>> ^Quboid:

Anyone else not seeing any video? I don't know if it's dead or what, but it won't play or show a preview frame.


Its one of those that you have to disable Adblock or it will not play. Being such, I now no longer have any interest in it. Just say no to hostage content.

I just don't know why he did it. He doesn't own you, just say no, Fuck Off.

we are ever so clever

>> ^Peroxide:

NOTE she won't just say "No, Enbridge doesn't fund us." This is because they do.

And WHY are the good guys always so soft spoken? NOTE she won't just say "No, Enbridge doesn't fund us." This is because they do.

Just goes to show you. Evangelicals should not do drugs. JUST SAY NO!

Just say no

>> ^shuac:

I've done this. It feels just like the real thing but there's just one problem: after a couple weeks, the inside of your mouth feels like it's bleeding. Then the outer-layers of skin (inside your mouth) die and peel off. Afterwards, my sense of taste was diminished (but it's back now, since I quit). It's not very pleasant and I don't recommend it.
Just say "No, thank you." (why not be polite about it?)


I've never tried it and have no inclination to. Cannabis-It's The Real Thing!

I've done this. There's just one problem: after a couple weeks, the inside of your mouth feels like it's bleeding. Then the outer-layers of skin (inside your mouth) die and peel off. Afterwards, my sense of taste was diminished (but it's back now, since I quit). It's not very pleasant and I don't recommend it.

Just say "No, thank you." (why not be polite about it?)

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Awwww..... FUCK that stupid "DING" sound. OMFG.


Agreed. It was *DING!* annoying, *DING!* pointless and *DING!* did I mention fucking annoying.

I like the concept of content producers agreeing to make more stuff in exchange for policy changes though. We could get another season of Firefly if they slash the military budget. Or Pink Floyd could reform if they repeal the patriot act. Or Simon Cowell could come back to American Idol if they get rid of the TSA... actually, fuck that. I'd rather be groped by a sweaty man at an airport than have more of that shit on tv.

Just say no to trolling.>> ^shinyblurry:

Marijuana has been used by witches and occultists to tap into satanic realms for centuries. It is spiritual poison and invites demonic posession. Just say no kids.

Marijuana has been used by witches and occultists to tap into satanic realms for centuries. It is spiritual poison and invites demonic posession. Just say no kids.

Well, according to the "Just say no" literature I've read, she should be a $5 crack whore by now.

Not far off, but again, she wasn't too far away going in, she's an "investigative reporter" after all.

If @chicchorea is only "harassing" me, then let him come back, is what I am saying. I don't need you to monitor the situation -- I'll come get you if I need you. You know I'm not shy!

Of course, if someone else is complaining, then that is different. But if you are concerned about me, please don't be.

I don't know your definition of "free-for-all" -- and if this is it, then of course you must ban.

I'm just saying no ban or a short ban is fine by me.

I hope something comes from your sift talk post that works for you and the sift. You are in a tough spot.



In reply to this comment by dag:
I hear you, but I'm not sure what else to do in this case. If I left it at 2 weeks I'm afraid nothing would change - and I'm spread too thin to be lurking over shoulders. Harassment has been a real issue on the Sift that we can't leave unchecked. I'm feeling a bit under the pump trying to manage the volume of this stuff, but I'm unwilling for this community to turn into a free-for-all without personal responsibility.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
dag said: "@chicchorea, I'm sure you're a nice person in the flesh, and I appreciate all of the good things you have contributed to the Sift, but I'm suspending your account indefinitely for harassment and not heeding the first warning."

Now it is my turn to plead for mercy.

Indefinitely suspended?

Please don't do this on my account. I am perfectly happy to keep deleting his comments on my profile page. I admit to feeling slightly harassed, but at this point it amuses me more than anything.

IT'S JUST WORDS. I have the power of my mouse to make them magically vanish.

Please don't cut Chic off from a place that gives him so much pleasure. Not on my account.