Didn't watch the video yet. Wanted to reply to the subtitle of the post for all of the viewers of the video/thread to see

The real world is unfair/violent at times. We will never achieve Utopia. A woman should have the tools (be it a gun or otherwise) to defend herself if the need arises. Its far better to have something you don't need than to need something you don't have.

I am not saying that is the only solution. We should "attack" the issue from both sides by trying to prevent violence in the first place.

If my better half decided to train herself to properly use a firearm and carry it around I would support that decision. Funny enough she is learning Tae Kwon Do in case "push comes to shove."

Didn't your grandmother say "never say never?" For you to decide for everyone else that guns are never the answer is against their freedom. Perhaps guns should never be the answer for YOU specifically but don't take away the possibility of your neighbor to have a gun to protect herself from rape if thats what she chooses to do.

As Abraham Lincoln said - Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither

Reality has a liberal bias. It's a well-known internet fact, since Abraham Lincoln first wrote it on usenet in misc.facts.
>> ^deedub81:

Question: The reason why there are WAY more liberal biased videos on videosift is.....
A) ...that there are simply more liberals than conservatives in the US.
B) ...that Romney was right about the 47% and they spend fewer hours actually working and contributing to society, therefore, they're online more often.

That looks retarded, and I'm a person who likes the idea of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter...

Does anyone else think that Bill Nye has the right facial features to play a very convincing Abraham Lincoln?

Anyhow, I know that I am on sacred ground here at videosift, so instead of arguing with you, or the video, I'll just say why I believe in Creationism.

No, it's not because I believe the bible. Unlike many of the Christians that you know, I was not raised in the faith, or any faith, and I converted later in life. My default position was agnosticism, and I was a firm believer in evolution and the old age of the Earth. When I became a follower of Jesus Christ, I automatically didn't ditch those beliefs. I assumed, probably like many atheists turned Christian, that these things were absolutely proven scientifically and there was no room for doubt. Therefore, I further assumed that where the bible differed from the conclusions of science, either the bible was wrong, or it had to be looked at metaphorically.

I was very comfortable with this position, and would have remained there if I hadn't been challenged about the accuracy of this belief. What I found out was that my assumption that science was correct and evolution from universal common descent was absolutely proven was not based on my understanding of the theory, or the evidence behind it, but rather my cultural indoctrination into it.

If you grew up in a secular home like I did, then you might know what I am talking about. It's what they teach you in school, first of all. All of the textbooks you read about science support this theory, and so do your teachers. It's all over the culture as well. It's in the books that you read, the movies that you watch, and the music that you listen to. It's in conversations, it's in euphamisms, basically, it's everywhere. It's always presented to you as a proven fact and you have no reason to ever question it. I had no idea, really, that so many people (40 percent of our population) do question it.

In any case, I started investigating it. I studied the history of how this theory came to be accepted as truth, the evidence that supports it, and how it interrelates with many different branches of science. What I was shocked to find, and I do mean shocked, was that the absolute proof of the theory that every authority in my life who taught on these things told me was there, wasn't there. What I found was that, when it came to the evidence, sooner or later you came upon a giant assumption (read: leap of faith). What I found was that the case for evolution was not resting on a bedrock of proof, but rather a mountain of circumstantial evidence.

The only logical conclusion at this point was that if I was going to continue to believe in evolution, I would have to take it on faith. Instead of doing that, I decided to put my faith in the bible instead. So I changed my mind because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

Now, I said I am not going to argue with Bill Nye, but I will address a point that he brought up. Specifically, deep time. Deep time is the fundamental assumption which much of modern science is built upon, but what is the proof for deep time?

Well, the first proof that is usually brought up is radiometric dating. When someone hears "radiometric dating" they associate the very mention as conclusive proof, as if the rock being dated had a timestamp on it, and radiometric dating just reads it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Radiometric dating has a few assumptions built into it:

1. Constant decay rate
2. Ratio of daughter to natural
3. Beginning conditions known
4. No leaching or addition of parent
5. No leaching or addition of daughter
6. All assumptions valid for billions of years

If all of those assumptions are valid, the date can be trusted. The problem is that there is no way to determine whether all of those assumptions are true or not. And that is, if there were just one date. The experiment actually gives a range of dates, which is then further interpreted by what is called "field relationships" between the rocks. There are many technical problems with this, but I won't get into them here. There is also the problem that different dating methods give different results for the same rock, and that when we measure things we know the age of, we get incorrect dates. If we get incorrect dates for things we know the age of, why should we trust the dates it gives for things we don't?

So, it's not so cut and dry. Evolution should be questioned; after all, that's how new theories are made. If you want to teach children that evolution shouldn't be questioned, then you are teaching them something antithetical to science. What it comes down to is what is true. You can argue creationism vs evolutionism all day long. You can know it's true simply from the bible. What proves the bible to me is that when I gave my life to Jesus Christ, He sent me the Holy Spirit to dwell within me, and He supernaturally changed my life and made me a new person. The bible says this is exactly what will happen, and it did happen. It proves that what Jesus said is true, which validates the Old and New Testament, since Jesus personally validated all of the major facts of the Old Testament. Intellectually, I can pick these theories apart, but in the end, God proves Himself. It is nothing you have to speculate about because God will personally demonstrate it to you.

http://videosift.com/playlists/bareboards2/Going-Negative-on-Abraham-Lincoln

Made a playlist, for if they ever catch on.

Just some history of the 2 parties......Setting aside the fact the the KKK was formed by the all inclusive tent of the Democrats...to scare the southern brother who remained Republican up until the 60s.



The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.

Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death.

Link

>> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



So who is opposing the Black Man? Which party enslaves the Black Man today? Democrats use the welfare system which keeps many enslaved into poverty. Republicans want to help those get out and become free men and women to make free choices for themselves.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Democrats want to feed the poor fish-sticks. Republicans want to teach how to fish.

>> ^conan:

tim burton movie and no j. depp in it?


Only plausible explanation has to be, j. depp... is a vampire!

>> ^ant:

commercial false history


#history does not allow for "false history"

*nochannel *horrorshow *cinema *commercial *wtf *books

And what ever happened to @Edeot?

@quantumushroom, sounds to me like that's 5 different ways of saying slavery.

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South

From the site you cited:

[T]he southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture.

So, the Southern economy was based on slavery, the Northern economy wasn't.


2. States versus federal rights

As I said before, the origin of this concept was the schism over slavery. The South wanted to be able to hold slaves, and the North wanted them free. The compromise was the concept of "state's rights".


3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents

Hey, that one's obviously about slavery.


4. Growth of the Abolition Movement

Uhh, that one too.


5. The election of Abraham Lincoln

From the site you cited:

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

And yes, Lincoln said otherwise. Amazingly enough, the South projected all their worst fears and prejudices on a well educated, liberal, African-friendly President from Illinois back in 1860 too.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South
2. States versus federal rights
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln

Dr. Paul isn't presenting "revisionist" history, he's bringing perspective to the "winner-written" version of history. The first 18 months of the war were about the "other things" until Lincoln made the war about slavery (say, wasn't Lincoln a REPUBLICAN and the klan democrats? Libs seem to downplay that little fact).

Just another reason to get rid of federal government schools. Are you surprised big government is the "hero" in these creative interpretations of history when it runs the schools?

Slavery is the lazy, convenient answer for the Civil War, just like the Big Lie about FDR's big-government socialism "saving" the country from the Depression when in reality it prolonged it, and paved the way for the federal mafia we have today.

I'm sensing a theme here. First we had John F. Kennedy fighting an Egyptian Mummy in "Bubba Ho-Tep". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281686/

Now we've got FDR fighting Werewolf Nazis in this flick http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1811315/

And opening soon is "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

What is it with Dead Presidents and undead monsters?

Some interesting trivia in connection with a similar incident that happened in Jersey City in the winter of 1864/65 (MINUS the alcohol of course). President Abraham Lincoln's son (Robert) was boarding a train there when he fell down between the platform and the train. He was pulled to safety by a famous actor called Edwin Booth............. The brother of the man who later assassinated his father.

Like Matthews in this interview, I don't think it is necessary to get into those questionable incidents to that speak to Paul's motives. His policies in this area speak for themselves, and can't stand the light of day.

It is so striking how this man, who is so clear and succinct on matters of foreign policy and even some domestic issues (like drug laws in the beginning of the clip), can lapse into an indecipherable mess when confronted by his own positions on civil rights.

And I think that those particular views on civil rights have a huge following. Clearly it didn't hurt his son to have them.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).
He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/articl
e/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.
Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.

Now that Ron Paul has gone mainstream, he's no longer able to hide behind his popular foreign policy views. He has already flip flopped on border fences (he now supports them), DADT (he now opposes) and evolution (he now supports).

He has had a long and troubled history with race. He was against the civil rights act, he was the only senator that voted against recognizing Brown vs the Board of Education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml), he accepted campaign donations from a white supremacist and did not give the money back (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-keeps-500-from-white-supremacist-aide-1805505.php), his official newsletter had a number of racist statements - which he initially said were taken out of context before he changed his story and blamed the quotes on an editor - he never ran a retraction, he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and he suggested the North should have paid the South for the slaves instead of going to war.

Getting national media attention comes at the cost of more scrutiny and criticism. The libertarian movement is all growed up.