>> ^Taint:

Who are you referring to with "we"?
Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?
Is that the "we" you're a part of?
Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?
Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.
I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.
You respond with a link from C-Span.
So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you have your head so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that you don't even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus





No need to be a shithead. I'm anti anyone being assassinated. If you can't agree with that, then fine, go on being someone in favor of murder and assassinations, and stop looping the rest of us into your ring of hate and evil. I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do. I watch zero of it unless it comes across the occasional internet video here and there, so stop being a judgmental douche, thanks.

Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

LOL - haven't laughed that hard at an internet video in a while.
>> ^mxxcon:
There's also footage of DARPA's BigDog Beta


and see how much this video is spot on, here's the original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

LOL - haven't laughed that hard at an internet video in a while.
>> ^mxxcon:

There's also footage of DARPA's BigDog Beta

It's important to watch this video every six months or so, along with the 'MGM Lion says you're going to die' video and the 'best 9 seconds on the internet' video.

All opinions for or against all of the above aside, I'm just wondering about one thing. And apparently, I'm not very in-the-know about specifics of rights at all.

If so many people get beat up, tazed, shot, locked up, etc., for not cooperating with police (which sometimes means withholding ID), then how did a guy who did same just walk off carrying a loaded gun? My point is this represents a huge inconsistency in law enforcement. Piss a cop off and get beat up and arrested (spend a weekend in jail only to be released on monday morning -- one of the biggest intimidation tactics a cop has beyond physical threat), but walk down a street armed with a gun and refuse to identify yourself and... it's fine? What?

Frankly internet video has me all but believing that that no ID = arrested (or tazed or dead, on a really bad day).


Edit: Apparently you only have to identify yourself in some states. I guess this wasn't one. That and the right to carry a gun. So I assume because he did nothing 'wrong', this checks out. I guess...

Or be an uppity internet nerd and go around telling people they're doing it wrong. "Hey stop posting Ron Paul videos! But hey, did you see my umpteenth Fifa World Cup video?"

Or maybe I can be an annoying hypocrite and moan and piss about some copyright owner taking down my free internet videos?

cool, a terrible internet video.

Normally I wouldn't be posting in this discussion, but I feel like I got semi-dragged into it by a video I posted a month ago and was essentially called out into this.

I don't generally get involved in conversations around here because I learned a long time ago that you're not going to win any prize for proving your point on the Internet. People are always going to believe what they want to believe, because everyone feels they are right on the matter, and reading words on a screen (usually written in anger) is not going to change their minds.

I visit VideoSift for videos, not discussion. If I like a video or think it's funny, I'll upvote it. Most videos I disagree with, I will never even watch to begin with.

When I posted the topless chair jousting video (http://videosift.com/video/Topless-Chair-Jousting-New-Olympic-Sport-for-2012), I basically figured it was a fun, stupid video that people would find funny. The women in the video are not being forced to do that against their will and appear to be having a fun time. They also have padding and helmets on to protect them from any injury.

As is common in television and radio, sex sells... and that's no different on the Internet. Videos that "shock and awe" people will get huge votes. I figured, if people don't like my video, they can downvote it. However, since the way VideoSift is driven is by its members, and the members with more star points have more power, then is it wrong of me to "sell" my videos to get more upvotes and star points?

That video sat around for a full month in my p-queue with no one voting on it, even with the words topless and blatant thumbnail showing breasts. No one cared because no one saw it, until today when it was seen and promoted.

My own opinion on this matter and on VideoSift in general is this:

If you don't like it, downvote it. That is the way the system works. VideoSift is much like the free world in general. You can post what you like, provided it doesn't break any rules... sometimes people post things for fun, others post for a cause.

I have already walked away from VideoSift twice before. I needed to take a break... I was sucking up too much of my time into competing for star points and not taking care of things in my life outside of the Internet. I came back slowly and I generally just lurk in the background.

I infrequently submit videos I find. Sometimes I see a video and think to myself "Wow, this video is great! Lots of people will upvote it!" or other times I see a video with subject matter that I care about and think it is worthy of a greater showing and submit them, even though I know they're just destined for my p-queue because no one will even bother watching them.

The point is, I've come to accept the fact that I just lurk in the background and I know that any videos I may post about what I may really care about probably won't get seen by anyone here. I also already know that at least half the people reading my post right now have already tuned out and don't really care what I have to say to begin with.

Upvote for the irony of watching a time-wasting internet video which shows me how to save time by doing things I'll probably never learn to do.

>> ^lucky760:

I know I'm probably the only one who is bothered by it, but the continuity issues are distracting. The curtain is open, then closed, then open, then closed. Obviously it's because there wasn't really a window on that set and it's just a short Internet video, but come on. And a guy has huge binoculars right outside the curtained window but the girls inside still look like they're a mile away? Yeesh.
unabletosuspenddisbeliefonthisone
Still, funny.


I thought the same thing, but the window with the closed shade is above the bed's headboard...there's another window as well on the wall to the left in the opening shot, which is the one the dudes are watching through.

They're interviewing the two kids, so why do they need to blur their faces on the internet video?

I know I'm probably the only one who is bothered by it, but the continuity issues are distracting. The curtain is open, then closed, then open, then closed. Obviously it's because there wasn't really a window on that set and it's just a short Internet video, but come on. And a guy has huge binoculars right outside the curtained window but the girls inside still look like they're a mile away? Yeesh.

*unabletosuspenddisbeliefonthisone

Still, funny.

*dead

When will artists record labels realize that internet videos are FREE ADVERTISING...?

Thanks dag and lucky for creating, maintaining and constantly improving my favorite site. Thanks videosift for a near encyclopedic knowledge of internet videos and memes. Good times.

It's like Hunter S. Thompson's ghost reincarnated into an internet video.