workers who work more hours = higher supply of workers), and that would drive the cost of labor down, so Walmart and other low skill employers could pay EVEN LESS!

bobknight33... what a brilliant solution for low wages for jobs! You just exacerbated the problem.

I don't watch MSNBC... or NBC... or Fox News for that matter.

But you know... keep on denying climate change and then have the gall to tell other people they don't read or listen to facts.

What if the issues Democrats and Republicans agree on prove that both parties agree on basic principles that virtually everyone else agrees with, too (even libertarians), such as equality, fairness, public safety, prosperity, and freedom?

What if where there are disagreements between the two parties, it's because these basic principles are in conflict, and each party prioritizes different values when they're in conflict generally speaking?

What if the reason that politicians cross over and/or meet in the middle is because both sides often decide that their prioritization of values wasn't going to work best in that particular situation, and favored pragmatism over political dogmas, and that neither conservative nor liberal ideologies work 100% of the time, and you have to some degree adapt your ideology to address new societal issues that couldn't be foreseen?

What if having a starkly different choice that's unpractical and doesn't work when the rubber meets the road in public policy, such as applying libertarian principles 100% consistently to everything, is worse than what we have now?

What if the solution to the broken political system is to replace failed somewhat pragmatically formed policies with different pragmatic policies arrived at with ideas based on reason, facts, and open mindedness, not blind following of principles of any political ideology?

What if the reason why our current political culture is broken is precisely because the divide between the parties has become increasingly bigger, to the point that at least one side would rather the government not function than let changes they don't like go into effect? What if it's increasingly the case that choosing to vote for a Democrat or Republican actually is more of a "real choice" than it has been for quite sometime, and that deflates this entire argument of Americans not having any "real choice" between the two?

1. That's not a reason for a scandal. There's a lot of good reasons a rescue operation could have been a bad idea, all of which could be in the best interests of everyone involved.
2. You don't know that's the reason why. In a perfect world, we'd know absolutely everything when we want to know it. Welcome to the real world.
3. US personnel unfortunately die from time to time while serving their country, and sometimes there's nothing scandalous about it. You better show some indignation to rejected beefing up of embassy security by the GOP, too if you're gonna play that card. Something tells me you won't.
4. Already been refuted by the facts. There was nothing significantly changed in the statements.

Look, you're a partisan, I get it. But this is insane. If there was something truly scandalous in the facts we have, I'd be screaming loudly, too. Unfortunately for you, that's not what is suggested in the facts.

The problem is you're not gonna get an honest investigation because it will be a Congressional hearing, where the "prosecutors" are already saying it's the worst political scandal ever without any real evidence yet.

And it's not being done to determine what we can do to do better. It's being done to make Obama look bad. There isn't enough evidence.

I think if you had an AR15 or a pea shooter, if you're facing down a tank, I'm pretty sure you're screwed.

The irony is QM is caricaturing Democratic proposals to absurd extremes (tax the rich 100%!!!!), complete with an apocalyptic outcome (THE ECONOMY WILL CRATER!!!) in an attempt to discredit it, when what QM favors IS the caricature of what is reasonable about conservative ideas when it comes to policy.

I'd laugh except this kind of crap is what dominates the GOP, and I'm not sure if this past election is going to clue them in on how ridiculous this kind of thought is.

Here's why your vote matters.

You represent various groups. The more that group votes, the more politicians in parties, the parties themselves, or new parties gravitate to those groups and their views.

If you're a truly moderate, open minded person, if you don't vote, and the crazies do, guess who the candidates gravitate towards? The crazies.

With that said, I don't encourage people to vote. If you're too apathetic or stupid to understand this, I don't want political leaders trying to earn your vote.

Dude, they're not gonna hear repeated challenges to the same law. It's over. Go cry yourself to sleep if you have to, but it's time to accept reality.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? It's not the same case. This case today was about the constitutionality of Obamacare as a whole, and was not about the contraceptive mandate.
>> ^heropsycho:
Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?
LOL, dude, it's over.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?

LOL, dude, it's over.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.

So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.
Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
>> ^heropsycho:

You should totally stop responding and study. What's wrong with you?

LOL...

Pretty sure Occupy doesn't think the proper way to respond to honest constructive criticism is get pissy.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^heropsycho:
I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.
How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.
If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.
But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

No misunderstanding...just an unwillingness to explain. I don't care.

I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.

How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.

If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.

But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^heropsycho:
Speaking as someone who has some sympathies at least for their motivations but falls under the general political moderate group who's "got crap to do" and doesn't have time to actively participate in any political movements, I personally had forgotten Occupy existed for months until Maher brought this up.
You can blame that on a lot of things, but one conclusion you have to draw from this is they haven't been effective in trying to affect change for quite sometime. I don't pretend to have an answer on what they should do, but what they're doing so far hasn't worked.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Stormsinger:
I don't think he was actually recommending they "support the democrats", so much as co-opt the Democratic party. That's certainly a reasonable approach, if you want a chance to make an actual difference in less than 30 years.

They're already making a difference. The Occupy movement has been a really great success, just need some more time and clarify the message better. We don't need a party.


And you'd be wrong. Not according to me, according to Noam Fucking Chomsky.