I love my Google driverless car, but it takes twice as long to get me home each night, as it drives me by a selection of stores that are relevant to my last 3 days of email. I knew I should have just ponied up the extra $2000 for the advertisement free edition. "DriveFree"

are you F***ing kidding me?! Really?! advertise here in Videosift?! for your bloody Spanish home!? Tu eres completa loco!

whats next?! I offer to sell you my miniature "My little Pony" collection on Ebay?!

... and as anyone who's seen the original will attest to: my little pony is actually scarier, and has a higher quality of narrative structure than the original film too.

I catch public transport, usually a combination of bus, tram or train, and shanks' pony. It's a bit over an hour each way, but at least I get to read a book (which would be a bit dangerous when driving).
>> ^BoneRemake:

One upside I can see of something like this may be the fact we might be able to have more than ONE poll at a time. I want to know how far people drive to work everyday round trip, but nooOOooOo

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.

Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.

>> ^ghark:

I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.

Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.

Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.

This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.

So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.

It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Very impressive.

>> ^mizila:

Okay, you asked for it...
1. Lolcats (Title/whole video)
2. Invisible Sandwich (0:27)
3. Facepalm (0:29)
4. Double Rainbow (0:33)
5. Dogfort 1 (0:40-0:45)
6. Dogfort 2 (0:47-0:49)
7. Narwhals 0:57
8. My Little Pony (1:03)
9. Birds with Arms (1:07)
10. Minecraft Creeper (1:07)
11. IMMA FIRIN' MAH LAZER (1:12)
12. Do Not Want (1:14)
13. Weegee (1:17)
14. Courage Wolf (1:17)
15. Thunderbloopers (1:26)
16. Trollface (1:30)
17. Foul Bachelor Frog (1:37)
18. Philosoraptor (1:37)
19. I Can Has Cheezburger (1:41)
20. Longcat and Tacgnol (1:46)
22. Socially Awkward Penguin (1:48)
23. LOL Guy (2:02)
24. X Grab My Y (2:04)
25. Nyan Cat (2:06)
I'm sure I missed a few.

Okay, you asked for it...

1. Lolcats (Title/whole video)
2. Invisible Sandwich (0:27)
3. Facepalm (0:29)
4. Double Rainbow (0:33)
5. Dogfort 1 (0:40-0:45)
6. Dogfort 2 (0:47-0:49)
7. Narwhals 0:57
8. My Little Pony (1:03)
9. Birds with Arms (1:07)
10. Minecraft Creeper (1:07)
11. IMMA FIRIN' MAH LAZER (1:12)
12. Do Not Want (1:14)
13. Weegee (1:17)
14. Courage Wolf (1:17)
15. Thunderbloopers (1:26)
16. Trollface (1:30)
17. Foul Bachelor Frog (1:37)
18. Philosoraptor (1:37)
19. I Can Has Cheezburger (1:41)
20. Longcat and Tacgnol (1:46)
22. Socially Awkward Penguin (1:48)
23. LOL Guy (2:02)
24. X Grab My Y (2:04)
25. Nyan Cat (2:06)

I'm sure I missed a few.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^shuac:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Know-Your-Meme-My-Little-Pony

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Know-Your-Meme-My-Little-Pony

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by shuac. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).

Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).

Yours satanically,

Lucy Furr



edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.

>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic

al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.