Tags for this video have been changed from 'Santorum, homophobe, schooled, Google Santorum' to 'Santorum, homophobe, schooled, bigot, arguement' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from '5sf, arguement, lightbulb' to '5sf, argument, lightbulb' - edited by calvados

OK, let me start by saying I was never incensed, irked, consternated, angered, or otherwise bothered. I always think it's funny to hear the assumptions people make about me, they are invariably wrong, I'm a wierdo and rarely take the path expected. I take joy in setting the record straight in the hopes of presenting a different point of view for consideration, I see no reason for revenge or anger over a misunderstanding and usually not schadenfreude either.
I didn't see it as consession to my arguement, I saw it as coming to agreement that we really meant the same thing. I guess to some people that might be the same thing, it's not to me.
The only apology needed is to Umption, you made an ass out of him. I'm not looking for one myself, I don't know why I might be due one except for the blankfist thing. You misunderstood me again.
It depends on which current financial crisis you mean. I completely agree, our economic crisis was caused by mismanagement and deregulation of the banking system/wallstreet, which is now made worse by the European crisis. Our debt crisis is a decades old issue that's suddenly in the forefront, but is also a huge and looming problem. The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.
The debt discussion stems from the discussion of the european crash, which I believe was caused mostly by the crushing debt of many union members, caused in large part by over spending on social programs like paid maternity (along with many others), and the worsening of that debt to the point their partners could no longer ignore it caused by the global market declines. It came to a head when Greece couldn't borrow more money to pay for the services they refused to curtail. I disagree with the contention that Spain and Ireland were in "good" shape simply because they were not collapsing yet. Greece has been spending like a teenager with daddy's credit card for far too long (probably decades), so long that it's people (and corperations most likely, don't misunderstnad) believe they are entitled to all their handouts because many have never known different, and they flatly refused to raise taxes to pay for those services and entitlements, forget paying their debts. Let's be clear, they are not us, they were even worse about entitlement programs and ignoring debt. That does not mean we should not use them as a cautionary tale of what to avoid, we don't want to be where they are now, and it's where we are heading.
Here in the USA, I think our debt stems from overspending (on defense and entitlement programs, stupid wastes, and needed services) AND under taxing. I'm not sure about your health care point, we haven't really paid for it yet, so it hasn't really effected the debt. Maybe I'm missing your point.
I disagree with your final point, that our debt is a made up problem. I also disagree with the contention that we must erase the debt completely and instantly, damn the consequences. Sadly, the big 'debt debate' that once again tarnished our reputation worldwide (and continues to) is really not about paying down our debt. As far as I know, no one seriously even floated a ballanced budget ammendment, forget actually paying down the debt. All the wrangling is over a small percentage of the insane increase they expect in the national debt over 10 years (I think I recall the number 24trillion). I fear the debt will crush us, and stagnate our economy if not dealt with quickly, but it must be done with reason and thoughfulness, not ignored OR myopicly focused on.>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy the part that reminds me of blankfist is that you seem to be incensed at my terrible crime of misunderstanding an ambiguous statement, and then thinking I owe you something (a retraction, an apology, or a concession to your argument) because of that.
Let's wind this train of thought back a bit. My contention is that the present economic calamity started with a financial crisis, driven by mortgage-backed securities.
I didn't mention debt, you did.
I agree that debt plays a role in the unfolding of this crisis, especially in Europe, but it's not a cause of the crisis. Any kind of economic crisis throws a government's budget into deficit (or pushes it further into), because tax revenue goes down when GDP and employment go down, while at the same time, more people wind up needing to rely on the social safety net as they loose their jobs (or just get their hours or pay cut). Greece and Italy were in bad shape before the crisis, and got much worse. But Spain and Ireland were in good fiscal shape before the crisis, and wound up deep in debt as a consequence of the crisis.
I also disagree with your contention that the debts are caused by "people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." I'm not intimately familiar with the specific fiscal details of the European countries, but basically the way government budgets work is that you need to make sure you have tax revenues that are higher than spending in normal times.
Here in the US, our debt issues are primarily a result of cutting taxes, overspending on defense, and a refusal to adopt a single-payer health care system for everyone.
But for the most part, debt is a made-up problem in the US. It's not that it's not a problem at all, it's just that it's not something we need to solve in 2011, it's something we need to solve by 2030 or so. It's important, but not urgent.

Far too long....

>> ^quantumushroom:
QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.


Make me happy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It saved me time to waste on other stupidness.


I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."


So, in your small sampling, it's 87%. I somehow think the sampling may have been intentionally skewed, but OK. Note I didn't disagree with your stat, just questioned it's origin, if it was Faux, I would discount it offhand.


You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.


You seem to assume that because I think McCain is worthless now that Obama must be my preferance, and that I support his policies and actions and think he's leading us strongly. That is an incorrect, and all to often made assumption. Why must you continue to make an ass out of umption, do what you like to yourself.


You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?


I'm what used to be republican. I'm a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. There is no sane party I can call home today.


The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.

Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.


This is why people call you nuts...you are insisting that 3 trillion is more than 5 trillion, and that spending sprees and tax (revenue) cuts under total republican control were against republican (the right's) wishes.


All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.
Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.


Underfunded because of insane administration costs, better? More money doesn't automatically make better schools, but it helps, but not if it's all spent on non-school related administration expenses.


Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.


I'm not sure your arguement here...I'm not a liberal politician, or a true supporter of them, so how does what they do relate to me? I've been to good and bad private and public schools, the ones with money always had a leg up. I really believe if you have children, you should be taxed the cost of a decent education and allowed to spend it at the school you prefer (excluding religious school, that's another issue). Since this doesn't happen, I prefer decent public education be purchased with my tax dollar rather than prison cells and barbed wire. I do see it as an either or situation.


I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.


I'll never understand the arguement that, when confronted with their own abhorrent behavior people answer with 'look, that other guy I always call an a$$hole is doing bad stuff too'.
As I understand it, many states are cutting back on pension payments, or not paying them at all. At the same time they are regulating teachers, denying them union status, and forcing renegotiation of in place pay and work hours/load contracts. Not total a$$ rape, but close, and certainly not fair or acceptable treatment.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I said:Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

You replied: Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

The ridiculous infactuation with his ancestory (race) is where the racism is. Kenyanesque only applies if he acts Kenyan, and he does not. It is intended to be racially insulting, you know it, we know it. Either give it up or own it.
It's sad that you just don't give a sh!t about your people being so unstable that you can't trust any agreement made with them. That's my issue, not so much their political party, but their actions and trustworthyness. I'm hardpressed to find a politician of either party I wouldn't call fectless and feculant. I call out the right more often because they went bat sh!t crazy and deserted me, leaving me partyless.

>> ^blankfist:
I do pretty good impressions. See if you can guess who I am.

You aren't smart enough to get what I'm saying, so I'll now talk down to you.
Majority of people on here agree with me, so I can easily take a more aggressive stand. You however will be downvoted into oblivion and scoffed. Come at me bro.
Do you have enough of an intellectual curiosity to understand me? Do you understand the difference between the number 4 and the letter H?
When you can rub together two brain cells and produce an original argument, I'll be willing to listen.

Give up?


Are you QM?


I want to try...
I'm not smart enough to understand what you're saying, so now I'm going to talk down to you.
The majority of people here disagree with me, so this must be some hyper liberal left wing site where I can take a more agressive stand against them, however I will be downvoted into oblivion and scoffed.
I don't have enough intellectual curiosity to understand you, or to look into the difference between the number 4 and the letter H, Faux news said they mean the same thing, that's good enough for me.
I can't rub two brain cells together to make a reasonable arguement, so I'll act like I'm being funny and insult you instead and pretend that's the same thing and that I just won an arguement.

Who am I?

Now that's a great way to point out an arguement, and I agree mostly with the points

In reply to this comment by StimulusMax:
After reading your more recent post, I do have to agree with you to some extent. I do believe that if you are going to belong to or support a group, you have a responsibility to address and/or distance yourself from the extremists who identify with that group. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's fair to tell people that they have to find a new label to distinguish themselves from the more extreme elements of their group. Feminists should not have to find a new name themselves because misandrists sometimes call themselves feminists.

Another analogy. Let's say I'm born a Jew. My entire family is Jewish, and the only ethno-cultural traditions I practice are Jewish. I agree that's it's my responsibility to decry the oppressive actions of the Jewish state, but do I have to give up my Judaism because I think Israel is extreme? That seems counter-intuitive to me, as part of the strength of my position would be to say, as a Jew, this state does not represent me.

Let's flip this on it's head. There are militant atheists. Should we not call ourselves atheists to distance ourselves from their extremism?

Or should we surrender our citizenship because we don't agree with the actions of our country? Talk about a slippery slope. My point with the Republican comment is that it is illogical to ask moderates to surrender their identity because of the existence of a few associated extremists. Not only is it unfair, but it robs the moderates of the position of power from which they are best equipped to deal with the extremists.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax
You note that to win you have to associate with undesirables; a slippery slope if ever I heard of one. Isn’t the Tea Party part of those “undesirable” elements the Republican Party must associate with or lose? We actually see this happening in elections around America. Without their support, both the GOP and it's candidates are bombing...Either the GOP is the friend of the Tea Party right now, or their party becomes a fractured base 3rd party; or as you say, they will belong to a Party that has no chance of succeeding...
So, why? For the same reason Christians need to hold back their rouge elements.


And how do you propose to create that equality if we're not allowed to recognize groups as oppressed and treat them as such?

I am not for one instant arguing that we should take away anybody's rights. What I'm suggesting is that there needs to be ways to balance inequality of privileges. To reiterate, I in no way endorse the sort of "revenge" that the women on this show were laughing about, but do take issue with comments, like Blankfist's above, that suggest that oppression isn't our responsibility. We benefit from it, we should own it. We should be willing to make the necessary concessions to offset the inequality resulting from that oppression.

There's an idea for you: maybe we wouldn't have to discuss Nietzschean ideas of revenge if those in positions of privilege were more proactive.

Here's an analogy: Five people are doing the same job. Four of them make barely enough to scrape by, and the fifth arbitrarily makes three times as much. Is it "revenge" for the four to want the fifth to divy up the extra so they all make the same amount? What if all they're asking is that the fifth reinvest a bit so that they can all make more?

I'm sure some people will just say "too bad, life's unfair, it's not my fault I am where I am". And I agree, it's not your fault. But it might mean you have a bit of extra responsibility.

What, you don't like that you have a bit of extra responsibility? Well too bad, life's unfair.

>> ^draak13:

While I do strongly agree that there are many schools of though on feminism, and that we shouldn't let the more ridiculous people paint the entire concept as invalid as the commentator was advertising, it is alarming how this relatively small school of feminist radicals is not so small. As was pointed out, it is not just just 3 or 4 women, it was the entire audience on set. Furthermore, it was a significant portion of the home viewers, as evidenced by how much outrage this clip has not caused. Female genital mutilation does happen in third world countries as a form of oppression. The concept angers most people in a developed society. The opposite should be just as true.
You, and several others, have commented that it is the way of things that the group with higher rights will experience diminished rights as the lower groups crawl up to equality. This is an incredibly false notion, which borderlines the notion of 'revenge.' An injustice cannot be solved by creating another injustice; the problem is merely being moved around, rather than solved. The solution is to create proper equality.
>> ^StimulusMax:
You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.
To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?

I have no idea how the interpretation of the law works - nor do I care to partake in that arguement.

But I believe that using his Government position to rally people together to pray to his God is clearly a conflict of interest. Soliciting, endorsing and hosting a massive prey-in to help him be a better leader and to divine his way through his job is massively offensive to those people he serves that don't buy into that cultist and useless practice.

He is in that JOB because he is supposed to have the skills to perform that job. Just by saying he needs every one to assemble and pray clearly states that he is not only incompetent to perform his duties but he is turning to religion to help lead the government.

There is no reason why he should be evoking religion and prayer to help lead the people. Those that are atheist or don't endorse the validity of prayer should be offended because and have the right to point out the separation between church and state because it's a massive slap in the face.

The man being paid to lead the people - All the people in that state - to use his elected powers to orchestrate and fix that which needs fixing in order to keep the state running smoothly, is turning to Hocus-Pocas, Mumbo-Jumbo to do the job for him. It's a natural feeling for the religious Sheeple to feel calmed and re-assured after they prey and what a warm hug-fest this is for them. They will go away feeling like things are better now that they have placed everything in their prayers and God's hands. But in fact, absolutely nothing gets accomplished. Nothing gets addressed and nothing is solved. Everything is the same as it was when they went in. The only difference is now there is less opposition within the religious majority. This in turn becomes a political platform.

And besides all of that, who want's to bet how many of the expenses from this event, paid by the governor, become tax write off expenses!

it sucks when people actually destroy your arguement with facts, documentation and links

and not just the info you present, i mean the way you actually present your arguement

gosh, i'd be embarrased to believe in creationism right now if this was the result of my presentation

Actually, he is just pointing out that the affirmative position that God doesn't or/and can't exist takes as much of a leap as saying he does exist. In spite of evidence, a positive or negative position isn't rational. Which is why I have always said that the agnostic atheist position (of which I am, so totally no bias) is the most logical. I haven't been presented with a certain case either way, so I am resolved in saying I don't know, and I don't know that I can or can't know. Don't confuse the last part of his statement that non-belief = non-existence. Claims of non-existence are indeed faith biased (if they have no evidence), but a non-belief is a different animal.


I would like to point out, though, his second rung is completely flawed. There is no compelling reason to believe those odds about life being 1 in a trillion. You would need to know several things, like what is the density of life in our universe, under what conditions could that life exist under...but most importantly, and the knife in its face, why life couldn't exist under different circumstances. To answer that last question you would have to know every condition life could happen under...and we don't even know how ours happened really. So that figure is complete horeshit, bad science, bad philosophy, bad reasoning.

There is a second reason it is bad reasoning and that is assumes that life is something intended. There is this great economic theory which I have been using in other places now from called "Spontaneous order". It is exactly what is sounds like. That via a system of random rules and interactions, order seems to derive. So you have this tangle of rule sets in the universe, but it was a mathematical certainty that over time, solar systems would most likely form, that there would be rocks, suns, and planets. It is flawed reason to think life is any different than rocks. Rocks are just as "special" as life, and just as meaningless as the vast emptiness of space. He is begging the question that life is any different from any other of the orders and forces that innately exist in this world. This is a logical fallacy that exist in all intellectual design arguments. Begging the question fallacies are hard to spot when you have an moral position to the topic. The reason is, begging the question fallacies validate. Meaning that if the premises is true, the conclusion is as well...but assuming the premises is true is faith and not logic.

I have realized that in my own intellectual constructions, I haven't used completely sound logical arguments either. As homework, I have self assigned myself the homework of studding and rooting out all the fallacies that exist in my philosophy as it stands. I found a useful tool for this as well, others would be appreciated. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

Upvoted this video because it is mostly good with some silly bits that I don't agree with either...but that is far better than par for course on many things of this nature...namely many of the Hitchen's videos on here...his philosophy is so flawed, and damn mean.

>> ^asynchronice:

Could be wrong here, but it seems the seem is to try and flip the burden of proof arguement from:
"There is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore it is rational to believe there is no god."
to
"There is no good argument for fully disproving the existence of God, therefore there must be a God."
I see what he did there.

Could be wrong here, but it seems the seem is to try and flip the burden of proof arguement from:

"There is no good evidence for the existence of god, therefore it is rational to believe there is no god."

to

"There is no good argument for fully disproving the existence of God, therefore there must be a God."

I see what he did there.

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^packo:
>> ^sme4r:
here's the atheist's Pastor's website:
http://www.howardstorm.com/Howard_Storm.html
There are no atheists in foxholes - meaning that in the face of death most people are all of a sudden spiritual.

Christopher Hitchens is a good example of this...
oh, wait... no he isn't
its good to know I can lead a life full of sin, and will be given the opportunity like everyone else to shout out "Jesus" in fevered dreams and be saved
or wait, maybe not like everyone else, because that would sorta be a cop out
maybe this guy is just special... but i thought everyone was in "His" eyes...
well then maybe he works in mysterious ways, and this guy can't convey to you his experience, like the love Jesus felt for him as he carried him... and thats the proof... see?
no? but he wrote a book
no? but the universe is sooo complex, it needs a designer...
no? but everyone believes when they are in a fox hole

Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.


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

just curious, are you just picking the parts of the book that back your arguement, or the whole book?

I would argue that is an appropriate question whenever statements of fact are made by anyone on any topic that sound ridiculous and/or contradict common knowledge...regarding The Chump, that covers the first half of your arguement fairly well.
If the answer to that reasonable question is either "from the blowhard who's hyping himself" or "from faux news" then we can ignore you fairly safe in the knowledge that you aren't dealing with facts. Veracity is not a word normally associated with Trump or Murdock.>> ^heropsycho:
Wherever any statements are made that either back up his argument or denigrate the other side, regardless of their veracity.
>> ^newtboy:
QM...where do you get your information?

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

LOL!
The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.
You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."
Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."
It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.


You call in to question my character by calling me 'fake' and wonder why I might take offence? I don't mind you critisising the points of my arguement, but don't try to suggest that I'm simply doing it to score points on here. I am not a troll and I am always genuine when stating my position. I will concede that I can't know for sure their exact orders and was wrong to claim otherwise, I based my statement on the evidence of recent US actions. I should have used the term "highly likely".

However! You don't get away that easily, please answer my question. Do you think it is okay for someone who has been accused of committing crime to face execution without trial? (Whether or not capturing Bin Laden was even possible in this case)

Disclaimer: I'm only quoting to illustrate an issue. This is not a personal attack and all references to "you" are to be taken as the collective "you".

>> ^The_Ham:

Why is it the people complaining about this are always ugly women?
When was the last time you saw a male saying they are tormented by the ads in mens magazines?


I haven't read the rest of the comments (yet) so if this has already been addressed, please overlook this comment.

that said, the comment I quoted illustrates exactly the issue. it is your opinion, solely, that dictates her/them being "ugly"...
you must now ask yourself what has affected your opinion of what is considered "ugly"... advertising? thought so... (excuse my assumption for the sake of arguement).

advertising in this fashion affects both men and women, but doubly for women (when it is the attractiveness of the woman in question). advertising attempts to tell you what you want, so men will tend towards finding a mate that resembles this subconscious expectation. there's all kinds of research that shows this is true. I could link them all but I'm not going to when a quick keyword search on google will suffice, and that is what i would likely be linking anyhow.
for women though, they are not only affected by attempting to resemble this physical fantasy, but upon failure they are also shunned by the opposite sex due to those fantasies.

mind you, this doesn't apply to everyone, but when this message has been banged into your head for 100+ years anyone will have a moment where they start to question whether their own opinion is wrong when contrasted to the status quo.

--

on a slightly different note, advertising has its affect on men as well. there's a reason some shave their chests and get all guido'd-out. if that's what women dig, or you are told that's what women want, you'll mold yourself to a certain extent (some further than others) to the fantasy image that allows procreation.

For those wanting to see arguements of both sides before casting a vote,

See here.