>> ^Stingray:

Needs more Benny Hill.


For real. I thought about using a "needs Benny Hill" joke in the title.

The goal of the commentators is that their own viewers/ordinary players submit their matches to be commentated, as opposed to commentating high level/pro matches. They do this as a way to teach ordinary players how to improve their game and to understand what they are doing wrong, while at the same time providing a humorous commentary. I don't play Starcraft 2, nor am I ever likely to (I prefer other RTSs). However, I feel confident that I'd do half decently just from what I've learned while watching this channel.
In any case, this is in no way a parody, nor does it belong in the terrible channel. I probably can't do this, but:
*nochannel
*videogames
>> ^poolcleaner:

FYI: It's a match between two complete noobs and it's funny because these asshats are doing commentary over it, as if it were a match between two seasoned players. It's sort of like watching a bum fight or two mentally challenged kids brawling, and you can't help but see where it goes -- which was absolutely hilarious and awesome. Just a heads up to those that are not so SC2 savvy. It would be hilarious even without the commentary, and I almost wonder if it's fake.
parody
terrible

FYI: It's a match between two complete noobs and it's funny because these asshats are doing commentary over it, as if it were a match between two seasoned players. It's sort of like watching a bum fight or two mentally challenged kids brawling, and you can't help but see where it goes -- which was absolutely hilarious and awesome. Just a heads up to those that are not so SC2 savvy. It would be hilarious even without the commentary, and I almost wonder if it's fake.

*parody
*terrible

"Class warfare" is so overused and misused that it has become an empty pejorative. Moore is wrong to use it here. Republicans are wrong to use it every time anyone proposes a slightly more progressive tax system (39% top bracket, oh no class warfare!).

Critiquing the Democrats for fleeing the state is fine, though you should apply the same criticism to minorities of both sides who were willing to grind US senate business to a halt just because they didn't like one bill or one nominee.

However, indicating that the democrats should have "stood and fought" is juvenile nonsense. The republicans have a majority. This isn't a schoolyard brawl. 14 aren't going to beat 19 if one of them shows up with a tire iron or a baseball bat.

Personally, I find the whole premise of Walker's arguments absurd. He's trying to blame teachers for asking for benefits. If my boss pays me too much and the company goes out of business is it my fault because I ask for a raise every year? Politicians have both the power and the responsibility to find the correct balance between a competitive wage and fiscal prudence for state employees. If low level bureaucrats are too friendly with unions, elected representatives should provide better oversight (or fire them). Wisconsin is in trouble because they abdicated that responsibility. Blaming teacher unions for their own failure is just another sad example of the pass the buck, point the finger mentality that has infested our political system and made us incapable of actually solving our problems.

There will always be people who want to ride fast and we can't change that. Just like there will be people who always want to own guns, or drink alcohol, or whatever.

The only thing we can hope for is that people do it in the safest way possible.

Now I know not everyone that drinks alcohol rents a room for the night to make sure they don't drive drunk, or stumble into the road and cause an accident, or throw up on some strangers shoes igniting a huge drunken brawl.

I know not everyone that owns a gun will always shoot it at a range or in a sanctioned hunting area.

It's the same way that not everyone who wants to ride a motorcycle fast will always take it to the track.

I understand why everyone here is upset. But we can't stop everyone from doing everything that is wrong all the time. Is what these riders doing wrong? Yes. Is it dangerous? Yes. But at least it's on some middle of the road nowhere (yes there are houses in the beginning but after that it looks like farmland) place. I didn't see a school bus stop or an orphanage or some kind of cute animal factory. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but I highly doubt these people would take their very expensive motorcycles on this road in such a large group if they thought there was a chance of their bikes getting wrecked.

If anyone here truly truly can tell me they always take all precautions necessary in life, then they are a better person than I am. Otherwise I suggest everyone take a look inward and realize they do things that can potentially hurt other people too, but just always minimize the risk.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

Hey Genji,
Judging from your comment, seems im not the only one who shares my thoughts!

I remember when UFC first started in one form or another and guys would wear karate gear and the big sell was this guy is a boxer fighting a wrestler or this guy is a karate expert fighting a boxing guy.
But the "sport" seems to have evolved into an organized school brawl. The fights look amateurish and often dont go beyond 2 rounds, cause lets face it, not matter how big and muscly you are, skin is skin and easily cuts. The term "ground and pound" comes up often.

Dont get me wrong, I like a good fight just like the next guy... but im not seeing the skill in UFC. Where are the Tyson's, Ali's, Zhu's, etc.

Im keen to learn more, point me in the right direction

later bro


In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Goddamnit. Why do we always have this discussion?

First.
The only person who's struggling after two minutes is Lesnar.

He's a transplant from "professional" wrestling. Which is why he sucks.
He has no skill. No Endurance. And no clue what to do inside an octagon.

Lesnar was only the champion cause he's built like a grizzly bear/tank/meat shield hybrid.

He is essentially baby huey.

Shane Carwin almost beat him. Frank Mir did once before. He sucks and everyone knows it.

Second.
Of course it's a sport old fogey.

Are you really gonna sit there and try to tell everyone that
- FIGHTING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING FOR 15 TO 25 MINTUES STRAIGHT! -
doesn't take any athleticism, technique, training or endurance?

Fer cereal? = /

>> ^GuyFawkes:

I dont get this "sport", give me boxing anyday. For "professional" athletes they sure struggle after 2mins. Maybe its a gen y instant gratification thing... maybe im old.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'new york, fight, restaurant, brawl, blockheads' to 'Manhattan, new york, fight, restaurant, brawl, blockheads' - edited by SlipperyPete

You show me a MMA fighter that can do this:


You show me a boxer that can do this:

You show me a fighter that can do it all I'll show you a perfect unarmed warrior. Too often MMA is a series quick brawls. Too often boxing is a long drawn out tit for tat fight.

They are both just another spectacle to keep people amused. As to which one is better in a street fight? Real combat has no rules, and that's why gunpowder caught on.

As with most backyard brawls, the instigation was far more hilarious than the fight itself.

After this video was taken, <a href="<object width="480" height="385">">the two cats ended up in a bit of a brawl.
>> ^Payback:

Love the cats looking on in disdain at the weird tall mammals.

I know. I am so tough.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
'attagirl. You're no sniveling wussy.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
For me... things are... interesting?
The toe is broken. I keep walking on it though because I have an adult life to live and what not... I am not seeming to make it any better. I have started to tape it though.I went on my Sunday picture taking spree and seemed to have made it worse while hiking. Who would have thought?? I need a baby sitter for myself sometimes, apparently.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
There be changes, but it's all groovy. And yourself? How's the toe? This little piggy went to market, this little piggy stayed home, this little piggy went to the bar and got wasted and smashed up in a nasty brawl. Or something.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Thanks for the promote dear!!! Hope things are well with you

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*promote

>

^Directed by JW hisself.

'attagirl. You're no sniveling wussy.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
For me... things are... interesting?
The toe is broken. I keep walking on it though because I have an adult life to live and what not... I am not seeming to make it any better. I have started to tape it though.I went on my Sunday picture taking spree and seemed to have made it worse while hiking. Who would have thought?? I need a baby sitter for myself sometimes, apparently.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
There be changes, but it's all groovy. And yourself? How's the toe? This little piggy went to market, this little piggy stayed home, this little piggy went to the bar and got wasted and smashed up in a nasty brawl. Or something.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Thanks for the promote dear!!! Hope things are well with you

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*promote

>

^Directed by JW hisself.

There be changes, but it's all groovy. And yourself? How's the toe? This little piggy went to market, this little piggy stayed home, this little piggy went to the bar and got wasted and smashed up in a nasty brawl. Or something.

In reply to this comment by inflatablevagina:
Thanks for the promote dear!!! Hope things are well with you

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*promote

>

^Directed by JW hisself.

This has been sifted before. I think the others were a different length and camera perspective though:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Russian-Hooligans
http://www.videosift.com/video/Real-Life-Russian-Braveheart-Two-Enormous-Gangs-Brawl