Yeah. Sort of how All Your History series on Machinima did it... though they seem to have lost it during season 5 when it seemed more like, here's the people who paid us to do a All Your History than anything truly insightful. I keep hoping somebody will take up the banner of All Your History and do it right. Did You Know Gaming and The Game Theorists come close, but lack the feel the original series did.

I'm not a "Feminist" I am, and forever shall remain an "Equalist". Enough with this "Lets fix one problem at a time" bullshit, Race, gender, stature, age, everyone deserves the same rights, why don't we try to push forward for the betterment of everybody?

My biggest complaint about Feminism is basically how misunderstood the goal actually is by some, to the point where it gets waved around like a banner for college girls saying that their sex is superior (Think basically Britta from community personified.)

I've just been called an ass too many times by the *feminists in my last paragraphs to actually call myself by that name anymore, but I think Equalist suits my personal beliefs better anyway.

*=I use the term "feminist" in this sense as the ones who more hinder the cause than help it by making themselves obnoxious.

The fake banner at the end was kinda dumb, though.

@chingalera...again for the cheap seat....(rare wall of words of my own, feel special?)

chicchorea said:

"Confusedly talking to yourself...again, or lying to yourself...again.

...took me about five minutes here on the Sift, on Google, and HC District Clerk online to prove it out.

Where would you like me to post the six steps to your...here or your Profile Pages of Shame, under which alias', aka sockpuppets, banned pseudonommes?"


"little...thing," going to leave another of these unanswered? Or perhaps you were just going to promote this again,...or shall I for you?

...or are you going to slink to a weeks old closed one and leave some feeble bleet in the dark...again?

...or pick another to take a cheap shot. For someone who doesn't like banning you did enough...even without justification but your felon's excuse for blatant discrimination against attorneys. Was some DA mean to you? Awwwww.

You had to keep poking. Seeking me out as another foil for your own self loathing. Someone else with whom to feign some pitiful involvement in another of a long tenured list of vain attempts to feel some self worth at the expense of someone else and deriving what empty little you could eke because few to none others would stoop or squat to your level.

So now, pitiful "little...thing",...put up or shut up and I will do the same. Except, in my case, I have everything I need to back up my assertions, felon, bitter grapes banner, etc. And where did I get it all? I got it from you,...your dribbling trail of filth you leave behind you here and everywhere else.

...that enough attention for you? Or are you feeling hollow now?

See @dag? The gray sarcasm shadow is not enough! We need a big red banner shouting at us

*banner

Yeah, saw this ages ago... and there is clearly an Ohio State banner behind her, so the Knicks and Wizards had nothing to do with it, but that is what a recent Reddit thread said... she may have been at the Knicks/Wizard game, but this was from when she was at Ohio State...
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Red-Panda-Acrobat-Flips-5-Bowls-on-to-Her-Head-1080p

If corporations acted with honor as Glenn Beck likes to argue, we wouldn't need to raise the minimum wage. But we keep attempting this time and time again, we give corporations all this influence and power hoping they use it wisely and fairly. But they don't. They never have. They use it to make themselves more wealthy than they need to be, masking their selfishness under the banner of "rugged individualism"

I guarantee you that no one *wants* to artificially raise the minimum wage, but it's a necessary step to lessen the income gap and offset inflation.

The right wing talking point is always "a poor person never offered me a job" Well my response is "I never met a rich person who didn't get their money from poor people buying their stuff"

where do you think any business who makes a product gets their money from? Do they just will it into existence because of the power of their ego? They get it from a poor person buying their stuff. But yeah, the corporate apologists don't like to talk about that particular reality.

There is always going to be poor people and always be rich people, but we can be a nation that decides as a whole that we're not going to piss on our poor people so that even the poor can led happy healthy lives.

The right wing talking point is that the poor have rich people envy. The poor don't envy the rich, they don't want McMansions and Hummers and all the stupid bling rich dolts buy. they just want to have their needs met. They just want to not go broke if there is a major illness

If corporations acted with "honor" then the free market idea *might* work, but as long as greed rules the day, there will always be the need to put measures in place like raising the minimum wage and other regulations.

@Babymech

ok.let us examine your counterpoints.

1.yeah.i agree.i never saw him as anybody but roddy piper.
2.agreed.while long,it does wear the banner of awesome.zizek may possibly be guilty of over-analyzing,but his comparisons bear some consideration.i find them to be justified.
3.this point you make is an exercise in circular logic and actually makes zizecks point.
where do you get your ideology from?
do you even have an ideology?
what makes you so certain of your ideology?
it is the question that is the real truth.
4.dont really understand your outrage here.sarcasm?
zizeck is exercising the pedagogy of philosophy.
referencing the matrix and pointing out that the wachowski brothers were not the first ones to create a movie with heavy philosophical tones.
john carpenter did it in the 80's with "they live".
and the philosophy of both movies is not exactly new.unless you consider 150 years to be "new".

maybe you disagree with the questions?
or are uncomfortable with the answers?
seem awfully defensive about people asking questions.

I think it's special precisely because of the lack of 'showbiz' about it. The Star-Spangled Banner is a really difficult song to sing. It's very rangy and the intervals are difficult to hit. Just presenting it "plainly" is enough of an achievement.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

I'm not sure she really means this. If it's not her actual opinion (I reckon it isn't) it's basically just viral advertising for the programme. The media do this constantly. Remember that Samantha Brick woman who whipped up a storm last year by writing a column in the Mail about how all other women hated her because she was beautiful? She was a troll, and the Mail's website benefited from all the increased banner ad viewings. This is just the same: making controversy for the sake of pageviews, advert clickthroughs and logo placement. The watercooler effect.

My appreciation for the star spangled banner has increased tenfold.

Just curious where the banner for blocked videos are. I don't see them.

I don't know of any country or organization in world history who doesn't say they want peace. Hitler marched under the banner of Peace, it's just peace within certain parameters. Same with Defense, I don't know of a country that attacks another without invoking their right to defend themselves. It's bullshit. It doesn't matter what books Islamic people read or Christian people read. People are going to justify the actions they want to take any way possible.

This is sort of like the argument that lays a Billion peoples deaths at the feet of Communism. It doesn't much matter what the "Communists" actually believe, only what they say they believe and what they do.

This is sort of a completely pointless argument anyway, the West has been waging horrific wars against the Islamic world for the past century, and we blame them? When you attack a country and destroy it you are responsible for all the carnage that follows even when not committed by you, because you created the conditions in which they could happen. That's called waging a War of Aggression. It's the crime that the Nazis were guilty of in the Nuremburg Trials and is considered the supreme international crime.