*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Pat-Condell-s-rant-about-burqas-and-the-liberal-left

Dupe?

I've said it before: Pat Condell is a clam: he's exactly as big as his mouth.

im glad pat condell put this rant out there.he clarifies many points i took issue with in his last,namely islam.also someone i respect on the sift who happens to hail from britain helped give me a deeper contextual understanding of what is going on in that region and how it is affecting the citizens.

since i live in the deep south and therefore am surrounded by a majority of christian fundamentalists,using that scale of parameters i guess i can relate to mr condell.there is no anxiety of where i live ever becoming "invaded" by muslim fundamentalists.they would just end up "disappearing".

i totally agree with him in the context of religiousity becoming so prevalent as to stifle actual personal freedom.fundamentalism has actually become MORE stringent and more concentrated,when logic should dictate that it would lessen.religious fundamentalism is the stagnation of not only mind but imagination and leaves no room for error.strict adherence to biblical scripture is followed,any deviation is considered blasphemous and an affront to god.talk about a recipe for disaster.
welcome to bizzarro world.

I see what you're getting at now. I thought that part of his comment was rather childish, but I very much agreed with the rest of it, so I gave him the upvote anyway.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I was trying to display the hypocrisy in his statement about "best schools" and then using a wikipedia quote. I agree that wikipedia is an EXCELLENT place to start research, but only in browsing their sources will you go far enough beyond wikipedia to not get docked points on a paper at the "best schools" or even community college...

Because wikipedia has a bad rap with the more controversial topics, being that they've had problems with articles changing for someone's personal gain, college staff has pretty much ruled out wikipedia as a valid source of information. At my college anyway. All you need for "valid" research is 1 degree beyond wikipedia.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^rottenseed:
Anybody who has been to an average school let alone the "best" would know that quoting wikipedia as a source of your argument is a NO-NO.


Why? It's about as accurate as any other encyclopedia and certainly more up to date.

Would it have been better if he said the quote was from orwell.ru?

This idea that Wikipedia is useless is ridiculous. Read it with some skepticism, as you should with any encyclopedia, and check the source citations, which may not be an option with a traditional encyclopedia.

I was trying to display the hypocrisy in his statement about "best schools" and then using a wikipedia quote. I agree that wikipedia is an EXCELLENT place to start research, but only in browsing their sources will you go far enough beyond wikipedia to not get docked points on a paper at the "best schools" or even community college...

Because wikipedia has a bad rap with the more controversial topics, being that they've had problems with articles changing for someone's personal gain, college staff has pretty much ruled out wikipedia as a valid source of information. At my college anyway. All you need for "valid" research is 1 degree beyond wikipedia.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^rottenseed:
Anybody who has been to an average school let alone the "best" would know that quoting wikipedia as a source of your argument is a NO-NO.


Why? It's about as accurate as any other encyclopedia and certainly more up to date.

Would it have been better if he said the quote was from orwell.ru?

This idea that Wikipedia is useless is ridiculous. Read it with some skepticism, as you should with any encyclopedia, and check the source citations, which may not be an option with a traditional encyclopedia.

>> ^rottenseed:
Anybody who has been to an average school let alone the "best" would know that quoting wikipedia as a source of your argument is a NO-NO.


Why? It's about as accurate as any other encyclopedia and certainly more up to date.

Would it have been better if he said the quote was from orwell.ru?

This idea that Wikipedia is useless is ridiculous. Read it with some skepticism, as you should with any encyclopedia, and check the source citations, which may not be an option with a traditional encyclopedia.

>> ^bluecliff:
wow. calling burqas fascist really tells you went to the best schools. Just a scare word for idiots to flock about.
wikipedia:
The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. – George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.
And Orwell knew this in 1944!

Pot, meet Mr. Black Kettle

Anybody who has been to an average school let alone the "best" would know that quoting wikipedia as a source of your argument is a NO-NO.

>> ^bluecliff:
wow. calling burqas fascist really tells you went to the best schools. Just a scare word for idiots to flock about.
wikipedia:
The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. – George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.
And Orwell knew this in 1944!


True, the word "fascist" gets used far too often, but when it comes to describing Islam, it's pretty accurate.

FYI, fascism is defined as: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, [...] and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

It's not exact, but it describes Islam pretty well... then again, it describes Christianity too...

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
Aah, the old "he's attacking fundamentalism, and not real religion" - argument.

i responded to your comment on the pat condell vid,seems it was directed at me,if i assumed incorrectly then my apologies,and i just wasted a half hour in a damn long response LOL.
i tried to clarify as best i could,but i cant write a decent paragraph to save my life.
i agree with much of your premise about the ills of religion,thats why i feel there has to be an honest criticism of something that has affected human history(many times for the worse)so much,and dialogue is the best way to do that.
if your comment was directed towards me then i am grateful for your insight.
it was well done.
namaste.

i like pat condell's rants,
but lets be clear on what he is ranting against:fundamentalism.
i could not agree more.fundamentalism is a stagnation of the mind,a stripping of all imagination and intellectual curiosity and has led to the suffering and death of millions.we all should rebuke such abominable beliefs,they speak to the most base of emotions:fear.
hell is strictly a christian ideology,and it was john the baptist who bespoke of such fire and brimstone retribution,not jesus.
is it any wonder that many governments use fear politics to control the citizenry?the christian church made it apparent how well it actually worked..
and work it does.
to argue faith and belief is an exercise in futility,neither side can prove,or disprove the other.on the other hand,to argue scripture is fair game.it is written,and therefore can be studied,debated,argued..it is a tangible document.
and anybody with any curiosity and time to research will come to the same conclusion as pat condell.
it was written by man,designed to instill fear in order to control.yet at the same time it has some of the most insightful wisdom and beautiful poetry...a paradox.
fundamentalism is the bane of human society, and does not reflect the true nature of the creator.what is that nature?
well...im not gonna get all "preachy" on all of you,but here's a hint:
look outside...does that look "stagnant" or "static" to you?

-Disrespectful or otherwise rude people. - Me
-Ignorant or otherwise moronic people. - Me
-Most conspiracy theorists. (This means you, Rosie) - They're all after me
-Most activists. (This means you, Cindy) - Hell no I won't go
-Religion bashers. - Dirty hippy Jesus.
-America bashers. - Dirty hippy hippies
-Whiny victim types. - It's not my fault I'm an asshole
-Anti-science types. - but at least I didn't evolve from a monkey!
-Keith Obermann, Sean Hannity, Pat Condell, and Richard Dawkins. - all great men
-PETA, the RIAA, the ACLU, and CAIR. - Those must be some other language
-Those dang melt-sealed, bleed-you-to-death plastic packages everything seems to come in. - HEY! My dad invented those!

Jeez, according to this, Doc_M should LOVE LOVE LOVE ME!

congrats on the 100 and on finally diagnosing this rash.

This just could be one of those rash, reactionary bans YouPoop is known for doing after concerted efforts on the part of those deluded, ignorant festival he(Randi) actively makes intellectual mince meat of. The type of ban that's swiftly reinstated afterward with a written apology and some CVS bought chocolates. An egregious mistake, yes. Intentional censorship, probably not.

If Pat Condell can get his channel back, surely the Randi will. Surely!

Some may find Pat Condell irritating, I find him necessary, we need intelligent loudmouths to offset the horde of religious fuckheads spouting hatred.

And by the way, you'll be pleased to know that that particular UN resolution was flushed down like the turd it was.



peace.

Pat Condell is a clam. He's exactly as big as his mouth.