Recent comments

  • Mysticism   1 day 5 hours ago
    Quote NMHiker:

    But still wondering if anyone thinks they have been changed/or how you think it changed you?

    I was changed quite a bit. My second priority (after taking care of my family) became to join in the fight to stop the fascist takeover of the United States and the world.

    I think that was the reason that I was having those dreams in the 1980's and beyond. A year before 9/11/01, I was called up to take an art director job in an office on the upper most floors of the WTC North Tower a year before 9/11/01, where I felt strangely creeped out. I refused the job.

    Later I ran into the LPAC people in front of my post office in 2006, and in talking with them that day was able to immediately see the big picture from the perspective of the human beings which would be in danger as the USA was being developed into a fascist police state.

    Earlier mystical experiences, though, had already brought me an earning to protect and to help the human experience on earth.

  • Attacking atheism   1 day 6 hours ago

    nadim aka deadhead from Montreal: astrologers and mystics are not scientists...far from it. And by the way, Stalin spent 5 years studying to be a priest.

    And Hitler:

    Quote"Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.)"
    emphasis is mine.

    Not only that but the Papacy pretty much turned a blind eye to the atrocities against the Jews during the war. And they provided a route for escape for the Nazi war criminals after the war.

    The Christians had always blamed the Jews for the crucifiction of Jesus which is a big reason why they were always persecuted by them.

    Quote is currently being distorted by the millions of Christians who lie to have us believe that the Holocaust was not a Christian deed. Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian in order to place his misdeeds on those with out Jesus. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and chat rooms.

  • Let's Privatize Gun Registration   1 day 6 hours ago

    If you check your facts you will see that Mexico"s homicide rate is more than twice the rate of America's and they're not allowed to own firearms so that makes your Canada argument invalid. And fyi: Abortion is not just a female decision, that is also the fathers child they are killing . I'm not making an argument for or against it, I'm just pointing out the inconsistancy in the logic on why 11,000 gun deaths are so bad and laws have to changed but 1.2 million is ok. If your logic for abortion is because your not a woman and it's not your decision, then you should not be making a decision about firearms unless you own a gun.

  • Attacking atheism   1 day 6 hours ago

    "Do you swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
    I do not! I don't swear and I don't believe in God! But damn it, I do lie sometimes! ;-}

  • "Ninth Circuit’s neutrality questioned on gay rights"   1 day 7 hours ago

    It's 512 to 1 that 9 heads (or tails) will occur from 9 flips of a coin. (I chose because close to the 441 number)

    Does the number 512 have anything to do with how often it could occur, or in which attempt?

    A BALANCED coin has those odds of happening.

    That's just one, of an infinite number of ways the same ratio could be achieved, and yet not as unlikely.

    Were one or both of the "biased" judges assigned every time?

    Do we REALLY have to keep arguing about what is the REAL agenda here?

  • What's The Best 30 Sec Argument That Can Convince Dems To Vote?   1 day 7 hours ago

    I fail to understand how the last few post lend themselves well to a 30 second pitch.

    What am I missing?

  • "Puerto Rico upholds gay marriage ban"   1 day 8 hours ago

    Yep, mdhess! Naked indeed.

    mjoiner, don’t you ever give up? Why are you so obsessed with this issue? What is it about homosexuality that you find so threatening? Could it be that you harbor a secret desire for other men, perhaps? I ask this because of a scientific study Thom has talked about on his radio show; one that proves homophobes are closet gays and bisexuals themselves. Genuinely heterosexual men couldn’t care less, while these closet freaks are the ones orchestrating war on homosexuals, all in their pathetic attempts to uphold a phony macho image of themselves. I’ve begun to wonder if you are one of them.

    Reply to #16: Gumball, indeed you are confused. Nobody claims procreation has nothing to do with marriage; only that it’s not a prerequisite for marriage. That aside, I’m pleasanty surprised by how you’ve voted on this issue. - AIW

  • Mysticism   1 day 8 hours ago
    Quote drbjmn:Our minds are capable of picking up on things we can't explain, yet.

    Bingo! That IMO is something that frightens leaders in oligarchical systems. They know that the human brain is a super powerful tool that all humans can wield if not blocked from doing so.

  • "Ninth Circuit’s neutrality questioned on gay rights"   1 day 8 hours ago
    Quote mjolnir:
    Quote mdhess:

    no, no it is not. If you don't even understand what you're citing there is no point in my arguing with you about it. If they wanted their calculations to have any meaning they would have to also include all case law cited within in what they assume to be relevant cases and measure them against who heard what cases. They did not. Cases decided about an issue rest on principles, not subjects so identifying components of a case and deciding that it makes them relevant is meaningless.

    Yes, yes it does: "In contrast, the re-sampling approach simply assumes that the assignment process is the same for Relevant Cases and all other Ninth Circuit cases whatever that process may be. As such, the assumptions in Table 4 are more robust to violations of assumptions. ...the results apply to generic judges rather that to Judge Reinhardt or Judge Berzon specifically and thus finesse a priori selection issues." Emphasis mine.

    How can any probability study EVER explain bias, without defining what percentage constitutes bias? Especially where human affectation could be involved, and not just the ones you're opposed to? Maybe the judges that aren't happy with the decision they know they would have to make coerced the clerks to assign those cases to the judges that would be associated with those foreseeable decisions. Maybe the "bias' comes from that.

    If the assignments were manipulated, where is the outcry from the other "fair" judges?

    Should all their (the judges that presumably weren't "biased") rulings be set aside, because they didn't have enough integity to speak out against a manipulated assignment process, that if truly "neutral", would have allowed them to make the "right" decision?

    You're assuming the bias is in favor of the view you oppose. Did they study the occurrence of other judges on panels that were typically inclined to decide in open, as oppose to "in the closet" about, to rule OUT bias of an opposing position?


  • Republican Neoliberalism is Touching Us All.   1 day 9 hours ago

    It's mutual appreciation day, Anti. Yes, it has been a long and very fruitful run. I've learned much from your depth of philosophical understanding. We were happy to have another deep thinker join the board, and I guess that will always be true. It was very cool when Thom was more hands on with the board. I certainly do remember the White Rose Society. It was the only way I could get Thom in the nearly off the grid location I was living in at the time. I just had a phone line and a modem. I had to download programs from the White Rose. Took awhile. No problem, I'd go for walks down to the Toutle River with Jacques (named after Jacques Ellul).

    Drc, thanks for giving me an opportunity to write something. Didn't mean to be corrective, just wanted to elaborate the point while expressing my appreciation for Giroux's fine thoughts, someone who Anti has brought up before. I tend to hang back from these top level political forums. I'm just a greenie at heart. But then we've been nurturing this topic since the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 and it is, in that sense, a greenie topic... with now a lot of context.

  • Time to Rethink the War on Terror   1 day 9 hours ago

    The “war on terror” is nothing but a hoax. It serves three purposes that I can see: Under false pretense, justifies ongoing, endless war, great for weapons manufacturers and other war profiteers; under equally false pretense, justifies U.S. hegemonic abuses worldwide; also “justifies” the creation of a police state here, depriving U.S. citizens of their freedom and civil liberties, while at the same time, subjecting them to intrusive and unconstitutional surveillance practices. It’s hard to imagine any better “excuse” than 9-11 for creating a fascist police state at home, while trampling all over other countries in a perpetual, unholy quest for world domination. - AIW

  • Good Article on Why Fox News is Popular.   1 day 9 hours ago
    Quote gumball:

    Another interesting part of this poll shows that Liberals are more likely to block or defriend someone who has views that conflict with their own.

    My my... there's so much more in that poll that makes right wingers look like fools. Yet you didn't bother to post that. Why?

    Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:

    • Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
    • Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
    • Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
    • Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.
  • Mysticism   1 day 9 hours ago

    I was driving to work and a few blocks away. And on my right was a store I never looked at, and is blocked mostly by a hill. I could see the top of an ambulance. I pulled in to find that my best friend and his wife on their motorcycle had hit a car. They were taken to hospital and released.

    If it were a higher power controlling that particular compulsion to pull in where I didn't know why, I have to seriously question why that would be the way, and time, it did it.

    Our minds are capable of picking up on things we can't explain, yet.

  • Good Article on Why Fox News is Popular.   1 day 9 hours ago
    Quote gumball:

    Another interesting part of this poll shows that Liberals are more likely to block or defriend someone who has views that conflict with their own.

    And most porn requests come from Bible Belt states...

    and states most on the federal dole are red states.

    So when you restart your lecture on liberal failings, please include all the above right wing examples of virtue...

  • We Need An Ebola Travel Ban Now   1 day 9 hours ago
    Quote ulTRAX:But it's just as possible that the lab worker was infected and DID become symptomatic while on the 7 DAY cruise. The Carnival Magic has a capacity of 5000 people... 3700 passengers and 1300 crew. From just one infected person who got to the US... suddenly 5000 have to be tracked? This is the risk in thinking "tracking" is some panacea.
    The CDC finally is taking some concrete measures... requiring flights from Ebola stricken nations to fly to just a few US airports. At that point they must agree to be monitored for 21 days. But if about 150 people fly in per day, and they'll each be monitored for 21 days... by day 21 and from then on some 3150 people will have to be monitored daily... and that's assuming there's no great influx of Ebola refugees.

    It's about time and this is better than nothing.

  • Attack on Canada   1 day 9 hours ago
    Quote drc2:

    You do give simple a clarity few others can achieve. But is that the point? This is an open thread, not a private chat between you and Steven. You are the one that made it about Muslim terrorism while others kept it about the loss of life and larger crisis.

    My comment was that, while AC2 is correct and it will be exploited in the propaganda mode, it should not be.

    Excuse me for breathing.

    Just for the record, it was Steven.PBarrett that first brought up Muslim terrorists, not me. I only asked him if he was accusing Muslim terrorists of the attack which he indicated in his post.

  • "Puerto Rico upholds gay marriage ban"   1 day 10 hours ago
    Quote ulTRAX:

    Ya... I tire of debating rights with an anti-gay bigot. So I'll let Betty Bower, America's Best Christian... explain traditional marriage

    love that video, kinda an ugly sight when you see the "traditional marriage" crowd in all their...ahem...naked splendor

  • "Puerto Rico upholds gay marriage ban"   1 day 10 hours ago

    mjolner, I hate to tell you but your post at #7 above quoting the opinion of the numbnuts judge in Puerto Rico doensn't help your case, it just high;ights his bias

  • Mysticism   1 day 10 hours ago

    MDHess, nicely stated way up the thread. Just wondering what you did with the experience if anything?

  • "Puerto Rico upholds gay marriage ban"   1 day 10 hours ago
    Quote gumball:

    Again, my conern is the legal overreach. You all are saying that it is proper for government to limit marriage, you just disagree where those limits are drawn.

    How does this fit a constitutional argument of equal protection?

    In so holding, Shelley explained: "The rights created by the first section of the FourteenthAmendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. (bold added) The rights established are personal rights." Id. at 22. Shelley also observed that "a city ordinance which denied to colored persons the right to occupy houses in blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by white persons, and imposed similar restrictions on white persons with respect to blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by colored persons" violated the Fourteenth Amendment despite its equal application to both black and white occupants. See 11(describing Buchanan v. Warley , 245 U.S. 60 (1917)). The same individual rights analysis applies in the context of gender classifications.

  • Mysticism   1 day 10 hours ago

    Zoe, Oops! Sorry about that, I had you confused with another. But who knows. Sometimes we get a surprise at what we don't expect.

  • "Puerto Rico upholds gay marriage ban"   1 day 10 hours ago
    Quote ulTRAX:

    Ya... I tire of debating rights with an anti-gay bigot. So I'll let Betty Bower, America's Best Christian... explain traditional marriage

    Too funny! You're gonna burn in hell, my friend. :)

  • Time to Rethink the War on Terror   1 day 10 hours ago

    el Presidente Transpencia is a total war hawk with complete dedication to the constant war economy. Obama's Orwellian targeted assassination drone program will be creating future enemies to justify war budget.

  • "Puerto Rico upholds gay marriage ban"   1 day 11 hours ago
    Quote mjolnir:

    @gumball The case mdhess links to was from 1887. The reason he is "not interested" is that he knows that once you cross the line from traditional marriage all bets are off.

    @mdhess Do you support marriages based on polygamy or polyandry?

    Haha, you're like a dog with a bone. There's no "crossing a line," from traditional marriage because there is no such thing as "traditional marriage," that's just a bumper sticker label invented by anti-gay zealots. Marriage has gone through many dramatic changes throughout history.

    What role did love play?
    For most of human history, almost none at all. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be based on such a fragile emotion. "If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful," said Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History. "But that was gravy." In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate in the 2nd century B.C. for kissing his wife in public — behavior the essayist Plutarch condemned as "disgraceful." In the 12th and 13th centuries, the European aristocracy viewed extramarital affairs as the highest form of romance, untainted by the gritty realities of daily life. And as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.

    When did romance enter the picture?
    In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace.

    Did marriage change in the 20th century?
    Dramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women's-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands' equals, rather than their property. "By 1970," said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife, "marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy." At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce — and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too. "We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage," said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For? In one very real sense, Coontz says, opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say traditional marriage has been undermined. "But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed," she says, "and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage."

  • Time to Rethink the War on Terror   1 day 11 hours ago

    Suspending the right of habeus corpus, the right to anyone held by a government agency to have their day in court, Is one of the most wrong and stupid things G W Bush did besides getting us into two unnessessary wars. Arresting someone and saying they are not criminals but terrorist instead. so the law doesn't apply to them is insane. Terrorism is a crime so a terrorist suspect should be charged with the crime and brought into court for justice. If a person is a POW, that is different and may be held for prisoner swaps or until the war is over but must be treated properly according to Geneva covention rules. If the government finds a person innocent they should be let go. If you were arrested for suspected terrorism because someone said you were a terrorist, put in prison for an indefinate period of time, never charged with a crime, and never having your day in court, would it be ok? Is it ok if it happens to someone else? It happened to our Gwantanamo Bay prisoners and if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for them. You don't have to believe in God or government to know when some things are just wrong.

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.