The only thing THAT is abhorrent is your inappropriate use OF all caps.

I compare ENTERTAINERS to terrorists all THE time. I'm PRETTY sure that MILEY Cyrus ranks somewhere between Bin Laden and HITLER on any sane scale you CARE to CHOOSE.

Dude, it's fucking comedy. Jesus, it's a bit about ONE FUCKING DIRECTION. It is the ANTITHESIS OF SERIOUS COMMENT.

I think Maher has lost the plot somewhat on Islam but he has the right to criticise it as an ideology. And no, that isn't racist. You can say that Islam has problems (which it clearly does) and that those who strictly adhere to it are an issue in a western democracy. The problem is that Maher doesn't understand that it's no worse than Christianity or Judaism would be if most of their adherents were living in the third world.

All of which has nothing to do with you posting a not very interesting video and then throwing your toys out of the pram when it was downvoted.

Stop playing the martyr. You're not "standing up against hatred", you're whinging like a child who didn't get their way, and if you weren't so blindly committed to this, you'd realise your mistake and apologise like an adult.

I don't know if I ever said he was born in Kenya. I don't know. He ( his parents) did list him as being Kenyan citizenship on some school for or such.
His grandmother or great grandmother indicated he was born in Kenya-- So there is that.

I did say that the birth certificate he posted as a pdf did indeed look odd- When opening it in illustrator.

If you were to get your Birth Certificate copy they would give it to you in person or mail you a copy. If you were to "post" it as the White House did why would you not scan to JPEG or PNG?


They posted PDF. But would that truly produce 13 layers and look that way? We all scanned or OCR a document - you end up with odd characters and broken sentences but not what was posted by the White House..

Odd Very Odd---- never resolved- It ran for 1 week and Bin Laden was taken out and wiped this issue off the radar.

OMFG. How have republicans thoroughly forgotten bailing out the banks was under Bush?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
BUSH bailed out first the airlines, for nothing in return, then the banks, for nothing in return. Obama sadly continued that flawed policy, but did at least get partial ownership and concessions for our money, and got our money back. Bush simply gave it away with a smile and a nod.

I've been hearing that BS since 3 years into his first term. It's just that, BS. A quick google search, ignoring political sites and sticking with non-partisan factual numbers, and not blindly putting the entire cost of the Iraq war on Obama because Bush kept it's costs 'off the books', will show you quite clearly you're wrong. He's not been good on debt, but a large part of the deficit he did run in his early years are due to the tanked Bush economy, and WAY less taxes coming in without spending cuts. I'll remind you again, republicans turned down a budget that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes, a budget that would have erased the deficit....but you still blame Obama?

Heard that before too...that Democrats forced lowering banking standards for home loans and securities through the republican held congress and against the wishes of the republicans and Bush...absolute BS not worth refuting, they simply didn't have the majority to 'force' anything.

How many people died of exposure, drowning long after the storm, starvation, lack of water, unsanitary conditions at shelters in NJ? As for rebuilding, Jersey insisted they would do it without FEMA, and even though they had the money, they haven't rebuilt a lot of what's damaged, but still probably a larger percentage than New Orleans.

Clinton absolutely did not have intelligence that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil, Bush did. Clinton did not allow Bin Laden's relatives to leave the country after an attack, it's reported Bush did. Clinton had an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, with unknown amounts of collateral damage in a country we weren't allowed into (so an act of war), and decided to not start a war on flimsy 'intelligence'...a good plan now that we know how that goes.

I'm pretty sure you have sand up your ass, and a sever case of cranial rectosis.

Who bailed out the banks - Obama

To make things worse Obama increased the debt 10 Trillion more than ALL fucking presidents combined. Talk about ruining the economy Its a noose on the necks of Americans for generations

The root cause was Democrats wanting home ownership for more people, which happen to be those who could not afford a house. Dodd/Frank led the way . Republicans tried a few time to curb/ change it but failed. Banks complied and wrote bad loans and sold them to larger banks and they packaged these bad loans to look attractive and the house of cards tumbled.

Katrina -- You seriously want to go there--- New Orleans and the storm that hit Jersey shore and Long Island ... Fucking disaster years later --- Yep your boy really hit it out of the park with the help didn't he?

9/11 waning completely ignored. Bullshit.. Clinton had Bin Laden had full intelligence to get him and did nothing.

I don't know if you have you head in the sand or up your ass.

If you mean the Bin Laden comments, I believe he's talking about videos he's sent in the past.

On the US East Coast, and some other areas, that's actually being done nearly in the way you describe (but the inclusion of a local beach alarm is a great idea). Great Whites are quite frequent over there, and there are a lot of marine biologists who tag them for monitoring, mostly for migrating, preservation and research, but warn local authorities whenever one drifts into pedestrian-laden areas.

@newtboy If you've heard "most Teabaggers" advocating such things, why haven't you reported them to the "authorities" for conspiring to commit a crime?

Leaving lies and absurdities aside, "advocating" something is legally different from specifically inciting someone to commit a crime, knowing that they will in fact go through with it. I guess Manson could've claimed that he was joking or something, but the court didn't think so any more that they would think that Bin Laden and the other 9-11 "masterminds" were just "advocating" without expecting anything to happen. Manson was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, not with actually murdering anyone. "Most" Teabaggers aren't conspiring to kill anyone.
Like the head of a criminal organization "conspiring"* or ordering a subordinate to go take someone out, a lot depends on the relationship between the instigator and the one who does the deed -- which is not the same as "advocating" generally or to random people to do some criminal activity in the abstract. So, yeah.. why, indeed, would they get such a "bad rep?"
As for Manson getting a "bad rep?"
It's a mystery dude, a total mystery.


*The charge does not require actually committing any crime (other than conspiring) of going through with it. That's why law enforcement likes entrapment so much: because they can make arrests by instigating people to plot a crime. It's like hiring an undercover cop pretending to be a prostitute. No actual crime was committed, but the intention to commit a crime itself is considered a crime. But, to be sure, there's some degree of "mind reading" involved in the charge of conspiracy, as the law implies the assumption of intent. The charge, then, lends itself to false accusations (and convictions) too. (Apparently social media is inundated with agents trying to get people to agree to crimes so that they can get arrested and prosecuted for conspiring. Of course, nobody trolls videosift for legal advice.)

No one should have to suffer your abusive, filth laden attacks and drivel. Some here do not. Others here suffer in silence. I will not.

Art? What some call art. Smearing filth on Greybar Hotel walls is not art and clanging on rusty bars and wailing is not music except to the most challenged or deranged, Felonious Monk.

As to your many offers...back to the porcelain mirror Swirley.

I stop to think about things all the time.

What he's representing and what it represents to the passerby are worlds apart. In this case, he's clearly in a neighborhood where the average citizen sees the police as a protection against a non-uniformed man with a gun, rather than an activist or educated individual upholding their rights.

Gather several hundred open-carriers and visit capitol hill, or go to the nearest politician-laden golf resort with your assault rifle. Don't march up and down neighborhoods (http://goo.gl/5lhLnG) looking for trouble.

From the mostly-benign situations such as this, to the people who've had their fill of shit and gun down a crowd of innocents: making openly aggressive statements in this way is addressing the wrong audience. This is not the way to make the point.

Lastly, even though I agree with you, you can't tell me I'm lumping someone into a perceived fairy land when you title videos "Student Prevails Over State Robot Thug".

What floors me is how so many robotic comment up-votes are bestowed as casually and flippantly by the wishfully 'un-dull' for such sophistic drivel disguised as intelligent chagrin or rather, some profound insight.
Oh too, we all simply adore the intentional misspellings so yesterday's meme-ish as you ridicule and scorn others so less 'ill-uminated' than yourself...

Fuck this bishop by-the-way, with a goddamn hot-iron in his ass and drag him through the streets on fire please, ye who are weak and heavy-laden?? It's the only reasonable discourse he deserves and the only time anyone sane should offer him.

Also, wholeheartedly agree with Chaos-E's reasoning and his analogy of bruises and biscuits... fuck the good they do, have, or will disguised as humanitarian, the Catholics in particular are a vile schism and an wholly unorthodox form of anything resembling spirituality.

...and while at it...

I challenge you to support your fallacious assertion "talking smack to people he despises by MAKING SHIT UP," AND for that matter produce any other user with whom I share even mild friction much less the enmity you dribblingly profess.

...BUT...YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, even though it is of your raising, AS YOU NEVER DO...only more pitiable spewing. It cannot help it.

Your wild baseless caroms of vitriolic, profanity laden, diatribe are malodorous and tiresome. I do not despise anyone here and your assertion otherwise is as self servingly transparent as it is false. And you rise to naught but mild disgust. But, that is too much to put up with here.

newtboy says...

In reply to Chingalera:
And more ranting, insistence that you control others, insistence that YOUR issues are others issues, not yours, and completely ignoring of the fact that it is Ching that is the unwanted, vulgar, insulting, and always angry poster here, that instigates fights with anyone not in lock step with his insanity, and constantly and vulgarly insults all those that won't capitulate to his outrageousness. Too bad buddy, it's still not working for you, and it pushing others towards actual ACTION rather than simple cajoling. Is it not true you've been banned 5 times already Choggie?
Is there anyone NOT on the ching shit list? Sounds like a badge of honor from where I sit.
It's astonishing that your lack of self examination allows you to spout such insanity as " It is YOUR actions against me and the entire site's users," which was not an English sentence, and the sentiment you were attempting to state is 100% backwards. It's YOU who is outrageous, vulgar, insulting at every turn, and completely lacking respect or honor. I have never had trouble with another user on this site...you have trouble with at least 3 right now that you've listed by name, and far more that I know of right now, and at least 10 more in the past if you've really been banned 5 times (as I think you have). D'oh!
Really, were you really trying to lure a 13 year old girl alone from over seas to your home for 'vocal training'?!? Just plain OMG! That's what your post seemed to have said you wanted, I went way back to read it. D'oh!

For the sift, and perhaps @dag, is it time for at least hobbling here?
I have tried to ignore this user, to no avail. We agreed together to no longer 'private message' each other on our profile page long ago, an agreement Ching was wholly unable to fulfill, as he constantly posts outrageous, insulting, vulgarity filled private messages to my profile (and in public in response to most of my comments, which he seems pathologically incapable of not insulting or degrading with outrageous vulgarity and vitriol). Sometimes he realizes he has gone way too far and tries to edit away the vulgar insults before they're immortalized, which is at least in part what hobbling is about right? Ching is unable to not personally insult, personally attack, or to be reasonable or respectful for more than one short post at a time (followed by at least a day of ranting insults, attacks, and vulgarity).
I often do comment about Ching's behavior/posts, but not his person. I don't know him, I only know his actions here.
I've also been a sifter since near the onset of the site, and I've never been banned! I just didn't sign up for a membership for years while I 'lurked'. I don't see how that makes a difference, this is about behavior. Ching's behavior is far beyond site guidelines....until now I've let that slide with only my words to him in response. Because he is now ramping it up again, any further "private" message, or trolling my comments will have me begin a push for actual action against Ching. He's just getting out of control and his vitriol is building. He alone is making the sift a far less pleasant place for many.
Consider this, I or others may be on the autism spectrum, is ridiculing the mentally challenged with vulgarity and personal insult proper or respectful?
I'm still really wondering how on earth Ching was allowed back on the site after being banned 5(?) times!?! Second chance...OK, 5th chance and still doing his best to be annoying and vulgar to all, WTF?!?
I made a promise to no longer private message Ching...I am a man of my word, and I intend to never allow his rantings on my profile to remain private....you, ching, are well aware of this, it was at your request, and you've been reminded repeatedly, so your whining about it is called out as the completely fabricated BS that it is. If he doesn't want to hear from me about his insanity laden cursing fit's of posts, publicly, he could just as easily stop making them directly to or about me and he would be ignored by me, but that is not happening.


chingalera said:

FOR CHICCHOREA, NEWTBOY, AND BONEREMAKE (TO A LESSER EXTENT):

"IF THERE'S ONE THING I'VE LEARNED ABOUT MYSELF FROM MY TIME HERE AT THE VIDEOSIFT since the place was about 4 months old, for anyone who hasn't that fact plugged the fuck into their meat yet (THE HARD WAY), it is this:"

I AM NOT ONE TO LET PEOPLE WHOSE AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER LEANS TOWARDS THE FAR RIGHT END OF THE SCALE TAKE THEIR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND SHOVE IT UP MY ASS WITH A FREE PASS IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEIR GOAL BE TO FUCK ME UP OR DISCOUNT MY 'RAMBLINGS' AS SOME FORM OF EVIL OR PERSONALITY MALFUNCTION.

Take that fellas, to yer private little shat-parties, and play with yourselves all-day-long, and if you can stand to admit your own failings, we may very well get along some day.

Until then you are all on the standard choggie shit-list. That fucking clear enough for the sycophantically bewildered whose best-interest if it be in mind would be to get a clue??

I'd also reiterate for the slow and cumbersome, that I do not ignore rather, I engage. It is YOUR actions against me and the entire site's users, that I remind the accused of these facts.

This is the LAST public statement on the matter I will post here, and again, I'd ask these users to respect my wishes that any future comments y'all feel so compelled to make in response to my interaction with you be marked "PRIVATE" on my personal profile, as I extend to ALL the same courtesy as a matter of course. These users have gone the opposite direction to their own detriment and embarrassment, and it is for this that I am the most empathetic towards them, and where my sympathy and heartfelt desire for their healing resides.

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

I think these so-called unstoppable warlords that siphon off our aid is an even bigger myth. The United States of America defeated the British Empire, invaded Nazi Europe, dropped a nuclear fucking bomb on Axis Japan, sacrificed thousands of lives in Vietnam, stood head to head against the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, landed on the moon, funded Nicaraguan revolutionaries using money from arms sales to Iran, assassinated Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, and yet we can't deal with warlords and civil wars in Africa where (at least with Rwandan civil war) weaponry is in the form of crate after crate of machetes made in China?

If all of those things are possible for the biggest super power in the world, how is it not possible to stop these warlords from siphoning our aid?

Lies.

We don't care so nothing of real consequence happens. All of those above events have one thing in common: our own goddamn self interest.

Everything sucks. May god have mercy on everyone's soul.

I don't really care about their stupid antics at TYT. However yes if you want to fight terrorism, increasing terrorism is a stupid way to do it. Says all the terrorist experts including the CIA. It is completely predictable the increase in terrorism, we predicted it and it happened.

We shouldn't just leave them alone, because we wouldn't be we've already destroyed their countries. We should do what the British and the IRA did when they addressed legitimate grievances. There are legitimate reasons why people are upset and supporting a few wackjob terrorists. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda wouldn't have any support if it wasn't for the US and it's recruitment machine of killing innocent people who have no hatred for the US and thus turning their families into utter psychopaths some would say rightly so.

So yes there are things we can absolutely do, what we're doing isn't working, it wasn't predicted to work, and we should stop doing it because it's fucking evil.