That's not just a mistake. That would be brass players (particularly the trumpets) cramming their faces into the mouthpieces to try and squeeze out notes that are quite beyond their range. Or rather, the mistake lies with the conductor for not selecting music within the abilities of the "musicians." You can hear that it's coming before they even get to the horrendous high notes because there's just no control on the lower sustained ones. So that really lets you know that the majority of them are inexperienced players with relatively weak embouchure.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Uhhh, so what as the idea? I was interested, but there wasn't anything here to see. I am all for new ways of doing business, but we didn't get that here. I am a technical person by nature, so perhaps I am just being nit picky, but was there anything here beyond just "all banks should be credit unions."?


Nope...there was no real "idea" there. Just expressing the thought that there must be a better way, probably involving non-profits and increased transparency. Perhaps there are such ideas in his book(s)...but he really missed the boat by not trumpeting that fact, if it is indeed the case.

I do have to agree with the sentiment; there doesn't seem to be anything inherently -requiring- business to ignore social values. Therefore, we should be able to find something that serves more equitably than our current "by the wealthy, for the wealthy" system.

Sadly, I haven't yet seen any concrete plans for that "better way", even in the rough.

BoneDiamondRemake!

*red carpet
*applause
*searchlights
*confetti
*trumpets
*noisemakers
*champagne
*dj

>> ^NetRunner:

To anyone who got in my face for implying that liberals are less susceptible to groupthink than conservatives, here's exactly what I was talking about, in spades.
First you have the obviously fractious nature of the movement itself that Jon's playing off of. That happens all too often in liberal political activism, just look at how divided and nasty liberals got over health care.
But the deeper problem is that this is what Jon did with it -- make disharmony and fractiousness look like some sort of giant, soul-rending hypocrisy. To have a liberal like Jon Stewart going out and trumpeting the idea that the Occupy movement is both disorganized and deeply hypocritical is the kind of thing only the left does to itself. You don't see anyone on the right going out and doing a hit job like this on the Tea Party, ever.
I'm especially mad that this is essentially all he had to say in response to the huge police action that went down at OWS just the other day -- great shame the movement got cut short by jackbooted thugs, but don't worry, it was meaningless and not going anywhere anyways.
I love you Jon, but for fuck's sake, can't you find some way to dial the self-destructive BS back a bit?


Even worse--just before this bit he declared that the Occupy Movement is over. I've been watching Jon's reporting on Occupy closely because I suspected he didn't support the movement. He's all for change--but this inconvenienced him and some of his rich friends. First the Rally to Restore Complacency--now this.

It's not over Jon. He's on my shit list now. He's been dismissive since day one. Colbert is a supporter--Jon is not.

To anyone who got in my face for implying that liberals are less susceptible to groupthink than conservatives, here's exactly what I was talking about, in spades.

First you have the obviously fractious nature of the movement itself that Jon's playing off of. That happens all too often in liberal political activism, just look at how divided and nasty liberals got over health care.

But the deeper problem is that this is what Jon did with it -- make disharmony and fractiousness look like some sort of giant, soul-rending hypocrisy. To have a liberal like Jon Stewart going out and trumpeting the idea that the Occupy movement is both disorganized and deeply hypocritical is the kind of thing only the left does to itself. You don't see anyone on the right going out and doing a hit job like this on the Tea Party, ever.

I'm especially mad that this is essentially all he had to say in response to the huge police action that went down at OWS just the other day -- great shame the movement got cut short by jackbooted thugs, but don't worry, it was meaningless and not going anywhere anyways.

I love you Jon, but for fuck's sake, can't you find some way to dial the self-destructive BS back a bit?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Boise_Lib.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.


>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.

It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.

There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. There are admittedly hateful ways to state the truth, and it is not something I am going out of my way to confront people about. However, that doesn't preclude me from speaking up about it. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.




>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bareboards2:
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Time-Trumpet-Question-Timefirst-person-to-speak-is-an
@Boise_Lib, come verify and dupe?

No can do.
dead as far as I can see.
Youtube account terminated.


@Barseps

You fixed this video, do you remember what it is well enough to call it a dupe?

>> ^bareboards2:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Time-Trumpet-Question-Timefirst-person-to-speak-is-an
@Boise_Lib, come verify and dupe?


No can do.

*dead as far as I can see.
Youtube account terminated.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Time-Trumpet-Question-Timefirst-person-to-speak-is-an

@Boise_Lib, come verify and dupe?

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by bareboards2. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Dude, Schiff is the one spewing the most ridiculous things from a historical perspective I've ever heard, not West. Are you saying right now that Schiff is right that child labor was ended by the free market, not gov't regulation?! That's just patently absurd!

He's saying that a guarantee of deposits by the FDIC fueled speculation. Okay, so when and why was it instituted? In *1933*, it was instituted *after* massive stock speculation among other causes triggered the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which triggered the Great Depression. As banks had invested in stocks, etc themselves (outlawed by Glass-Steagall), made bad loans, including to allow people to buy stocks on credit, etc. etc. people made runs on the banks to get their deposits out before the banks went belly up, regardless of if individual banks themselves participated in the speculation because no one knew which banks were actually in trouble. Some Depression era people put their money "under their mattresses" and a few kept that attitude up until their deaths because of those runs on the banks. The FDIC was instituted to get people to put money back into banks to rebuild on hand deposits, so banks would be able to lend again and actually stay in business. We had the FDIC for almost 80 years now, and the banking system has remarkably MORE stable than it was before the FDIC without any doubt, and this clown says it fuels speculation?! You know what you didn't see in the last recession when the market tanked? MASSIVE RUNS ON MOST BANKS! That's precisely why we have it! And it's logically ridiculous on the surface of it. Just think about it. The FDIC guarantees that I get MY money back if I deposit it to a bank that is FDIC insured, and the bank goes belly up. What happens to the bank if it makes bad decisions? It goes belly up. So why would the bank speculate in that situation due specifically to the FDIC?! THEY STILL GO BELLY UP! You can say the bank bailouts had something to do with it because now the Goldman Sachs of the world know that gov't won't let too big to fails fail. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the FDIC's insurance on deposits?! RIDICULOUS!

Peter Schiff is not correct here. It's some of the most patently ridiculous things I've heard yet about the economy. If you've read my posts, I'm as pragmatic as one could possibly be, and I'm without a doubt a moderate. I don't give a crap whether specific gov't regulations work or not, but I don't attempt to blind myself with ideology, but this clown is going to great lengths to fundamentally rewrite historical record that's basic freaking fact about the US prior, during, and after the Great Depression that even a basic historical understanding would allow anyone to realize he's an idiot, or is at best making a disingenuous argument to trumpet free market economics for the sake of itself.

>> ^bobknight33:

Peter Schiff is correct. Cornell West foolishly wrong. He teaches African studies which teaches jack about how economies work.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

Well, the reason the FBB was donating was to be listed as one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. That's what they were turned down for. Not only that, but they used to whole thing to garner publicity. So I am not feeling too much sympathy for them at this point.

I agree that the reason many people/organizations who donate large amounts of money is specifically to get on those lists. So yes, I am prepared to say that many on those lists are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps not all of them, but I would say probably the majority.

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Well, I think the problem that most believers have is that the stated goal of many atheists and atheists organizations is to remove religion from the public sphere or irradicate it entirely. The mouthpieces for the New Atheism say in no uncertain terms that people who have faith are pinheads and that religion is the worst thing to ever happen. It's certainly not a live and let live kind of attitude that is being promoted as representing atheism.

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Ahh, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Yes, and sadly, that is just scratching the surface. The bible for many seems to be book of allegory, filled with mere suggestions on how to live our lives, rather than the direct commands of God. That's why you'll find Christians in bars, Christians smoking weed, and Christians cheating on their taxes. More than that, false doctrine has invaded the church. A very popular one right now is the "Health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, which teaches that God only wants you to be rich, and people who are poor and suffering just don't have enough faith.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

That is the thing, that it is all being done for show. It is not about salvation, or sanctification; it is about sterling and silver. This is what is truly harmful, that the public face of Christianity is so far astray from the true teachings of the bible. Light years away from it in fact. The airwaves are saturated with false teachers, who proclaim that God is the great ATM in the sky, and if you only send in some money He'll give you the pin number. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, preaching a man-centered doctrine, to tickle the itching ears of people who seek out teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. "No, you don't need to change! God loves you the way you are!" The bible is not so kind to such people:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

haha, yes..some of these translations are very poor/strange. I prefer the ESV, it is probably the best modern literal translation. The KJV can be a good supplement, because although it used less accurate manuscripts, its archaic language preserved some of the meaning that the more modern translations may have glossed over. bible.cc is a good site for comparing verses. Here's a good sermon on Matthew 6:5-6

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813081634369


>> ^Ryjkyj:
The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."
We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!
Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.
Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray." <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.