Makes me think of the guy who videotaped the woman at the Chick-Fil-A drive thru, figuring he would be lauded as a hero for challenging someone who worked for that company. And it backfired and he became unemployed because of his "principles", which was pretty much what he expected of that woman. And then he played the victim. But he brought it on himself, the woman who tweeted about AIDS in Africa is a whole other story.

Now that everyone has the power to self-publish and broadcast just about anything to the entire world I'm seeing the power that it unleashes in others. I posted a comment on an unsolicited news posting in my FB feed, regarding the Pulitzer Prize picture of the black woman holding out her hands to be handcuffed by the police in riot gear. And everyone in the comment section is going predictably teary-eyed and goose pimply over it, with the usual cliches of iconic, defining, inspiring, uplifting, etc.

And I wrote "don't be so easily manipulated, it's stagey and predictable and Kardashians use this shit to sell sugar water." or something like that. My point being that we have gone from prize-winning pictures of the Viet Nam war (e.g.) to the whole process being co-opted by pop culture, like everything and anything else. Of course I got bombarded with claims of racism and people who pitied my soul. And some were musing on whether to try to track down my employer. I deleted my comment, this world has gotten too fucking weird for me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The socialists refused to pass a budget for 800-plus days.
Odumbo and Durbin falsely claimed it takes '60 votes' to pass a budget and the Republicans 'somehow' blocked this, and that's why there was no budget.
Simple truth: it takes 51 votes. The leftists have had senators a-plenty to pass it.


Of all the dumbassed things I've seen you say--this has got to be the dumbestassest thing.

Haven't you noticed that the R's block everything that the President tries to do? The R's "somehow" cause everything to require 60 votes. That's because the obstructionist R's put up road blocks so that the President fails to get anything thru--which means that the country is going down the tubes (but they don't care).

[Note: because of people like you calling everything, and anything, "socialism" the word has lost it's negative connotations. Most Americans now see that its just a buzz word and embrace many "socialist" ideals. Thanks! Keep up the good work!]

For all the raving and quibbling over this guys actions, our world would be a much better place if the average parent was more like him.
1. He actually cares about how his child is behaving, that's already better than almost 50% of my kids classmates have.

2. He is actually trying to discipline his child. It seems most parents these days think a stern 5 minute talking to is punishment enough for anything.

3. He actually is trying to teach the value of hard work and make sure his kids don't grow up expecting everything and anything be given them on a platter. If you look at the self entitled attitude that is omnipresent in society, I'd again love to see this guy's approach adopted in place of the status quo.

It's quite a leap from me saying that unions comprised of government employees are ultimately economically unfeasible to interpreting that as a desire to destroy unions and stifle debate. Debate all you want. The writing is on the wall for all of our government employees. All the states are in trouble. I just picked California as an example. As far as that goes, I am glad you agree that they have made their system F.U.B.A.R. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones.

Here is another example: the United States Postal Service. A package sent to me this last week by the USPS cost $8.40. I returned the exact same package to the same sender by UPS for $7.07. Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements. The post office is now discussing closing up to 3,700 branches. Those workers are going to be out of a job; real people, with real lives and real families. So it causes me to think: I wonder if they would rather have a job with retirement that looks similar to the rest of the country's private sector retirements, or be promised a larger retirement and end up with neither a job nor a retirement.

What is important is this: some of the unions made up of government employees are fighting to save a future comprised of an empty bag. The money they are fighting to set back for their members isn't going to be able to be paid. The discussion isn't whether or not we are for or against unions. Unions have done much good for the working conditions in the US. Right now that is beside the point. The discussion is this: how are we going to arrange ourselves together to make this whole unworkable system work. I'm beginning to believe that we don't have the capacity any longer to do so. >> ^Yogi:

>> ^silvercord:
Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.
If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.
You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.
If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

>> ^silvercord:

Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.


"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.

If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.

You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.

If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.

Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.

>> ^ghark:

I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.

Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.

Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.

This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.

So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.

It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

A squirrels diet consists of nuts, seeds, and fruit. It'll eat bird eggs, bugs,..... even an animal carcass if there is no other food source available. As for an "average" dog's compared to a squirrel's brain? An average chihuahua has the size of an average squirrel's brain...approx Squirrel brain length=3cm
approx brain weight=6g
A bull mastiff has a bigger brain than a chihuahua, as for intelligence?? Jury out....
Behavior studies and not brain size determines the intelligence of a creature-Bet 10 bucks the dogs smarter (way smarter) than the squirrel.

This guy is hungry or inebriated on scent-oh and, not love, squirrels live alone, fuck everything and anything they can....sometimes they nest together when it's witch-titty cold, otherwise, they are a solo act.

This concludes your squirrel lesson for the day.

I tend to have weird anxiety dreams when I have a lot of plates in the air. Each spinning plate doesn't have to be a groundbreaking occurrence either; just has to be something preoccupying. Work. The little lady is flying out of town. Projects. Deadlines. Money. Debt. Scheduling.

When I was in college I would tape a piece of paper on the wall by my bed and write everything and anything I had to do. Somehow having it there I felt like it was off my mind momentarily, and that I wouldn't forget so I was okay to sleep comfortably at night. Once you move in with someone, she doesn't want you funkin' up the walls with your ghetto to-do lists.

Ever have those times when your mind starts racing while in bed, so you cannot sleep, then you check the clock and see it's already 4 in the morning and you have to be up in a few hours so you start getting more stressed and eventually you have to go to @rottenseed's house to rub one out in his mom so you can calm yourself again and get some shut eye for work?

^ It's funny because it's true. My dog is constantly trying to teach me how to be happy with everything and anything. So far I'm not as good at it as she is.

The roast seems dead already and I don't feel I can blame the sift community. Blankfist is just a boring, one-dimentional guy. A guy who has to resort to flatulent felines to get attention isn't going to inspire anyone to write jokes, just to feel pity for him.

So who else have we got here? Well we got the Master of Ceremonies, gwiz aka. stalkerboy. The only thing he's mastered besides creeping people out and jerking off to pictures of his grandma. I guess blankfist insisted the MC should be an even bigger loser than himself and the choice was pretty obvious.

Speaking of people who seem to crave attention, no wonder burdturgler showed up and spammed the thread with his worthless opinions on everything and anything. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's amazed he has been able to write that many comments without going completely emo and telling us he'll leave the sift for the gazillionth time. It usually happens every 10th comment after all.

Rottenseed, better known as the diet pepsi version of blankfist, showed up just to show us how inept he is at writing anything original. Not a big surprise, I know. Rottenseed is blankfist 10 years ago and that's so sad words can't properly describe it.

Kudos to deputydog, the rest of you sucked. Including yours truly.

This will be the cyber-world's version of the drug war.

It will give the authorities an excuse to search you computer for copyrighted material, but while they're in there, they will look at everything and anything they want.

clearly, nobody who posts on this video is a regular watcher of Red Eye.
It's a COMEDY show that airs at 3 a.m. It's ridiculous and done for laughs. How often is Canada made fun of in this country? A whole lot. You can't tell me no Canadian show has made fun of America before either.
Seriously, if you're getting insulted over a joke show, grow the fuck up. Red Eye makes fun of everything and anything under the sun.
Please understand what the show is before you say it's legitimate news. Clearly, you're just angry because a show made fun of something you happen to like. If this video was about something you hated, you'd applaud it and show it to all your friends. Thi s was not an intent to belittle Canada's help with the War on Terror-- it's making fun of the idea of "taking a year off" from the army-- which would sound ridiculous, no matter what country said it. I don't think the Canadians understand how ridiculous Americans think Canada is, and that fueled this clip quite a lot.
Picking apart this video like it's in depth journalism is a waste of your time BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING COMEDY SHOW. Put the same effort into a half hour of Jon Stewart and you'll get the same resort-- a few cheap laughs produced for your entertainment.
Oh, and for that idiot who apologized for America-- I'm not sorry. In the slightest.