>> ^quantumushroom:

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies.
Oh, that's right, it's FOX that has an agenda.


Speaking of agendas...

Way to post that pdf in every video about Chomsky, and hide when someone points out that its full of shit. Go back to posting inane, pun riddled one liners; your ad hominem attacks makes FOX news look classy and intelligent.

The Nazi Party created lots of propaganda. True.
The Republican Party creates lots of propaganda. [Have you ever heard of Fox News?] True.

Right. And since the nazis wore hats, and some Republicans wear hats, Republicans are therefore nazis.

BTW, if Fox is "biased" what the hell is all the rest of the media (matters) and hollywood?

If you don't think your 'side', be it Green or Taxocrat or Whatever does not employ propaganda and dirty tricks, you've got some studying to do.

In what way was he being violent to compare two political parties and their use of flat out lies?

Here's a riddle

Q: Why did the moonbat mention nazis when nazis had nothing to do with anything?
A: Because accusations of "racism" were already taken.

He didn't say "And you know what happened to those Nazis.. Our Allied Troops slaughtered as many as possible."

He didn't even raise his voice for fuck's sake.

So?

You're probably the only member to have over 200 videos of completely pointless stuff in her or his personal queue like this.

Take a hint buddy.


You like it you love it you need it. Have a pleasant evening.

One and God make a majority.

--Frederick Douglass

I'll grant you that early Wonder Woman comics often played up bondage themes, but I haven't seen that exploitation post-Crisis.

I can't speak for all DC superheroes, but I think several good writers have really given Wonder Woman a well-rounded personality. Conversely, some have made her flat as paper. Still, I admire the character. If she had consistently good writing and a few top-notch villains (Cheetah's good, but the others are somewhat lacking) she'd be a top seller every month.

For a while Joss Whedon was attached to a Wonder Woman live-action film, but he's not now. If they could get him back I'm sure it would be a great film, and Wonder Woman's popularity would skyrocket like Batman's did after the Nolan films. Unfortunately the WW film is still in development hell, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.>> ^xxovercastxx:

I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.
That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.
Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.

That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.

Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

that could be. I didn't know that.

>> ^HaricotVert:

Perhaps it's because he has a mild case of Dyspraxia?
>> ^Trancecoach:
Too bad this wealthy kid appears to be riddled with anxiety.
>> ^eric3579:
Radcliffe came through with some serious knowledge. Well done Harry!

Perhaps it's because he has a mild case of Dyspraxia?

>> ^Trancecoach:

Too bad this wealthy kid appears to be riddled with anxiety.
>> ^eric3579:
Radcliffe came through with some serious knowledge. Well done Harry!

>> ^Trancecoach:

Too bad this wealthy kid appears to be riddled with anxiety.
>> ^eric3579:
Radcliffe came through with some serious knowledge. Well done Harry!



To be fair that's almost all british people.

Too bad this wealthy kid appears to be riddled with anxiety.

>> ^eric3579:

Radcliffe came through with some serious knowledge. Well done Harry!

>> ^quantumushroom:
If this fktard thinks he's paying too little, he can always send more to the IRS. And half of Americans pay NO federal income tax, yet get all the "free" goodies and services provided by the other half.
No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity. Government looters have already struck. Their "solutions" yielded no new jobs and more debt, just like in the 1940s.
Sorry socialists, you're "stuck" with the free market, the only thing that ever creates jobs and prosperity.


Man, come off it. They could double how much the wealthiest Americans are taxed and they'd still have it better than decades ago. And please don't simply refer to the "Free market" as though them's the breaks. Our economic system is riddled with more holes, loopholes, and instances of borderline-criminal deregulation than a ring tossing game at your local carnival.

It's only when the yokels wake up to the fact that the system has been rigged and that they have no chance to win that they'll finally stand up to what's happened in recent years.

"Trickle down economics" refers to the urine of the rich trickling down the faces of the poor they're pissing on.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^RadHazG:
As much as I want to respect her statements her God comes from her bible, and unfortunately her God doesn't love anywhere near unconditionally. The entire thing is riddled with some very explicit conditions.

Precisely. If god loved unconditionally, why were Adam & Eve thrown out of the garden of Eden?
That's not to say I'm against Ms. O'Connor's purpose...


I think for me the point is, she's got a healthy attitude towards her faith. She recognises that you can cut through all the bullshit and still have the same values. And I love that she's spent years trying to bring them down, without losing sight of that, she's wonderful.

>> ^RadHazG:

As much as I want to respect her statements her God comes from her bible, and unfortunately her God doesn't love anywhere near unconditionally. The entire thing is riddled with some very explicit conditions.


Precisely. If god loved unconditionally, why were Adam & Eve thrown out of the garden of Eden?
That's not to say I'm against Ms. O'Connor's purpose...

As much as I want to respect her statements her God comes from her bible, and unfortunately her God doesn't love anywhere near unconditionally. The entire thing is riddled with some very explicit conditions.

In reply to this comment by hPOD:
Do note that I did not apply what I said to *every* member of VS, but *half* of them...and IMO, though not scientifically provable, I'm correct in this assessment. About 50% of any thread is riddled with one side or the other side sifters, with almost no in-between and no attempt to even try to understand their opposition. The way you addressed this, you applied what I said to everyone, which I never did.

Onto the meat of the subject, you claimed my post was negative (in so many words), however, it wasn't negative, it was merely in disagreement with the speakers approach, which is a completely different thing. As for cynicism, I can admit it creeps into the equation, however, that doesn't mean I can't listen too and hear what other intelligent people, such as yourself for instance, have to say.

As for the final things you said, I'd agree if you cut out the entire middle portion of the video -- in which he preaches -- if that part didn't exist, I'd agree with you that his point was in attempting to start a discussion, however, he tried to steer the discussion to where he wanted it. He didn't merely speak of a specific subject objectively in the interest of starting a discussion, as he went into a mini-soap-box rant in the middle portion, rendering objective discussion almost moot as his speech became suggestive in nature. At least, this is my opinion on the matter.

Points taken. I can see where he does lack some definitive direction. (+1)

So you may breathe easier, I do not endorse the murder of this woman, but recognize her sociopathy will exist as long as she does. Most of the peeps furious at the idiot would not kill her, even if the State gave us permission to pull the trigger, but do not doubt their rage is real.

Humans are barely rational. To some people, cats and dogs are their "children". If the pet owners had caught the idiot in the act and beaten the crap out of her, I would be hard-pressed to convict what could be considered a "crime of passion". If they actually killed her...I dunno.

As for providing a 'conservative counterpoint' to the sift, I say what needs to be said with no concern for the outcome. People don't comment on the internet to challenge their own ideas, even if it happens from time to time.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain
A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?
While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Every day we are subjected to story after story of vile scum getting away with all manner of crimes. Too often it's actually worse for society when they are captured alive and carted off to be treated like kings, defended by an army of parasitic lawyers as a reward for breaking in to someone's house or business or physically assaulting the elderly or children, and that's just local news, ignoring the usual cadre of dick-tators/Illuminati or whomever stands in for "the forces of evil" on a global scale.
There is no moral confusion about this vid. This a crime people understand on a fundamental level, a cruel act towards a defenseless animal. There are billions of instances like this, most perhaps far worse. The cat represents ALL those abused animals and unfortunately for this idiot, she now represents ALL those human vermin that abuse animals and get away with it, except she got caught.
As for my own words:
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and obscurities now.
- Mark Twain

A world where a human would get euthanized for putting a cat in a bin would be a special kind of hell. Any act that causes suffering to another being, whether its human or cat (or a cow?, or a rat? Where do you draw the line?) could fit your criteria. And what about emotional trauma? Plenty of suffering and damage is inflicted without ever laying a finger on another. Furthermore, you can't just neat and tidily remove a person from existence. What about all the people who love and depend on that person?

While it's vastly different than the policies of Hitler and Stalin, any practical attempt at applying your ideology would make you a greater tyrant and a greater enemy of freedom than all the Hitler and Stalins of the world combined. Like most of your posts, you're not providing a conservative counter balance to the liberal bias of the Sift. Your ideas are just so ridiculous that it only alienates your position.