>> ^Sagemind:

Is it just me who finds it convenient that his body was buried-at-sea quickly within 24 hours - No body, no way to prove DNA, nothing!


There's a lot we have to take on trust which is not unusual else you consign yourself to wearing tinfoil for the rest of your life.
The fact that they chose to kill him rather than capture is interesting. I can only suppose the value of a living Bin Laden, spouting his rhetoric in court was less appealing than simply killing him. For a nation that has embarked on two wars and probably has more lined up, that singular act is completely proper ("justice has been done") and logical.

Of course any intel he had, embarrassing or otherwise, dies with him.

“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. They are dismissed as a joke… A ‘metaphor’… But when a conservative says something, it is a call for violence. If that’s how someone chooses to roll then so be it, but let that person hold no illusion about their fairness or the justness of their cause.

Case in point…

“I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous"… the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection …”

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.

“First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement.”

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. But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades) equates to “don’t get sick or die quickly” is fine? 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!”

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. 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. Every time the GOP wants to cut any social program they get accused of starving people. This is not unusual.

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’. You refuse to give conservatives the same kind of leeway. If a GOP guy says Barak Obama is jacking up the national debt to fund his vision of social justice, and calls it an ‘assault on freedom’? They are ‘inciting violence’ - even though they have just as much 'evidence' of their argument as Greyson.

I refuse to live in such a black and white world of selective bias. 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. It’d be nice if that went both ways.

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'.

You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either. I have no interest in making you treat everything you say like you are writing a white paper. You also support your arguments with litanies of asserted facts which you don’t source which are in direct contravention of what is said elsewhere. Why the hypocrisy on this?

I’m an intelligent enough fellow and I can find links myself. I don't need you holding my hand in that regard. I assume you have fingers because you can type. Therefore you 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.

I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance

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.

>> ^ponceleon:

Are we sure that's what going on here? I've seen birds interact a lot and know that there are strange reactions to what I think is a perception of weakness where birds will attack another one and peck at it incessantly.
Could the other bird be trying to hide?


Yea I agree, it appeared to be more a show of dominance than a show of helping a fellow duck. When a female duck gets all submissive it usually means mating time for the drake, in this case the drake was a little unsure how to "follow through" so got a bit nervous hence the odd behavior. It's also not unusual for female ducks to join in with this kind of thing. Perhaps I'm wrong, and the stuck duck was late for supper and cakes, and the other two wanted to air their grievances.

>> ^RedSky:

I think it's difficult to dispute that you weren't arguing against free trade in your previous post even if that wasn't your intention. The first paragraph seems clearly about it when you talk about being up in arms about your job going overseas, and I think in the second you misunderstand how capitalism works. But anyway, I don't think that we disagree on a great deal then. Like I stated in my original post, I believe in necessary government regulation and oversight in a capitalist economy, preventing deterimental effects like market failure, and financial, environmental or other crises.



Yeah, I guess it wasn't that clear (not unusual for me).

I think our major disagreement isn't the need for oversight, but whether oversight is implicit in capitalism or required because of capitalism, so it's more of a semantic debate at this point. ; )

Strange maybe, but not unusual, been happening a lot recently. I've submitted a few videos and have had absolutely no possible dupes show up in the submission process, only to find them later.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
I know. but strangely enough it didn't come up on the videosift search for me.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
*isdupe, damnit. I mean come on, it even shows up in the related videos below!

Doesn't seem to be a fake.
http://rawstory.com/2009/09/video-appears-to-show-us-troops-kidnapping-protester/

Officials with G20 security released the following statement to Raw Story and other media outlets:

“Military members supporting the G20 Summit work with local law enforcement authorities but do not have the authority to make arrests. The individuals involved in the 9/24/09 arrest which has appeared online are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the security operations for the G20. It is not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflaged fatigues. The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.

Prior to the arrest, the officers observed this subject vandalizing a local business. Due to the hostile nature of the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the subject was immediately removed from the area.”

It's not unusual for Will Smith to ruin nice things.

Flower does hands signs too. It is not unusual for a dog to actually pick up on nonverbal queues first and then verbal ones.

Speaking as someone not from the US, Anyone who knows anyone who plans on voting McCain-Palin should show this to them.

Where I come from, it is not unusual for politicians to seek the blessing of religious figures. It is also not uncommon for religious parties to use their influence to promote disastrous agendas. And the road from A to B is very short.

Please keep the United States government free from such influences.

And this folks is a wonderful example of how sheltered Americans have become. All that censorship on tv... watered down mindless kids shows... helicopter parents and warning labels.

Mas, your prolly a virgin and think that anytime a woman bares her breast it MUST involve sex 10 seconds later, however in the real world it isn't quite so.

#1 this is japan, exposed breast on public tv are not unusual. Bleach does stick to mild echii at best, but there are many other daytime animes which have shown nudity since the 1980s. Brain Powered's intro has tons of it even though it is tamer than bleach.

#2 Bleach is not a kids show.. its targeted at teens. Not that most kids couldn't follow it. If you considered the complexity of japans kid's anime shows like Alice, Cardcaptor, Nanoha, Dennō coil, it makes me ashamed the best our tv has to offer is pokemon (which is japanese.. but were selling the best of japans worst here), blues clues, teletubies, and several serialized versions of walt disneys old and busted animated worlds. Todays morning TV is generally 3 things, a badly animated original kids show using the worst realtime 3d graphics has to offer for the lowest budget possible, a teen comedy drama with a similar budget for writing, or one of the 100 seasons of power rangers.

#3 In the land of public bath houses, appearing nakid in front of strangers isn't THAT uncommon. Her (the nakid chick) character isnt QUITE realistic as she is constantly acting like the dumb blond, but other then the quick mood changes back and forth, the scene was written pretty well (if not boring for those who hate dramas).

>> ^twiddles:

Amendment VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
pun·ish·ment
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
   b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Nowhere does it define punishment as being post conviction. Indeed the amendment as a single sentence mentions bail which is certainly not restricted to post conviction. The logical conclusion based on the possible definitions of punishment - even if you were to read the constitution and its amendments literally - is that cruel or unusual punishment (severe treatment) at any time is prohibited. How do you get to punishment as being only something that happens upon conviction? Any case law to back that up? Is it okay if I hit you repeatedly with an iron bar as long as I am "interogatting" you? That flies in the face of logic. If you stretch it enough you can say it is okay if you kill the suspect as long as you were interrogating them.
I agree with NetRunner, Scalia isn't doing his job correctly and he is being a smug prick about it.


rickegee already pointed out the case law.

The dictionary definitions are moot because legal definitions differ from common dictionary definitions. Here is the legal definition of cruel and unusual punisment. Note that it specifies convicted criminal defendants:

"cruel and unusual punishment n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation, and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook. The U. S. Supreme Court waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging, or electrocution are cruel and unusual. Cruel, certainly, but hanging was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. (See: capital punishment)"

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

No one is saying it's okay to beat (American) prisoners or the like. The argument is that other constitutional rights and other laws are being violated in those cases: not the 8th Amendment.

Editing newswire stories is not unusual at all. I don't know if Fox is anti-Ron Paul, but since he isn't really a "player" (polling very low), they are likely to ignore him as much as possible unless he can make for some amusement or have nekkid chicks at a meeting. I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, and I think Fox is a propaganda machine, but this is just BS. If they are going to be dredging up dirt, at least dredge up something plausible and decent. This kind of crap does more harm then good.

Not my words but damned salient:

I already said my piece about the decaying infrastructure in this country - the situation is way beyond critical. And nothing will be done about it, because building bridges and overpasses doesn't buy votes. Giving the money that should've have gone to that enterprise and was mandated by law for that enterprise to 'poor' people, after school programs and all the other feel good wastes of money those scum suckers in Washington can dream up, buys votes. By now, you've already heard that the collapsed bridge was deemed 'deficient' several years ago. And yet, it was not due for replacement until 2012 at the earliest. You should have also heard that there are at least 80,000 other bridges in the same, or worse, shape. But let's put that aside.

I am no expert on demolition or explosives but I have had experience in both. I can safely say with no doubt, that I could have brought that bridge down with two backpacks of the appropriate explosives. Next time you see a wide shot from the scene, look closely and you'll notice that there's a very heavily wooded area UNDER and adjacent to the support structure of that bridge. Perfect cover for two guys with backpacks. And, this is not unusual across the land. Do you realize that fifty 2-4 man teams spread out across the infrastructure could destroy enough bridges and tunnels to bring commerce to an immediate halt. Such an action would effectively shutdown every major freeway and railway in the United States. The damage would be so wide spread that crops, meat, health products and all the things you take for granted would be nearly impossible to deliver.

Meanwhile, Congress is concerned about wiretaps. cameras, Miranda rights, freedom of information, 'comprehensive' immigration and the like. Do you see where I'm going with this? While those idiots in DC are arguing about the trappings and the trivial - this nation is so vulnerable that it boggles the mind. You may say that they're all the same, and you'd be almost right. But there is absolutely no doubt that the Democrats will do nothing about anything of substance as regards YOUR security. The Republicans at least go through the motions.

Listen to me very carefully. Republicans brought this nation out of WWII and built all the infrastructure you take for granted. They also established all the intelligence networks you count on for security. And yes, all that building and construction made corporations like Halliburton and Morrison Knudsen filthy rich. Then the Democrats took the reins in 1960, and not a godamnn dime has been spent on the infrastructure since AND they gutted and emasculated the entire intelligence network AND the military starting with the end of Vietnam. They spent all the money that should've gone into Social Security, infrastructure, intelligence, and the military on crap like after school programs and bi-lingual education. And if they win in 2008, they will continue that waste PLUS spend even more on national health care and the like. And they will raise your taxes to do so. That is the truth. There is no denying it. And do what you will with it.

But you think about THAT the next time you drive across a bridge.

No fletch, it is not unusual, and I'm sorry you felt it necessary to downvote, I want this vid to get published precisely so people can see how things are going down over there. If I have an agenda regarding the changing of this title it is only because I would like to see the sift better organized and at least searchable (hence my addition of tags)... and yeah, I was a little miffed by the gross generalization of the army that the first title conveyed... I share fedquip's anti-iraq war stance, but I don't believe posting videos with misleading titles is the way to go about documenting the gross stupidity and inhumane nature of some of the personnel involved in the conflict.

"Fedquip, go copulate with yourself-"

Talk about childish tirade...


Downvote for original poster caving to "agenda" of others. However, from what I've seen from all the vids on LiveLeak, most submitted by military personnel, the attitude/behavior of this soldier is not unusual. Not by a long shot.