I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.

I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

I can't imagine this being hygienic or mess-free. It's going to harbor so much filth, nobody will want to shop there. Ew. Imagine people's grubby hands all over the food.. Stupid kids sneezing on it and wiping their boogers on the dispensers. With no packaging to keep the germs out, they will just spread through the food and it will be risky to buy anything from there.

Wait, let's analyze this comment...

If someone is intelligent.... They believe in a god.

And yet, god only exists BECAUSE of the LACK OF KNOWLEDGE humans possessed when they invented gods as a means of explaining that which they did not understand.

But then you could argue that that does not necessarily mean they weren't intelligent, just ignorant or uninformed.

Okay, but then let's take the typical argument from religionists when confronted about their beliefs and why they believe the way they do: "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!"

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

But please, continue. I can do this all night!

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you were intelligent you would know there is a God..also, those who know all but lack within are utterly lacking.
>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What are you, 13?
>> ^ForgedReality:
HAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAA

HAHA
If you don't have GOD in your life... The second someone brings fucking religion into anything as their basis for opinion, I immediately disregard them as irrelevant, brainwashed filth, and ignore everything else they have to say.
Faggots.


Why yes, yes I am. I am also sane and ten times more intelligent than you, sir. Thanks for playing!
Go read your little book of lies and get the hell off the internet.
edit - Oh, and by the way, my first comment here, the one that you just quoted was not directed at you, it was directed at the idiot bitch in the video, so kindly shut the fuck up. Thank you.



>> ^shinyblurry:

If you were intelligent you would know there is a God..also, those who know all but lack within are utterly lacking.
>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What are you, 13?
>> ^ForgedReality:
HAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAA

HAHA
If you don't have GOD in your life... The second someone brings fucking religion into anything as their basis for opinion, I immediately disregard them as irrelevant, brainwashed filth, and ignore everything else they have to say.
Faggots.


Why yes, yes I am. I am also sane and ten times more intelligent than you, sir. Thanks for playing!
Go read your little book of lies and get the hell off the internet.
edit - Oh, and by the way, my first comment here, the one that you just quoted was not directed at you, it was directed at the idiot bitch in the video, so kindly shut the fuck up. Thank you.

If you were intelligent you would know there is a God..also, those who know all but lack within are utterly lacking.

>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What are you, 13?
>> ^ForgedReality:
HAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAA
HAHA
If you don't have GOD in your life... The second someone brings fucking religion into anything as their basis for opinion, I immediately disregard them as irrelevant, brainwashed filth, and ignore everything else they have to say.
Faggots.


Why yes, yes I am. I am also sane and ten times more intelligent than you, sir. Thanks for playing!
Go read your little book of lies and get the hell off the internet.
edit - Oh, and by the way, my first comment here, the one that you just quoted was not directed at you, it was directed at the idiot bitch in the video, so kindly shut the fuck up. Thank you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What are you, 13?
>> ^ForgedReality:
HAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAA
HAHA
If you don't have GOD in your life... The second someone brings fucking religion into anything as their basis for opinion, I immediately disregard them as irrelevant, brainwashed filth, and ignore everything else they have to say.
Faggots.



Why yes, yes I am. I am also sane and ten times more intelligent than you, sir. Thanks for playing!

Go read your little book of lies and get the hell off the internet.

edit - Oh, and by the way, my first comment here, the one that you just quoted was not directed at you, it was directed at the idiot bitch in the video, so kindly shut the fuck up. Thank you.

What are you, 13?

>> ^ForgedReality:
HAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHA
If you don't have GOD in your life... The second someone brings fucking religion into anything as their basis for opinion, I immediately disregard them as irrelevant, brainwashed filth, and ignore everything else they have to say.
Faggots.

HAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHA

If you don't have GOD in your life... The second someone brings fucking religion into anything as their basis for opinion, I immediately disregard them as irrelevant, brainwashed filth, and ignore everything else they have to say.

Faggots.

Christ you know I love you.
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God
So tell me that I'm saved.
Christ you know I love you.
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God
So tell me that I'm saved.
Jesus I am with you.
Touch me, touch me, Jesus.
Jesus I am on your side.
Kiss me, kiss me, Jesus.

SIMON ZEALOTES

Christ, what more do you need to convince you
That you've made it, and you're easily as strong
As the filth from Rome who rape our country,
And who've terrorized our people for so long.

CROWD

Jesus I am with you.
Touch me, touch me, Jesus.
Jesus I am on your side.
Kiss me, kiss me, Jesus.

Christ you know I love you.
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God,
So tell me that I'm saved.

Christ you know I love you.
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God,
So tell me that I'm saved.

Christ you know I love you.
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God,
So tell me that I'm saved.

Christ you know I love you.
Did you see I waved?
I believe in you and God,
So tell me that I'm saved.

Jesus I am with you.
Touch me, touch me, Jesus.
Jesus I am on your side.
Kiss me, kiss me, Jesus.

SIMON ZEALOTES

There must be over fifty thousand
Screaming love and more for you.
And everyone of fifty thousand
Would do whatever you asked them to.
Keep them yelling their devotion,
But add a touch of hate at Rome.
You will rise to a greater power.
We will win ourselves a home.
You'll get the power and the glory
For ever and ever and ever
You'll get the power and the glory
For ever and ever and ever
You'll get the power and the glory
For ever and ever and ever
You'll get the power and the glory
For ever and ever and ever
Forever Amen! Amen! Amen!

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan
I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.
Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year...
The point I was trying to make is, he wasn't saying there should be no laws. He even mentioned that even the 1st amendment has rules, that you can't injure or defame others. He believes that your personal choices should be your own.
If someone injures another, like your child abuse analogy, then he believes there SHOULD be consequences and laws. If your heroin junkie breaks into someone's home to steal money, then he should go to jail for burglary, not being an addict. If he holds a knife to your kid's throat to get their lunch money, he should be jailed for assault with deadly weapon, not because he has a used needle in his back pocket.


How is polling the audience supporting that argument? He was making two arguments (at least), one of which was the "reasonable person" argument which I think is baloney. You could apply the same argument to a horrible crime like child abuse.

His _other_ argument which you highlight -- the right to personal freedom -- is much more persuasive. I agree it is THE fundamental argument on this topic, and nobody should believe that it's a slam dunk argument either way.

I think entr0py's argument is compelling. Drugs like heroin are an overly tempting way to ruin your life. It's not a matter of intelligence or education -- one of the most interesting anti-smoking studies found that teenagers actually OVERestimate the danger of smoking. But they still do it, anyway. Virtually everyone who smokes started as a teenager. People simply do stupid things which are against their self interests and society's interest. So I don't want to see heroin regulated the way cigarettes are. That's not sufficient. Anyway, this is the "should government protect you from yourself" argument which some people find repugnant. I take it you are one of them. You don't care if 15% of every high school class dies from heroin abuse because on their 18th birthday they get access to plentiful, cheap heroin. I'm not saying that would be the case, I'm just saying that a strict believer in personal freedom would be fine with this.

Also I think we should worry about preventing crime, not punishing it. Yes, we could offer a young mother lots of heroin and wait until her child neglect becomes actionable by the state, but why let a family be ruined? You're right, her actions would snowball to the point of being illegal without making the drug itself illegal. That doesn't really reassure me much.

Maybe such problems wouldn't be widespread if all drugs were legalized. But they're already fairly common, and I don't see how legalizing everything would make them rarer.

Are you really OK with living next door to a house full of heroin addicts? having them offer your children heroin? Watching them spiral in to filth while they lose self control? Seeing their children show up at the bus stop unwashed and starving? And having the police tell you "Well, they haven't done anything illegal yet. Clearly this situation will crash and burn shortly, but we should definitely stand at the sidelines and watch. We wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms". Or maybe child services is more on the ball and the children end up in state custody sooner rather than later, so it's a happy ending? So maybe children and parents aren't allowed to use these drugs but other people can? And maybe nobody who operates heavy machinery? And certainly not schoolteachers.

It just seems like a useless exercise to me to try to give people the freedom to use a drug like heroin when it will only cause terrible repercussions.

It would have been more appropriate if it was Cradle of Filth instead of Satyricon.

*sad
*win
*dubstep (invoked with *filth

The left is shocked---SHOCKED I TELLS YA----about any suggestions of media-promoted VIOLENCE!

To wit:


A new low in Bush-hatred

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
September 10, 2006

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

I'm glad they're finally getting this filth off the air. Additionally, it's about time we got the lyrics changed to:

We got to install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We got to move these refrigerators
We got to move these TVs of color

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it
Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.
Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.
Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&sub
id=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.
So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.


I watch a lot of news especially during the Bush era. I've seen Bush compared to Hitler and Monkeys and stuff...I have never seen some of the shit you're talking about and you know why...because it wasn't trumpeted in the media. Hatred against Obama and racism is put on our TVs almost like it's a great thing...even defended and encouraged in some cases.

So yes the Left does have it's crazies and they do say stupid fucking things...but no, it's not Equal...not in coverage not in reaction. Any study of the media would tell you this but you're probably a bit busy.

there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it

Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.

Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.

Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.

So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.