You're conflating war time attacks with punishment or maybe even justice.

It's not about declaring the people that died deserved to die or not, because we know for a fact we killed 'innocents' by the thousands. People who unquestioningly were good people and did not deserve to die. It's about saying their deaths were an unavoidable consequence of prosecuting a war that was necessary. It's messed up to talk about a 'just' war, and a 'good war' is an oxymoron. Necessary evil is more the idea I'd say. The Japanese military machine was brutally and systematically exterminating everything in it's path, and war was the only way to stop it. We did terribly things to win that war, and the only defense of our committing those acts was preventing and ending worse ones in the future. It's not a clear good thing, it's messy.

If the US wasn't so steeped in immature, hypocritical puritanism, the fact that two adults did sexy things in the WH would be a "thing" only between Bill, his wife and the intern (except if she was coerced/sexually assaulted, a different thing entirely). Instead, Bill felt he had to lie, and that's what most sensible people hold against him.

Well made but there are a TON of cheat cuts in this, it isn't actually a single shot. Switch is fine, but yeah I noticed. The first I noticed is when it races up the stairs the first time, at the top it swings by a wall at 0:34, that is the first cut/transition I noticed. There are a couple others after that. A very obvious one is at 1:49. The move into the green wall do a transition, the shadows on the wall change and then it continues. The bathtub too. At 2:52 it is the same trick as at 0:34. I think most of it is real, no cgi aside from the compositing to do those transitions. They did this thing in chunks and tried to make the transitions as smooth as possible. Pretty cool.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

BoingBoing did a thing on it a while back too: http://boingboing.net/2013/01/24/susan-crawford-should-run-the.html

I don't know why the petition is doing so poorly ... something, something, the people get the government they deserve ...

Pretty sure he did those things because his parents didn't use a condom. If unprotected sex was the cause of violence the world would have ended long ago one way or another.

That's a lot of momentum right there. How did that thing ever get moving!? And how long would it take to stop? Blimey.

I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, but I'll bite -

Everyone was a slacker at some point. When you were a young child you did very little to help the family. When you did start to have responsibility you didn't understand why at first and only did the things because you were told to.
Its a gradual change into a person who understands that certain things have to be taken care of for, your own sake and, the sake of your family. To think someones life is automatically fucked up because they are a slacker is disgenuine.

Are you implying that between say 13-23 you didn't too stupid irresponsible things that would make others worry about you for your own selfish pleasure? I doubt anyone could deny they were more selfish than not during part of their life.

I am not saying drugs are required to make drastic realizations. If your daily routine has little or no changes you will always think in the same basic pattern and it takes some external event to change this. It could be a new job, a new love, a death etc. Taking certain drugs lets you control when these changes in perception occur rather than being a slave to fate.

No where in my original reply did I say anyone (myself or others) had to depend on drugs to make decisions. I stated two basic ideas - drugs can help you to make changes and that everyone should experience them at least once in their life. I also didn't say that the single time the person did them would create some epic change.

Something happened to you that caused a strong sensitivity to what I said. Maybe it was me telling you what to do, maybe someone you knew used drugs and became a loser, maybe my speech pattern reminds you of someone bad. I can't say what it is but if your strong reaction is genuine then I am sorry to dig up such anger.

Not all drugs are created equally. I would like you to view this chart http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg Notice that LSD has a lower dependency than pretty much everything, including nicotine and caffeine.
Secondly the average dosage is between 60 and 180 MICROgrams. Do you understand how small that is? It is essentially impossible for it to be adulterated. You could mix it with drain cleaner and and the amount you are ingesting would not cause damage.
The industry accepted lethal dose is 15,000 micrograms, which would be FIFTEEN PAGES of paper you would have to ingest. I don't think you could fit that all in your mouth

I am not convincing you personally to take it but be aware that a significant scientific breakthroughs in business/technology/science have taken place while the person was on some form of drugs. You should also be aware that most artists (both audio and physical) use drugs to create the inspiration for the works you enjoy.
One time I figured out why fire on the head of a match is the shape that it is and how the flame is constructed. Months later I explained how I perceived it to someone qualified and they said even though I lacked the proper technical terms I had gotten it right. I was very happy about that.

Like I said previously, not all drugs are created equally. LSD does not make you feel anything extra, it only enhances what you are already seeing or feeling. It gives you the ability to super focus on details you overlooked previously or zoom out and take a large amount of data in at once then process it.

I think my reply will be lost on you but hopefully someone else is reading this and will gain something from it. If it means anything to you I have taken acid only twice in the last two years.


>> ^schlub:

Since when is not deciding to being a slacker a revelation? Your life/lives must be pretty fucked up if you depend on hallucinogenics to make your life decisions for you. This notion that drugs expand your mind or make you see things more clearly is complete and utter bullshit.
>> ^braschlosan:
Because of LSD my little brother had the revelation to start doing well in his final year of high school and try to make his parents life easier.
Then while in his first year of college he had the revelation about many parts of life and decided to study hard and play hard too. Now he has fun on the weekends and is getting great grades. The combination of the two has given him infinite self esteem.
During the summer break after his first year of college he had another LSD revelation about taking drugs. Now he rarely takes them (in high school he was a big pothead and E-Tard), when he does take them its planned out ahead of time for a special event. He's not even 20 yet and has a "wise" outlook on just about everything.
I have had similar life altering changes because of LSD that I'd rather not share here,
I agree with Enoch.
>> ^enoch:
for those who may be a tad uptight hallucinagenics should be mandatory.
if only once in your lifetime.

@shinyblurry

Now you're just using fallacious arguments. Why don't you present your very best argument as to what you think falsifies the Bible and let's see if it holds any water?

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Scripture says do not test the Lord thy God. You haven't proven anything. God will not let you test Him with personal prayer any more than He will let you test Him through the prayers of others.

And from the other thread:

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory. Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

"In the beginning (the beginning of time as we know it in the universe) God created the heavens and the earth (meaning the whole universe, and not necessarily that quickly—there could be a gap of several billion years all of which could still be considered "the beginning"; the "days" that pass are metaphorical, and do not represent normal days as we know them, nor did those things necessarily happen in that order). 2 Now the earth was formless (in the sense that it hadn't been defined yet as separate from the heavens) and empty (in the sense that it didn't have anything living on it, though it did have mass, including water and dirt supporting it), darkness was over the surface of the deep (the deep of the ocean; there was already light somewhere else, but there was still darkness in that location), and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (this is not to be interpreted as God only being present in one place; this is a metaphor for a protective watcher)."

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

@shinyblurry

Of what you said above in the first two paragraphs about the consequences of accepting meaninglessness as reality, just about all of it I fully agree with. For clarity, I’ll mark the exceptions:

the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become
and
Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Further, you comment that, "people become depressed because of a lack of hope."

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

All that is to say I pretty much agree with your view of what meaninglessness implies, and if there’s any bits that you want to explore more, I’m all for it.

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Lots of people do bad things to others and themselves, and later on, some may consider what they did was bad, or they might not. If they still think it was OK, it’s because they’ve used some kind of justification, like, "She did it to me first," "She was teasing me. What did she think would happen?" or, "He had it coming," or "I had no choice," And so forth. These are all rationalizations after the fact, justifications that allow them to still consider themselves as good people rather than change their behaviour or take responsibility for having done something wrong. These don’t address the real reason these people did these things. In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion.

I believe that the natural and best state for a human being to be is happy (and here again, I mean blissfully happy). Every bit of programming we have nudges us towards certain actions by rewarding us with feelings of happiness, or reduced misery. We only live once, so I would modify your description only slightly to, “taking what bliss you can when you can”.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too. Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I've said this elsewhere, that even IF God did create everything, that means he intentionally placed all the evidence we've found contrary to the bible's version of events. This amounts to the same thing as lying to everyone. The basic definition of saying you did one thing, but doing another. Test of faith or not, intentionally misleading people is a lie plain and simple. Their very own book states that this is a sin so how....?
Not that this matters, anyone who "truly believes" will have little problem coming up with their own idea's of how to square yet another circle so that they can continue thinking they are correct. Who wants to admit they were wrong and that the last X number of years they spent of their life giving money and spending time to spread the word was in fact, a giant waste of time and resources? Nobody. Much easier to simply pretend that all things contrary to the position held is simply misunderstood, misrepresented or simply false despite everything. Understandable. Cowardly, but understandable given human nature.

I am aware. Did you notice I responded to some of your points in it like accusing me of not watching the right wing hitjob video?

The rest I didn't bother responding to. But after second thought, I'll respond to the question of whether Obama is extreme to the left or not. And this is a really easy one...

Name a single thing Obama has done that's honestly extreme to the left. An actual policy. I'm not talking a moderate-left policy. Raising taxes on the top income earners from 35-38% wouldn't be an extreme left idea. It's moving the dial a notch or two to the left. If he proposed raising it to 50%, that would be a hard left move.

See, I don't really care if *some* of Obama's appointments are far to the left. I care about policies proposed or enacted.

Yet another thing I get irritated about - characterizing someone you don't like as a political caricature to the extreme side of that political direction. Don't like George W. Bush? Paint him as a Nazi because he's more to the right than you. Don't like Obama? Paint him as a godless communist because he's to the left of you. Of course the extremes in the parties complain their own guys aren't conservative/liberal enough. This way, nobody is happy, and everyone complains about how crappy our gov't is!

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^heropsycho:
For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.
Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...
Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.
It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.
I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!
Here's the difference:
If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.
I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!
I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.


You responded to the wrong post. You can find the one where I replied to you here:
http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Wan
t-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1458730

>> ^heropsycho:

For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.
Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...
Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.
It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.
I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!
Here's the difference:
If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.
I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!
I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.



You responded to the wrong post. You can find the one where I replied to you here:

http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Want-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1458730

For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.

Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...

Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.

It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.

I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!

Here's the difference:

If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.

I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!

I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.

>> ^CrushBug:

I don't know WTF is going on with the sift today, but there are fireworks graphics on the sides that are wrecking the width, such that I cannot watch the video, even those I have the width set to loose.
http://www.cracked.com/video_18398_why-star-trek-universe-se
cretly-horrifying.html
For those of you in my same predicament.


Try deleting all your youtube.com cookies or all your cookies in general. I think the newest flash player update borked the cookies on mine and when I did that things started acting right again.

Yep, definitely seems like a prick to me.

>> ^spoco2:

@DrewNumberTwo (and @kymbos), in @conan 's defence I think the problem that he and I have is not only that he did those things (although it's a pretty huge part, assaulting people purely based on their race, and to the point that they are blind in one eye for life is pretty horrible), but more so that he seems to be all good with it.

"He said the right thing to do would be to try to find the blinded man and make amends, and admitted he has not done so, but added that he was no longer burdened by guilt: "You have to go and ask for forgiveness and it wasn't until I really started doing good and doing right by other people, as well as myself, that I really started to feel that guilt go away. So I don't have a problem going to sleep at night. I feel good when I wake up in the morning."