>> ^theali:

Nazis had their day in court AFTER they were fully defited, both morally and physically. Al Quida hasn't been defited yet, as an organization and ideology. The courts would have dragged on and opened many cans of worms before an actual victory is achieved.
Give historic example of trial when the war was still going on.
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.
When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.
If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.



So one reason we have a necessary need to forego the right to a fair trial is because the courts would've lingered on and "opened a can of worms"? I guess the suspension of Habeas Corpus in GITMO is also a necessary tool to "defit" Al Qaeda?

And there wasn't a kill order put out on Hitler, as far as I know. And he was recent history's most reviled mass murderer. The point is and always has been that due process is important even for the most hated, because the second we allow the government to side-step a very important human right for popular opinion, we've welcomed that selective tyranny onto any one of us.

Nazis had their day in court AFTER they were fully defited, both morally and physically. Al Quida hasn't been defited yet, as an organization and ideology. The courts would have dragged on and opened many cans of worms before an actual victory is achieved.

Give historic example of trial when the war was still going on.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.
When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.
If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.

@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.

When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.

If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.

@GeeSussFreeK

"You assume that because you can make an infinite number of statements about the truth of something, that all statements must be true, which is a fallacy. There is, correspondingly, an infinite number of false statements that could be made."

That's the opposite of what you said before, but you are right this time. Except about my assumptions, you have that bit backwards. I was merely extrapolating from your fallacious argument to show you that it's fallacious, which you somehow agree with but attribute to me... Weird.

So we are in agreement. There is a finite number of true things and an infinite number of false things you can say about the universe. Therefore any statement you make without evidence is infinitely more likely to fall into the infinite false category than it is to fall into the limited true category.

If, after all this you don't get it, re-read what's been posted. I've covered the bases.

Over and out.

Chuck Norris's audio isn't out of sync with the video... He's right on time. The rest of the internet is out of sync wish Chuck Norris!

I don't believe any "party" is serious about cutting spending or balancing budgets. I do, however, believe there are a few individuals in every party that want to do so, but I think the overwhelming majority of them don't really care.

When the Republicans were in office, they spent, now that they're out office they claim they will stop spending. The Democrats are no different, they talk about slashing budgets and cutting spending all the while it's being raised across the board, while promising these cuts/savings will happen in the future with NO real accountability if it never happens. Both parties love to play pretend, and the majority of the people love to pretend along with them, and that's the problem. It's highlighted in this thread perfectly. The republican posters say X, the democratic posters say Y, and both pretend X and Y are right with no in-between.

The few of us who see both can be right at times and wrong at times...we are so outnumbered it doesn't matter what we think. You'll see this highlighted in responses to my posts.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

If the tea party were serious about balancing the budget, they'd have my vote. Unfortunately the entire plan is to cut "needless government waste" (defined as a handful of programs they don't like, totaling well below $50 billion annually), while pushing through tax cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars per year. None of them are willing to tell voters that the price for fiscal discipline is a lower standard of living than we had under the debt fueled orgy of the last 30 years.
Let me go on the record and say I will not vote for any politician who promises to cut my taxes while we're running a deficit. Such people are either too dishonest or too mathematically incompetent to govern.

Peer pressure has little to do with it. The reason why it won't be effective if shown in high schools is that teen drivers are well aware of the consequences of 'aggressive driving'. What they're terrible at is assessing risk, the likelihood that THIS TIME there will be a pedestrian there when they pass on the right. Given time, their prefrontal cortex will mature, and experience will temper the notion that every moment is a novel opportunity where anything can happen. Sadly, the brains of some adolescents will never mature sufficiently, usually due to stress in the environment. That's all the thoughtless asshole drivers out in the road today. The problem is that if these commercials (the ones that are PSAs) are aimed at them, it's a lost cause. They can't see that any of this applies to them. Then they run out to play the lottery.

I did have a friend who walked away from a roll-over crash that crossed the median of the highway and four lanes on the other side. His advice to me (a novice driver at age 24) was that most people, when they sense a collision is imminent, jam on the brakes. This is, as you can imagine, a terrible idea for a number of reason. With a smile he said, "Just go faster. When THEY jam on THEIR brakes, you'll be surprised what options the laws of physics close for them, and open for you."

It's not just about race issues, it's about one-sidedness, and the deomnizing of any thought that's divergent from modern liberalism. Eventually it gets to the point that I can't tell the difference between the radicals on either end. Choggie was right at times, that there are those here that are as blindered as a Fox news fan, that the level of critical thinking can as weak here as it is at a tea bagger rally.

If someone is divergent enough to be a thorn in everyone's side for long enough, to challenge the popular VS thinking, that member will almost always ultimately be banned. Either he will be forced out or provoked to the point that they hang themselves. This "road" I'm going down and what I'm railing against, which may ultimately end in my own demise, is the single-mindedness of this certain retinue. You don't have the universal support you think you have.

[e:]"The small contingency of self-satisfied and judgmental members..."

"You and your crew..."

You want names? I can provide them, I can point fingers. No. Everybody knows who I'm talking about.

I find siftbot to be limited to a very short list of scripted actions, and easily distracted at that. Let's see if you can get it right this time, bot. *wtf

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/LOST-Flight-815-Crash-in-Real-Time (I hope I did this right...first time doing it)

Let's see this get published right in time for Hallowe'en. Heh, the hanging at Nathan Phillips square - Toronto City Hall - trippy.

>> ^blankfist:
Please stop ridiculing and picking on the dissenting voices on this site. This is exactly the issue I take with majority opinion whether it begins from the left or right; it breeds not only sheep, but self righteous hatred. When you hear a voice of the minority, it should be our human duty to embrace it and make efforts to understand it instead of ostracizing it outright. To me, there is not a higher purpose for a man than to shirk his belief system so he can try to understand another's, and I defy anyone to prove me otherwise.

I agree entirely with your premise, but unfortunately our dissenters leave a lot to be desired. Right on time to provide an example is QM...


>> ^quantumushroom:
Stalin and Mao are figures of the FAR LEFT.
100 million murdered by communists? That's chump change!

This is not a rational dissenting voice, it's bait. Now it used to be that you could reel QM in, remind him that Santa doesn't bring rude children any toys, and get him to participate in a conversation like an adult. That may still be the case; I got tired of having to specifically invite his grown-up personality to come out and join the discussion, so I stopped trying. Let him act like a child, but don't be surprised when he gets treated like one.

Most of the dissenters that I found interesting have been run out of here: pinky and LittleRed come to mind.

in comedy, timing is everything and this piece was right on time

I agree, it's not my power, it's the power of lots of people working together. Not everyone wanted what I want.

For now, I'm willing to trust that we've stopped torturing. I'm content (but not happy) with how we're drawing down from Iraq. I'm discontent with the silence we're given about Afghanistan.

I wouldn't call what's happening nationalizing labor and industry. While government has bought shares in several major companies, they have studiously avoided giving themselves controlling interest, and have no interest in maintaining ownership. If I get a whiff that they plan on keeping GM or AIG, or any of the banks, I'll get unhappy fast.

As for the debt and deficit, I'm numb to it. It's been insurmountably large, and increasing since before I could walk. I want it fixed, but really, it wasn't so bad until Bush, and it's not nearly as bad as it was after WW2 and the Great Depression. I'm not so worried about deficits now as I am concerned about things like health care and global warming. Putting plans for both in place will likely help out a lot with the debt, and our trade imbalances, and the environment, and people's willingness to start their own business, etc.

As for the empire, I'm not in favor of sustaining it. But there's only so much I think is possible to fix right now. There'd be a public outcry if we tried to cut "defense" spending, especially when every Republican screams "OOGA BOOGA, TERRORISM" into every open mic around.

I don't think that the Democrats are perfect, but I'm never going to be interested in being a libertarian. I think in Europe I might be a conservative (maybe), but here and now I'm trying to make the Democrats live up to their platform, which is a big step in the right direction on all fronts as far as I'm concerned. I want more, more quickly but I don't see anything changing quickly under our constitution (and I'd rather not see Obama take up the Bush tactics for ramming things through).

Personally the main issue I face in "purifying" the Democrats is big business bribing our guys to the dark side, and self-identified conservatives ramping up hatred for everyone else in the world. Trying to tell everyone that business is the sweetest, most wonderful thing in the world is like the sickest kind of joke, especially if you want some sort of lasting anti-war and anti-corporatist movement to succeed.

When there's a country where 20-30% of the people think QM is right every time he opens his mouth (and 30% more who're willing to give up anything to feel safe from the feverish horrors they dream up), things like ending a global hegemony gets very, very hard, especially if you spend more time fighting with people like me, than people like him.

Seriously man, we're on the same side with most of the important stuff.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:

Would I have chastised you if Aemaeth was a Scientologist or polite Neo-Nazi? That's a very good question. Probably not. It depends.

I understand your disdain for the LDS. A long time ago I sublet some studio space to a recently converted Mormon, and had to endure the proselytizing every day. I agree, it's laughable at the least, and dangerous at the worst. But I put up with it because just prior to his conversion, his young son had died suddenly in his sleep, without any medical explanation. He had no real support from friends or family, and this was his "port in a storm" I guess. A Mormon must have knocked on his door at just the right (wrong) time. You would surely cite this as opportunistic and playing on the weak, and I wouldn't disagree. I think he shook it eventually and moved on to hard-core Ufology. Just as kooky, but I thought that was more interesting, at least.

I am as disgusted as you at the politicization of the church. Despite our recent victory in Connecticut, there's still a strong anti-gay sentiment brewing. We get robocalls about it all the time, somebody's trying to see if there is enough support for a referendum. I don't think my response was recorded though, since it was full of invective that couldn't be deciphered by the computer doing the calling.

I think you and I are probably politically and ideologically very similar. I can think of a few things we might not agree on, but for the most part I hazard the guess that we are like-minded. There's some contrast in how we go about it though. I think minds are fragile, and need to be opened carefully because otherwise they break or snap shut for good. You're angrier than that, I imagine in this case because of the Prop8 debacle. That's fine, I'm angry too.

But I'm still curious about where your morality comes from. It's not entirely natural, although you do see altruism in primates and some other mammals. You must have learned it from someone. Parents, teachers, television, sunday school. I am willing to bet that a majority of atheists come from loving and secure family settings, where kindness and decency and love feel like natural principals of the universe. Why would we need a god, we know what's right and how to look after one another. The trouble is, it's not true of everybody. For many people God is that stern but loving father they never had. That's the only reason I defend the religioulous. Don't take it for granted where your morality comes from, and give a moment's thought to others less fortunate is all I'm saying.

What a lovely chat. I wish we had beer and pot and a glowing fire.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You can't blame me for breathing on a wilting violet. This was a dialog, not a monologue. If Aemaeth didn't want a discussion, then he shouldn't have responded to my video in the first place. He's no victim.

I wasn't trying to chase him off the site. I was just trying to seed some doubt and engage him in some frank conversation. I'd love nothing more than for him to come back and stand up for himself. He could bring his friends too if he likes. The more the merrier.

Again, I'm going to re-iterate that there is a double standard when it comes to religion. The religious are allowed to damn people to hell and decide which humans are allowed to be married, but point out some glaring problems within a faith and all of a sudden you become Darth Vader.

Inelegantly: fuck that

I honestly find Mormonism very troubling, from it's morally disgusting inception, to it's unbelievable mythology, to its history of discrimination and misogyny, to its recent foyer into politics. I see it as a negative force in the world and would like to seed some doubt among its followers.

Can I be tolerant and severely critical at the same time?

Here are some questions that culture tells me I shouldn't ask.

-Joseph Smith had 33 wives, some of them as young as 14, some of them were others men's wives. How does this square with Mormon views on morality? How can you follow the teachings of a despicable lech and then seek to limit the rights of gay people?

-Do Mormons really believe that God waited 1800 years and then revealed himself to some dude in rural Utah, whom he instructed to sex up dozens of women and girls?

-Is it possible that this entire religion started out as a sex cult?

-Do Mormons really believe that Native Americans are actually a lost Jewish tribe?

Does tolerance require my silence on these points?

Would you have chastised me if Aemaeth was a Scientologist, or a polite Neo-Nazi?

Does tolerance have limits?