When has Palin actually limited the size and scope of government? When she supported the "bridge to nowhere" ($398 MILLION in federal funds that she didn't return when the project was eventually cancelled)? When she ran up her state's travel expense accounts on her and her family for non-business? When she abused her powers to get her ex-brother in law sacked? Yeah, that's a real small government conservative.

For you to choose to vote for someone who is obviously incompetent over someone whose politics you merely differ with is crazy. I've voted for 3rd party candidates before; at least go that route.

I shiver at the thought of Palin in a meeting with Hu Jintao, Medvedev or Netanyahoo. She'd get eaten alive. She can't even handle Katie Couric.

Either you haven't thought it through or you are crazy.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>Guiness world record. Largest amount of neo-cons getting ready to go in a bookstore EVER.
Sigh... Palin is not a neo-con. Neo-cons are big government conservatives. Palin is a small government conservative. That's why she's so popular - most Republicans had to hold their noses to vote for GWB the second time and many rejected McCain, because they were both for the massive expansion of government. See for example Spendulus I. Obama continued the trend with Spendulus II.
Conservatives are (rightly) asking where all the money for the Spendulus bills will come from, and the Republican Party is providing no leadership in opposing the expansion of government - the party is nearly rudderless. Even though Palin wouldn't be my ideal candidate for president, I'd vote for most any candidate that was for limiting the size of government. Last year I voted Libertarian (Bob Barr), for example. If Palin ran against Obama, I'd vote for her.
All the liberal FUD aside, her stances on the issues are actually quite thoughtful and reasonable. I've followed her notes on Facebook from time to time:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=90735023434#/notes.php?
id=24718773587
(Expecting to get automatically comment-downvoted by anyone who disagrees with my politics.)

The problem people have with this seems to be that humans are being more cruel to animals than nature is.

I've watched a lioness in the masai mara kill a zebra. I hope to the bottom of my heart that when I go it's more like these chicks at the hands of the nasty humans than like the zebra at the hands of the lion. Suffering? You haven't got a clue...

The thought that the natural world is somehow better, more caring or whatever you people think is just wrong. The natural world is pragmatic and practical, but not kind in the slightest. Lions hunt buffalo, but they're scared of the horns (as they should be). They deal with this by not dealing with the horns. They attack the rear of the buffalo until it can't stand any longer. Then they start to eat it. Not need to go near the head to kill it, it can't get you, just eat the hind legs first and work your way forwad. It dies after an hour or so of being eaten alive.

I personally don't eat meat produced this way. I think it can be done better, but I also think some people here need to get a sense of perspective. What is going on here is very, very natural. What vegans propose is very, very unnatural.

Dark?
it's dark, and there is a dying animal being eaten alive...hmm.

>> ^solvent:
who cares??? about either sides...


Quite a few people I'd imagine. Those wishing to debate equal rights, symantics, definition, homosexuality and religion.

Anyway, I'm not sure if this debate has evolved or if people are just missing the mark. As previously mentioned, he's not trying to reclaim the word or win a competition of 1-upsmanship. He's trying to convey his opinion that the definitions of 'bashing' used within the CADL are inappropriate.

However, you can't really invalidate the use of 'bashing' in cases of verbal attacks (I use 'attack' for reference rather than a descriptor) by giving evidence of physical attacks as a counterpoint. Even if you're trying to prove definition, which I'll get back to later.

>> ^burdturgler:
This is a quite unfair.
It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.
Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.
I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?
I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.


Whilst this comment isn't really relative to mine, I'd like to point out that historical terms of discrimination cannot be used effectivly to reference modern socialogical arguments or positions. Using that logic you could argue to the same degree/direction for black/jewish/muslim/intelligent/aristocracy/chinese whatever. Unless theres a definate example of a similar case in modern society, the point of homosexuality/christians only serves as a point of irony.

Saying that, stating that 'Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest.' after giving examples of christian hardship also has a scent of irony about it.

>> ^notarobot:
The video's author has instead focused on returning the use of words to their definitions so that their meanings are not diluted into obscurity. What would someone say in a call to 911 when their friend is being a assaulted or having their brains bashed in when the meaning of both words was reduced to mean "insult" or even less? Would police rush to the scene of a reported name calling? Should new words that actually have mean something be invented to replace the words we have once their meaning is reduced to nothing?


That depends on how you define the 'definition'. And if its the definition thats not being observed here or the context.

1. the act of beating, whipping, or thrashing: a series of unsolved bashings and robberies.
2. a decisive defeat: We gave the visiting team a good bashing.
3. (used in combination)
a. unprovoked physical assaults against members of a specified group: gay-bashing.
b. verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation: feminist-bashing; China-bashing.

According to dictionary.com, both versions are covered. Context is a fundamental concept of using language, which this video has neglected to observe.

Essentially, the video proposes an argument, in an unfair manner, disreguarding context of language, and substituting severity of case as a valid counterpoint. To quote Stephen Fry; 'Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong'.

As for our debate. Either way, I think we're all in agreement that discrimination is wrong, English needs to be used correctly, and that both groups have their points, but neither are really compatable with each other.

Now, time for a cup of tea.

>> ^burdturgler:
This is a quite unfair.
First off, gay people appropriated the word "gay".
Beyond this ridiculous semantic argument .. I personally know of priests who had their fingernails ripped out because they would not renounce Christ. They were tortured for days and eventually were murdered and thrown into a shallow grave. This is recently .. within the last 10 years .. I'm not talking about the martyrdom that has taken place for millennia. Whether you share their belief's or not, these were good, honest people who went to dangerous areas all over the world, sacrificing themselves to minister to others.
It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.
Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.
I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?
I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.



I think it is important to note that Christians have been at times, historically--and as you pointed out--recently been assaulted, bashed, lynched, discriminated against, subject to hate crimes and murdered for their religious orientation. No one said that such heinous acts didn't happen to christians, or pretty much every other religion group at one point or another in their history. However, these real crimes are not mentioned in the discussion that this videos author is presenting.

I don't believe that this video is attempting to win a "I've been hurt worse" argument as you have suggested, as such an argument would have to take history in to account (as well as the very real possibility that the majority of crimes against gays in the U.S. are committed by Christians..). The video's author has instead focused on returning the use of words to their definitions so that their meanings are not diluted into obscurity. What would someone say in a call to 911 when their friend is being a assaulted or having their brains bashed in when the meaning of both words was reduced to mean "insult" or even less? Would police rush to the scene of a reported name calling? Should new words that actually have mean something be invented to replace the words we have once their meaning is reduced to nothing?

Now I don't think that words like "attack", "bashing" or "assault" should belong to Gays or any other single group. They should be used when the events they describe actually happen. But the language that the church groups have been using that is cited in this video is misleading. It makes a parody on the meaning of those words. I don't think this should be taken as an attack insult against the Christian groups per se, but against the action they took by misusing (and abusing) language.

Were the offended Christians wronged? Maybe. They have every right to keep tally of insults against them if they feel offended. But over most of what is listed in the "top ten" in this video, one could also expect that a Christian might follow one of their more famous doctrines and turn the other cheek. Instead these few assemble their league of CATL to use very militant words to push politics, not community or understanding as the bible recommends. Christ stood for better than that.

>> ^burdturgler:
This is a quite unfair.
First off, gay people appropriated the word "gay".
Beyond this ridiculous semantic argument .. I personally know of priests who had their fingernails ripped out because they would not renounce Christ. They were tortured for days and eventually were murdered and thrown into a shallow grave. This is recently .. within the last 10 years .. I'm not talking about the martyrdom that has taken place for millennia. Whether you share their belief's or not, these were good, honest people who went to dangerous areas all over the world, sacrificing themselves to minister to others.
It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.
Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.
I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?
I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.


Right. Whatever. Gays get way more shit than Christians.

This is a quite unfair.

First off, gay people appropriated the word "gay".

Beyond this ridiculous semantic argument .. I personally know of priests who had their fingernails ripped out because they would not renounce Christ. They were tortured for days and eventually were murdered and thrown into a shallow grave. This is recently .. within the last 10 years .. I'm not talking about the martyrdom that has taken place for millennia. Whether you share their belief's or not, these were good, honest people who went to dangerous areas all over the world, sacrificing themselves to minister to others.

It's popular to make fun of Catholics but, believe it or not, not every priest is a child molester and most Christian's are not the psychos people make them out to be. The truth is, good, caring Christians have been tortured, murdered and have literally had their brains bashed in long before any gay person thought they coined the term "bashing". They paid for concepts like "intolerance" while they were being eaten alive by lions at a time when homosexuality was completely accepted.

Don't let one list from one group about events in one nation confuse you into thinking that Christians are not "bashed" all the time, around the globe, every day .. and have been for many hundreds of years.

I'm an advocate for gay rights and that's evidenced by my video submissions and comments on the sift. But that's because I'm an advocate for human rights. Being gay doesn't make your suffering more important than others when you are discriminated against or worse .. bashed. Why would any gay person want to own "bashing"? Shouldn't any of this kind of treatment be abhorrent to everyone?

I feel like this video does a disservice to the gay community. Gay people should not be trying to win a "I've been hurt more than you" contest. All this accomplishes is alienating more people to their cause. Which should be everyone's cause .. the fair treatment of all.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?
That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.
Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?
First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.
Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.
Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.
Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.
The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.
Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?
And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?
Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).
I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"
I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.
I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.

But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.
For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.


Everything you just said is totally wrong. This country has never been more aware of its roots and morality. We've never been more free, the future looks bright with this new president, and I foresee no problems in the next 4 to 8 years. Also, I hate my life and Oprah is hot.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?

First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.

Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.

Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.

Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?

And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?

Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.

I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.


But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.

For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.

I about jumped when I saw the one fish being eaten alive by a seal.

@choggie

I agree with you on virtually all of what you said.

I'm not a huge fan of the political game, and I'm way less of a fan of the media war that's waged for the profit of a few, the benefit of none, and likely does have some sinister puppetmasters trying to tilt things towards their desires.

I haven't seen much good come from the political process in my lifetime, though the history books never made it sound fast or easy, but it did seem like over time, committed people can make a difference. Problem is, most people I've known haven't given a fuck either way -- until now.

I don't know that it'll amount to anything, and I'm worried it won't come to anything, but I'm giving it a try, because the only other alternatives seem to be fight or flight at this point.

As for "some people" getting everything from TV, or "some people" needing to understand history without parroting it, I agree, though I can't think of anyone around here for who that's true. This is essentially an anti-TV shrine, with quite a few intellectual views of history. It's certainly not true of me, if that's what you're implying.

I'm sure watching a lot of TV these days, but it's generally accompanied with me yelling at the TV like a madman as they lie and distort virtually everything they cover. I'm watching it because what the mind-control minions of the cable news networks say ends up tilting elections.

I'm still not willing to believe all elections are shams, even if the process by which we narrow 300 million people to 2 bothers me a lot, so I try to keep up on the "narrative" of the day, and do my best to debunk it where I can.

I'm rather torn about my particular horse in this race now, as he just voted to eliminate the 4th amendment yesterday, and there's no good explanation for why, except he thinks it'll help him win, I suppose.

Things like this little old lady getting a ticket for political expression just reminds me what's at stake, and that even if Obama's been duped into ceding part of the constitution to try to stop these idiots from spinning another lie in the noise machine, he at least has to rely on a base of support that wants this shit to stop. Even if he's just another power-hungry fool, he's one who's got to make a good show of preserving our rights, or he'll be eaten alive by the entire political spectrum.

You and I shouldn't be at odds with each other, because we are both crazy about the same problem. We differ on solutions, in that you don't see the point in mine, and yours is too radical for me...for now.

We'd probably disagree on the exact form we'd want a new paradigm to take, but we can worry about that after we've won.

Thank you for changing the tags
I'd imagine they would get eaten alive by insects being all naked in a jungle like that

From the tags I was half expecting the penguins to attack the pelicans!

You know, I watch a lot of these nature shows and its usually the poor anchovies who are getting eaten alive. It makes me wonder how anchovies survive at all as a species. It seems like their only hope is to rely on how vast the ocean is so that they don't run into predators, because like this vid shows, once one predator finds them others invariably follow and the whole school winds up getting decimated.

worst reaction shots ever of people watching another human being eaten alive infront of them by a brainiac shark

He answered the question - he said, "torture is illegal... in the United States." Iran would get eaten alive - not that I advocate it, but... it'll happen.