Now, how about you address Ashley Babbitt, the dead traitorous cunt that destroys at least one position you hold sacred….either she and the MAGA insurrectionists were not innocent peaceful marchers calmly protesting like a normal day but were anti democracy violently murderous terrorists attacking police that showed god level restraint by only shooting her, or police shoot innocent non threatening people for no legitimate reason.

Which one do you want to finally admit is correct…because I think we both know they both are. It’s pretty chicken shit cowardly of you to continue to avoid the glaring reality by just not answering, and very telling about you that you simply cannot ever admit you are w-w-w-w-wrong.

Wow....Carson really meant a "moment" of silence for victims, didn't he.

Did Christie really just say that working with congress is going to make his eyes glaze over? He knows that that's a large part of the job he's trying to get, doesn't he?

"They don't need to be forced, they need to be asked." is about the worst, most uninformed, proof of a lack of understanding answer Fiorina could have given to the question..."They say they WONT help the FBI, now, crack encrypted communications from ISIS, should they be forced to?"

"You would carpet bomb where ISIS is...not a city, but the location of the troops."...I guess Cruz just doesn't know the ISIS troops are mainly in the cities.

"If you're an American citizen, and you decide to join up with ISIS, we're not going to read you your Miranda rights, you're going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country..." shows clearly that Rubio doesn't understand 'innocent until proven guilty', the basis of our legal system, and has decided that anyone ACCUSED of joining ISIS deserves illegal imprisonment without trial and without end. Marco Rubio has joined ISIS....go get him boys.

"Getting our smartest and getting our best to infiltrate their...internet." That's going to be fairly hard for Trump after he rounds up all the Muslims and deports them for being in the wrong religion, or executes them for something a family member did. I don't really think our best and smartest Muslims are going to want to work for him at that point.

I'm pretty sure that's the first time in history that Trump complained about being mentioned too often.

I'm stunned that I watched the whole thing. My brain hurts, and I just threw up in my mouth a little...but I did it.

I finally just finished watching the 3 hour finale on my DVR (kept trying to avoid this spoiler post) and was thoroughly happy with the results.

I'm way on board with your sentiments, but must add my 2 cents.

First, I think it's important to realize it's not the way ANW runs the show that causes the competitors to behave the way they do; it's the American competitors themselves who share that undesirable selfish, braggadocious attitude/philosophy. Even when you watch the Japanese Sasuke competitions, when there's an American competing surrounded by Japanese competitors inside Japan, you still feel that same air of arrogance.

I've been watching the Sasuke for many years and started watching ANW before it was ANW (even in the first "seasons" on Attack of the Show where the competitors had bounce on a trampoline and swing on some monkey bars to earn their way to Japan). The American attitude always been something that bothers me and takes a huge chunk out of my interest.

I always find it disconcerting the way they don't explain any details, such as why Geoff got to climb first (which is why he gets to claim he's the first person to ever reach the top).

The other thing I've been crying "foul" on is that they seemed to lighten it up on the obstacles. This year there were 38 people to go to round 2. That's ridiculous. But what's worse is that round 2 had way too long a time limit. Normally competitors who succeed on stage 2 have about a second left when they hit the button, but many of those who went through to stage 3 had around 30 seconds on the clock.

I had to rewind a couple of times, but I confirmed Isaac said "share the moment" not the money.

My wife and I were both displeased that Geoff announced he gets to say he's the first to beat stage 4. That's such a poor attitude, and I liked Popeye a lot more until then. And regardless how they decided who got to go first, I think they both have to be considered as equally the first to finish stage 4. (Side note: I was really bummed they didn't use the loud "bang! bang!" sounds to start stage 4 like they do in Japan.)

I myself don't have a problem with the very redesigned courses each season.

The USA versus the World bullshit is some serious bullshit that's hard to swallow. Not only is the whole "our country is better than you" concept horrible, but the actual competition is shit. It's not the same beating the course one rested person at a time. But also last year the Europeans brought in a rock climber who knew nothing about Ninja Warrior and just sent him in fully rested to do the arm-centric work.

Boy, we could get together and write a dissertation on this subject.

Your video, Digital Carjackers Show Off New Attacks, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.
(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)
"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.
"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.
"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.
"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.


Keep the personal attacks coming, it shows how pathetic your position really is. Debate jones, is that what this is? More like your satisfying your flaming jones, which makes me really question your psychological health.

Fraud and corruption caused the last depression, this depression, and future depressions if left to you. Instead of trying to fight and prevent the fraud, you try to present the problem as a partisan one. And offer solutions sponsored by Wall Street politicians.

Cheetahs are wusses, the polar opposite of the nasty badass honey badger. Any one of them could have torn her to shreds, but even in packs they'll only attack something that shows fear.

>> ^gwiz665:

No, I haven't really seen G4 at all, apart from the odd Olivia Munn eating a sausage or massaging a sausage or somehow handling a sausage on the sift.
>> ^budzos:
Gwiz u ever watch the Code Monkeys show from G4? It's the only 8-bit sprite art show on TV that I'm aware of. Basically South Park in an 80s game studio. I loved that shit when it was new circa 2007.



Check it out on Youtube or what not. I wouldn't recommend anything else on G4 unless you can time travel back to 2001 and watch Attack of the Show.

Firstly, about the RL busy stuff, I'm fine, I've just been moving and stuff, nothing bad, but thanks for caring

While I agree religion is more than dogma, I think i have a bit of a different perspective on it, religion is, or can be a large part of someone life, obviously, and in that sense it is, as you say a complex socio-cultural phenomen. but heres where i have a problem with the stuff you say:

If you look at the Bible, or the Koran, or the Buddhist sutras, the overarching message you see is one of love for fellow humankind: the Golden Rule. That is religion and that is what people should be practicing.

Really? Have you READ the bible? or the Koran? These books are not written with the golden rule as a model. Sure, there are some hints of that here and there, but the overall theme is something quite different. The message that these books emphasize is one of total obedience to god. Of course you dont have to, and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way, but that is in fact the main focus of these books.

The empirical evidence we do have, though, shows religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives overall.

Uh, really? where can this evidence be found? seriously? I live in Norway, one of the least religious countries in the world. We live longer,happier and healthier lives than most of the planet.

For every example that you might choose to offer, say the Inquisition or the 9/11 terror attacks, that supposedly show why religion needs to go I can offer you a historical counter-example like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi as to why religion is crucially important.

Ok, I completely agree that keeping scores here would be pointless, so lets think about this for a few seconds. Take MLK jr. Great guy, obviously, and yes, he was a preacher and certainly religious, by all means, and he also famously quoted the bible in his speeches. But answer me this: Was religion the thing that made him into what he was? Lets suppose he was an atheist, or lets say a muslim for that matter, would he have been totally lost without the wisdom of Moses, who famously said "Let my people go"? or the teachings of Jesus? You know what? I think MLK was a great guy, who fought for a great cause, and I think that independent of his religion. And we all know there were plenty of good arguments OUTSIDE of the bible for a civil rights movement, in fact, the bible doesnt even come around to condemning slavery. So its not really a religious thing, is it? I can say honestly and with a straight face that yes, i think a non-religious person could do what MLK did, (and in fact MLK was actually critized for having to many non-religious people in his circle at the time)

Now look at my side of the scoreboard. And I'll give you the challenge Christopher Hitchens has given many times: You have to name me a good act done or a good thing said, by a religious person, that doesnt have any secular, non-religious basis or potential argument in its favour. and then you have to come up with a bad or wicked thing said or done.. I dont even have to end the sentence.. You've already got several, stuff that you couldnt possibly do for ANY OTHER REASON then the religious one. Who would cut into their childrens genitals without a good medical reason?, who would discourage condom-use in countries where the % of aids victims are well into the 2-digits? what maniac would run an airplane into a skyscraper and think this act would give them 72 virgins in paradise? What sadistic bastard would stone a young girl to death because SHE was raped?

Well, You get my point. I think very large parts of what you call religion, I simply attribute to our normal, human behaviour. not to repeat the MLK point to much. But I think the feeling of injustice that he and all black americans felt at the time had nothing to do with religion, and i think that ultimately his rebellion against it had nothing to do with religion, and again, people listened and things finally changed, not because of religion, but because it was the right thing to do. Just like most Christians and jews refrain from killing people, not because a commandment says so, but because thats how we humans work. But still, there are those who think thats why we dont all just kill eachother, and even those who thinks thats why they dont kill their neighbour , but obviously, thats not it.

Hey again! First off, thanks so much for taking the time to reply even though things are busy for you in RL--I totally understand how that is and hope everything is going fine.

Reading over your post, it occurred to me that there are actually some things we agree on. One thing, for instance, that I think we agree on is that dogma is very, very bad. Blindly following others is never going to lead to a good situation. Forcing others to do things "because that's the way we've always done it" is unlikely to give good results either.

Since I'm pretty sure we agree on this point, let's turn to the point we disagree on. As you said, "does religion bring the good stuff?" The answer to this question I think comes partly from how we're defining religion. If we're going to define religion very narrowly as dogma--a set of prescriptive rules about behavior and practice that everyone must follow--then clearly we answered the question in the last paragraph. Dogma isn't going to bring the good stuff, no. I'm absolutely with you on that.

However, I find such a definition of religion (i.e. religion = dogma) exceedingly narrow and frankly unrealistic. When you look at churches, or temples, or synagogues, or covens, or whatever you see that religion is much more than a set of prescribed rules. All religions are composed of people, and these people interact in very complex ways with both each other, with the religion's leadership, and with whatever religious texts are used. Religion to me, then, is a complex socio-cultural phenomenon. Looking at most churches in the U.S., for example, I don't see a lot of people blindly following the Bible, nor do I see the church leadership encouraging people to blindly follow the Bible (otherwise, I think the death rate from stonings in the U.S. would be much higher than it actually is). What I do see are people coming together to help themselves, help each other, and help their communities, using the Bible as a guide (note I said guide here--I know very few people who base their decisions solely on their religious text; also I chose Christianity for this example, but really you could substitute the religion of your choice there).

Based on these observations, I'm therefore going to quote Daisaku Ikeda, a prominent Buddhist leader. He once said, "Religion exists to serve people; people do not exist to serve religion." My definition of religion therefore is a set of practices that help us grow beyond our own selfish tendencies and serve a greater good. I personally find it irrelevant whether the practices are man-made or divinely inspired so long as they get people to behave more compassionately to each other. To me, that's religion. Anyone who is acting without compassion towards another human being is not following the teachings of their own religion. And any organization that preaches hatred or violence should not be considered a religion at all. If you look at the Bible, or the Koran, or the Buddhist sutras, the overarching message you see is one of love for fellow humankind: the Golden Rule. That is religion and that is what people should be practicing.

Clearly, therefore, I think proper religious practice does bring the good stuff. But can religious practice bring the bad stuff too? Yeah. I'm not denying that. When people choose not to think critically for themselves there will always be someone willing to come along and exploit them. I also think many religious organizations have organized themselves in such a way as to, as you said, be a drain on society and hide behind the banner of religion while carrying out atrocious crimes. But as I said above, I don't really consider the people doing those things as being religious or representing "religion" per se. And as we've talked about in previous posts, I don't think that the existence of such corrupt organizations are entirely religion's fault. If people weren't blindly following their preacher, they'd be blindly following the local village idiot, or blindly their President (or, as in the case of George W. Bush, both). My view on this is that power has a tendency to corrupt; that organizations (whether they be religions, corporations, or nation-states) have a tendency to demand blind obedience; and that there are many people who will willing close their eyes and follow others blindly in order to feel even the smallest sense of security.

In your post, you accused me of downplaying the bad stuff, but I'm going to turn that argument around and suggest that you are in fact downplaying the good stuff that religion has to offer. For every example that you might choose to offer, say the Inquisition or the 9/11 terror attacks, that supposedly show why religion needs to go I can offer you a historical counter-example like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi as to why religion is crucially important. I think such arguments based on history would end in a draw. But let's go beyond historical arguments. Let's talk about the effect of ordinary people's lives--getting people to donate to charity, volunteer in their communities, help and support each other. What about the drug addicts who find that religion gives them the strength they need to break their addiction, or the prisoners who use the support system religion affords to turn their lives around? Religion inspires ordinary people to lead better, more positive lives much more often than it inspires people to go out and, say, shoot abortion doctors. The problem is, the good stories are too mundane don't make the evening news, so mostly they are anecdotal. The empirical evidence we do have, though, shows religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives overall.

Sorry for the long post. To sum things up, I do believe that the world needs more religion as I've defined it above. It sounds to me like your main problem with religion is in fact with organized religion and its tendency to steer towards dogma and blind obedience. I actually share your feelings to some extent--as I said above, if an organization is promoting intolerance or hatred, or is imposing its will by force then I think certainly it should be dealt with swiftly and critically. If there's one thing I hope you take away from our discussions on this topic, I suppose it is that religion as a concept is much larger than just organized religion; that it can be immensely healing and an immensely beneficial force in the world. And I would really hope that you would never dismiss someone's views because they happen to be religious. It seems to me that one of the biggest problems facing the world today is that people don't listen to each other--we don't even make the effort to see the other person's point of view.

I, for my part, throughout this dialogue have tried to put myself in your shoes and see things as you do. My goal is not to make you a "religious" person, but simply, I suppose, to further the dialogue a bit and even clarify my own thoughts on the matter by putting them down in words. Thanks for being a willing discussion partner in the process.

I watched a bit of this guys show...and to me it's even worse than "Attack of the Show". It's a show that finds YouTube clips and lets us seem them on our tv. Wow, sure wish I had a site that "Sifted" through YouTube videos to finds ones worth watching.

O -
:
\__/>> ^lucky760:

Bit of trivia: In this vid he's responding to Kevin Pereira of Attack of the Show on G4.
Maybe we should add a new monocle smile emoticon to the Sift using something like:

>> ^lucky760:

Bit of trivia: In this vid he's responding to Kevin Pereira of Attack of the Show on G4.
Maybe we should add a new monocle smile emoticon to the Sift using something like:


And it pops up with his face?

Bit of trivia: In this vid he's responding to Kevin Pereira of Attack of the Show on G4.

Maybe we should add a new monocle smile emoticon to the Sift using something like:

Tags for this video have been changed from 'wonder, woman, crime, fighter, troubles' to 'wonder woman, crime fighter, troubles, olivia munn, attack of the show' - edited by kronosposeidon

I've heard a lot about "Attack of the Show" but have never seen it before. Nothing about this video and the superficial douchebag hosting it makes me ever want to see more.