In reply to this comment by ant:
@enoch: You're missing parts #7 and #9 in your YouTube video playlist. Please kindly fix it and its total time.

for some reason 7 and 9 wont load in the playlist.i even made a new one and it still wont load.any suggestions?

HAHAHAHAHH!! Awful! >> ^lsue:

What is that in the sky? Don't know, must be aliens. = Why is that guy getting into his car? Don't know, must be going to kill his wife.


Amen to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A lot of these have even been explained: botched missile launches, natural cloud phenomena, etc etc...
All this video does is say " We have absolutely no idea what these phenomena are - so it must be evidence of alien spacecraft" without taking any logical steps inbetween.

I think it was a while ago. Apparently shortly after Lucky Louie was cancelled. He has a new show which you are referring to, now. If I had to guess this is probably from '06 or '07. If you remember, one of the opening scenes of his new show was him getting a divorce, so that makes sense that his divorce happened somewhere inbetween. Also if you listen to his standup "Shameless" released in 2007 he talks about the saddest handjob he's ever gotten from his (then) wife and he refers to her as his wife. Looking back on it, that story could be an indicator of the state of his marriage.

Here's a link to that bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWhSfln1O4k

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
That Louis CK radio thing you posted - when was that recorded? He's talking about being married, and having his show cancelled. I thought he was divorced and his show was going to a second season? Where am I?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
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.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

those kids are dumb as hell..
No one's life is that dramatic.


Haha, it's not a documentary. It can be as outrageous as it likes, it's fictional comedy. But I get it, you didn't like it

>> ^dannym3141:

Methinks someone instructed the main character to act like ricky gervais' character in the office!


Really? I don't see it, he's just not as awkward as David Brent. God, I love The Office but it really did make me squirm in my seat sometimes!

Most of what she's done is manipulate light and shadow, via the makeup, to accentuate bone structure: more prominent cheekbones, flattening the cheeks, the cleft nose...

But makeup can only go so far and some things are still going to stand out. Her jawline is still lower and more rounded, her neck is still thinner and longer, her ears are still smaller and higher. I'm guessing these are the visual cues you're picking up on.

*art *anatomy

>> ^Yogi:

I was amazed at how good of a job she did yet how a face can still look distinctively female. There's some inbetween sure but she has a very feminine looking face that shows through.

I was amazed at how good of a job she did yet how a face can still look distinctively female. There's some inbetween sure but she has a very feminine looking face that shows through.

>> ^bananafone:

Oh @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MilkmanDan" title="member since August 16th, 2009" class="profilelink">MilkmanDan, don't they have three bathrooms in thailand instead of the two we have in the states? I think that's awesome.


Some places do, but not all or even most. I've seen buffet lines with different prices for "man" "woman" and "ladyboy" also -- presumably guys eat the most, girls the least, and in-betweens ... inbetween.

I'd love to, and I would go charter if it was at all possible,
Due to personal money issues, I don't have credit cards or any expendable income.
I'm doin' my best not to visit the foodbank as it is. Have you tried feeding a family of four on $150 a month?

The only reason I still have an internet connection is my wife needs it for work, otherwise it would be gone as well. (plus, I use it at work)

Right now, the only one profiting from my full-time union income is the bank, as it sucks mortgage payments out of my account twice a month... for the next 60 years!

Housing in the town I live in has skyrocketed from $170,000 for a family home to $500,000 for that same home over a period of four years. A rental will cost me $2000 per month, so a mortgage is still cheaper than renting,, but not by much.

... not that any of you care about my crappy life situation, I'm just sayin' "going charter is not an option".

>> ^gwiz665:

Or you can go charter..
>> ^Sagemind:
The problem comes up though...
In order to self-promote a post, you need two points.
The only was to do this is to never use your points on other people just in case you get a second, due to a top 15.
What a horable way to operate, hording all your free points and never using them - but that's what we are forced to do.
I could promote or quality someone else 5-10 times inbetween getting a second point, but I become tight fisted just in case point #2 comes along - I hate that. Not that I don't use my points on others, but I would use my free, self-perpetuateing point more often if I didn't feel like I had to play it safe all the time.
Of course, on the flip side, using every point you ever get to promote others, just may be the best idea in the end. It creates community and the Karma that is created will cause more points from others to be thrown your way in return. Spending points on other people creates a warm fuzzy feeling between our friends (new & old) on the Sift!

Or you can go charter..

>> ^Sagemind:

The problem comes up though...
In order to self-promote a post, you need two points.
The only was to do this is to never use your points on other people just in case you get a second, due to a top 15.
What a horable way to operate, hording all your free points and never using them - but that's what we are forced to do.
I could promote or quality someone else 5-10 times inbetween getting a second point, but I become tight fisted just in case point #2 comes along - I hate that. Not that I don't use my points on others, but I would use my free, self-perpetuateing point more often if I didn't feel like I had to play it safe all the time.
Of course, on the flip side, using every point you ever get to promote others, just may be the best idea in the end. It creates community and the Karma that is created will cause more points from others to be thrown your way in return. Spending points on other people creates a warm fuzzy feeling between our friends (new & old) on the Sift!

The problem comes up though...

In order to self-promote a post, you need two points.
The only was to do this is to never use your points on other people just in case you get a second, due to a top 15.

What a horable way to operate, hording all your free points and never using them - but that's what we are forced to do.

I could promote or quality someone else 5-10 times inbetween getting a second point, but I become tight fisted just in case point #2 comes along - I hate that. Not that I don't use my points on others, but I would use my free, self-perpetuateing point more often if I didn't feel like I had to play it safe all the time.

Of course, on the flip side, using every point you ever get to promote others, just may be the best idea in the end. It creates community and the Karma that is created will cause more points from others to be thrown your way in return. Spending points on other people creates a warm fuzzy feeling between our friends (new & old) on the Sift!

I prefer my parkour edited to awesome music without the exhausted looking pauses inbetween. Interesting tho.

Yea I can see why you get sentimental about it. Once it becomes a part of you, you can't help but love the little guy. I think that's one of my problems with going for broke and growing it out to make it a longer fuller beard. I've grown so attached to the one I've got, and it looks good on me, so I don't want to go through the ugly part of beard growing again just to see how it looks.

Oh well, maybe during the winter I'll have a good excuse to do so...you know how cold these San Diego winters get...

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
There seem to be periods where the beard reaches a nice stage and is very full and illustrious, and others when it is scraggly and puffy and gross. At least in my own experience! I try to wait through the scragglier times until I get the right length. Sometimes though it just gets so itchy and hot I shave it all off and start over. I've yet to really dedicate myself to a full, long beard. I can understand why you'd keep it short, as it usually looks better like that.. and I assume you also have a job! But yeah, I think the trick is to wait out the shitty inbetween stages and get that nice full, long, magnificent manly beard which has more character and means more to you as you've watched it grow over time. Lmao, getting real sentimental about beards here... Anyways, I'll check out that other site - cheers.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I definitely support the growth of beards. I feel like a phony now though. These days I keep my beard clean and tight to my face. I don't quite like the density or the way the hair grows when I let it grow out. beardboard.com is another awesome beard site.

There seem to be periods where the beard reaches a nice stage and is very full and illustrious, and others when it is scraggly and puffy and gross. At least in my own experience! I try to wait through the scragglier times until I get the right length. Sometimes though it just gets so itchy and hot I shave it all off and start over. I've yet to really dedicate myself to a full, long beard. I can understand why you'd keep it short, as it usually looks better like that.. and I assume you also have a job! But yeah, I think the trick is to wait out the shitty inbetween stages and get that nice full, long, magnificent manly beard which has more character and means more to you as you've watched it grow over time. Lmao, getting real sentimental about beards here... Anyways, I'll check out that other site - cheers.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I definitely support the growth of beards. I feel like a phony now though. These days I keep my beard clean and tight to my face. I don't quite like the density or the way the hair grows when I let it grow out. beardboard.com is another awesome beard site.