>> ^Reefie:

That cat is either a kleptomaniac at heart or is gathering resources so it can build a device to take over the world! You decide.


After this comment from the owner in response to a question from a YT viewer: "He doesn't want to know them once he brings them home, he screams until I acknowledge them and then walks to the fridge - cheeky cat", my guess would be klepto =oD

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Lastly, I was saying, in relation to Obama's approach to war, he is nearly identiacal to Bush. I say this not because his strategy is similar, rather, he follows the base of his party in the matter. If they said Home, he would bring them home. If they say Escalation, he escalates. If they say carpet bombs, he throws carpet bombs.
At least this is MO, not actual fact. Perhaps he is doing what is best for the war. Howdy knows.


I've not seen any polling that shows that Obama's base is in favor of what he's doing in Afghanistan. What polls are you looking at?

From where I sit, rather connected with what I consider Obama's base, there's pretty much a universal sense that it's time to withdraw.

>> ^NetRunner:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw, you seem confused.
I'm opposed to escalating Afghanistan. I'm also opposed to people trying to make sweeping generalizations about Democrats based on a series of false premises and fallacious logic. People are entitled to their opinion on Obama and the decisions he's making as President. What they aren't entitled to is their own facts about what Obama has said or done.
If there's a candidate in 2012 who's a better fit to my values than Obama on the ballot with a credible shot at winning, I'll vote for 'em.
Ron Paul is vehemently opposed to what I believe on 9 out of 10 topics. Even so, I don't see why the remaining Paultards think Ron Paul's empty campaign promises will get followed through on any more than anyone else who's ever run for President, especially given that he's got no support for his platform within his own party.
I definitely don't understand why they think they're going to win support from anti-war Democrats with their messaging strategy. All the CFL ever does is call everything we try to achieve "tyranny", unless they happen to agree with us on a topic, then they just call us hypocrites because we don't all immediately disown the Democratic party and swear undying loyalty to Paul the minute he makes an empty promise on the topic.
It seems mostly like just crap he tells his supporters so they'll repeat his line of reasoning thinking they're engaging in some sort of open-minded bipartisan outreach, when what he's really doing is prepping them to get all hostile and defensive when said "outreach" inevitably gets rejected.


Fair enough. I was just pointing out that Bush did not even follow his own doctrine. Also, santions (Of the economic type) are a blockade of sorts and are at least an aggression.

Lastly, I was saying, in relation to Obama's approach to war, he is nearly identiacal to Bush. I say this not because his strategy is similar, rather, he follows the base of his party in the matter. If they said Home, he would bring them home. If they say Escalation, he escalates. If they say carpet bombs, he throws carpet bombs.

At least this is MO, not actual fact. Perhaps he is doing what is best for the war. Howdy knows.

Gay Marriage: There are people out there who just don't want to shake things up; people who like the status quo and want to see marriage remain M/F only. Exactly what's going on in their heads, I can't say. I'd be interested to find out and I know that won't happen if I scream obscenities at them before they have the chance to explain it.

Illegal Immigration: First, the omission of "illegal" in my first post was just an oversight on my part. I really don't see why anyone would support illegal immigration, honestly. I think the claim that some people do is more likely a distortion. People, generally liberals, argue for better treatment of illegals and against the assload of money we spend trying, and failing, to stop them at the border. Wingnuts then point at those people and claim that they're in favor of illegal immigration. That one feels like runaway douchebaggery to me.

The Holocaust: This guy is labeled an antisemite for his beliefs about the Holocaust. If you're looking for "the point" to denying the Holocaust, then you're way off the mark. It's not as if there is a "point" to believing in the Holocaust, either. That's what you and I, presumably, believe because that is what the evidence presented to us suggests. Some people have interpreted the evidence differently or have been exposed to different evidence. I think most of those people are probably nuts but it's a complete logical fallacy to jump to antisemitism from there.

War on Terror: You've made my point for me here. Everyone I know who is against the war fully supports the troops. We want them home and safe rather than risking their lives to protect us from absolutely nothing. However, anyone who was against the war during the Bush administration was labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic, an appeaser or accused of hating the troops. It's a bullshit accusation intended to shut you up or drown you out and that's it.
---
It seems like you may have mistaken my list of examples for my personal positions and that's not the case, so I can't really make any arguments for these things. The only argument I'm making is that you shouldn't assume your preconceived notions are true and shut out those opposing viewpoints as a result. Have your preconceptions if you must, but give the person the chance to prove you wrong.

>> ^Shepppard:
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?
I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it.
Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.
I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.
Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"
You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.
Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.
Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.

I'm not going to downvote you, you raise a point.

However, I do feel the need to ask a few things.
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?

I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it. They still pay to be wed, if they want children, they have to adopt..which means a child gets much better care then it ever would if it doesn't get adopted, and that way everybody's happy.

Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.

I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.

Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"

You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.

Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.

Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I hate to say it but, despite the hypocrisy, Beck has a point.
I know I'll be downvoted into oblivion for saying this, because I've been through it before, but maybe one or two of you will hear the message and understand it.
You can oppose immigration without being a racist.
You can oppose Obama or his policies without being a racist.
You can deny the Holocaust without being an anti-semite.
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.
You can oppose the US Government without being a terrorist.
You can oppose the War on Terror without hating our troops.
You can oppose hydrogen powered vehicles without supporting big oil.
You can oppose abortion without being a Bible-thumping misogynist.
You can oppose war without being an appeaser.
Do many people oppose gay marriage because of their hatred of gays? Certainly. Do many people oppose Obama because of racism? Clearly. Are some who deny the Holocaust anti-semites? Probably.
But some people are just mislead and some people are just nuts. Some even ( gasp ) have different and legitimate opinions. We've gotten to this place where any level of disagreement warrants the most extreme vocabulary that can be conjured and the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives.
You want to know why there's no progress in government? It's because of radical preconceived notions. Anything the left proposes is Nazism, Fascism, Marxism or Socialism. They hate good Christian people and the country. Anything the right proposes is Nazism, Fascism or Discrimination. Nobody even hears the other side because they've decided ahead of time what those people will say.
And the vast majority of you here on the sift are the same way. Open your eyes and ears. There are a lot of people with differing and/or opposing viewpoints to yours and not all of them are nutcases who want to destroy the country. You serve nobody's interests by shooting them down with extremist labels before they've even had the chance to make their case.

Brilliant, lets teach 18 year old soldiers to kill everyone and take no prisoners. Then we can bring them home and pay for their counseling for the next 50 years. Jackass!

I've noticed that most people who support this type of policy have never been in real combat. I don't know about this nut´job, but he was probably pushing paper while he was in the military.

Support our troops. Bring them home.

I support Barack Obama, and Our Troops.

(bring them home)

I'm getting somewhat tired of the "out of context" cry, especially if context doesn't change the meaning.

He somehow thinks comparing wartime in Iraq with peacetime in Korea is exculpatory of the attitude that it's "not important" when the troops come home.

If you insist they can't leave until they've won, and that after they've won, it doesn't matter when they come home, aren't you saying that you aren't going to try to bring them home at all for God knows how long?

I think Josh Marshall at TPM sums it up nicely:

Their other point [aside from saying they were quoted out of context] is that McCain isn't saying that bringing the troops home isn't that important, he's saying that precisely when they come home isn't that important and that reducing the number of casualties is more important than the precise date when they come home. But this highly strained argument seems premised on the assumption that journalists should report not what you say but your own highly generous after-the-fact interpretation of what you said.

I would say that in the context of Iraq when they come home and whether they come home are actually inextricably combined. Presumably US military personnel won't be in Iraq 20,000 years from now. At some point they'll come home. But staying for many decades is, in the context of most of our lives, the same as staying forever. On the latter point McCain doesn't say that reducing casualties is more important than getting people home. He's saying one is his focus and the other isn't very important.

Expose the lie, bring them home.

That's it, that's the message right there. Enough is enough. The British people have woken up, it's time for Americans to do the same.

My sister manages at an extended stay hotel, typically hosting business travelers from central Asia. I won't even relate the stories about the resultant bedbug infestation. Disgusting. Thank goodness there are companies out there that specialize in exterminating those things.

Careful when traveling.. as you can just as easily bring them home.

>> ^rosspruden:In fact, ALL the presidential candidates want the troops to come home as soon as possible, but how that's defined is what is on the table. Does that mean 3 years, 10 years, 2 months, 10 weeks, 14 days, or tomorrow? "Just come home," implies tomorrow.

I hate to say it, but most, if not all, of these comments are very misguided and uninformed. Ill start with Ross up there. Did you not watch the last republican debate? McCain said himself he doesn't have a problem with staying in Iraq for 100 years. Clinton can't seem to make her mind up, and there were a few others who had extended "plans." Ron Paul says bring them home now, but he has also said that he understands the logistics of it all, and that you cant just ship them all home tomorrow.

>> ^Babymech:
I am not an American, but this almost brings out giggles. Thank god he's on his way out, because this was a ridiculous internet campaign.

I don't even know where to start. I have to bring into question your knowledge and understanding of My country and its political past, present, and possible future ramifications. So until you back up what your saying, STFU.

@ maximillian: Well, you seem pretty on it. Nice job.

@ rosspruden again: RE: your first comment.
Ok its a delicate situation. How so? Explain your statements. And anyways, as far as leaving it better than you found it? Well, America has built roads, bridges, school, hospitals, cared for their sick and poor etc. Look it up sometime. We've helped their country so much. Oh, and did I mention the removal of a Fascist Dictator. Hmm. Nope, I forgot that. Guess we haven't helped much. Iraq has been in chaos for hundreds of years. Nothing the US does from here on out is going to make much of a difference. And don't start talking about collateral damage and what not. You don't think that the US Gov't doesn't pay them back for that shit?

@ DeadTofu. My god man. I'm not sure if your drunk or high. That was some incoherent babbling shit. Use a spell check if you have to. FireFox has one built in. I suggest switching. I can't even begin to respond to that pile of crap.

@ Gwiz, your definitely right about it being an illegal war, but I think that sound bite WAS for the dumb Americans. Don't forget, theres a lot of them out there.

@SaNdMaN: Then don't watch them. They are not made so much for Ron Paul fans, but to try and help deliver the message that he has.

@Tofumar: Preach on, brother. Preach on.

MG, Scientologists believe their crusade against psychiatry is for the good of all mankind, including us. That doesn't mean we owe them anything. Whether or not they are actually helping is very relevant. What they are ACTUALLY DOING is more important than what they BELIEVE they're doing. Do you grok my analogic consistency check? I am appalled by the common obsession of glorifying the act of dying for one's country in an offensive war. It is not a great thing to die for Dick Cheney in an offensive war that has nothing to do with defending our freedom. "Support our troops" is nothing but an orwellian strawman fascist-enabler. The best thing we can do to help the troops is to bring them home.

Ron Paul tends to make the most sense of any of these candidates. He's the only obvious choice for anyone that gives a crap about our Constitution, our national sovereignty, and anyone that would support our troops would bring them home from a war that has been proven to be illegitemate from the beginning. 9/11 was an excuse for the government to go in and remove a dictator that was installed by the CIA (just like Iran's). Osama Bin Laden - trained by the CIA. I could go on and on.. but the list is huge... Any of you Ron Paul haters see any red flags popping up? Hell-llo?!?!

That is... unless you're pro-destruction of the USA or you're completely brainwashed.

Soooo cute! I love it how the mama cat is so protective and rounds up all her kittens at the end to bring them home.