heh heh

careful... your reference (2 corinthians 11:19) may be showing your christian credentials - that's a big no-no on the sift

and you don't even use the cliché correctly, sheesh!

so... what is it you disagree with?

1. that maddow isn't an attack dog for the left?
2. that the federalist society isn't evil?
3. that it's pure coincidence that the federalist society's annual dinner (planned many months in advance) just happened to take place on the same day as the scotus announcement that it would hear the legal challenge in question? how could any scotus justice have predicted that??
4. that maddow is misinterpreting canon 4c of the code of conduct, which only applies to lower level judges?
5. that virtually all our scotus justices 'violate' the above regularly? heck, ginsberg 'violated' it again just three days ago while being the speaker at an nwlc-sponsored event.
6. that supreme court justices can't have their votes 'bought' by just treating them to a nice dinner?
7. that this whole story isn't just a tit-for-tat over the right's squawking over justice kagan's apparent refusal to recuse herself? i don't necessarily think she should.

so... which is it?

share with us? throw your pearls before the swine...

or is your snarkiness simply a knee-jerk reaction to a true centrist's better erudition and analysis of yet more political polemics?

Normally I think that Bill Maher is a snarky (yet funny) asshole. But I am really impressed with how well he held it together from a snarky know-it-all.

@SDGundamX

You make a number of fair points, and I humbly accept your chastisement of my condescending attitude (<--no sarcasm here, rereading my own post with the mist of anger gone makes me feel a tad ashamed of myself). As you can see, it is not above me to make false assumptions (re: why you didn't respond to the other comment), but at least it isn't beneath me to recognise when my bitchy ego has gotten in the way.
As for the subject matter(s), I guess we disagree on Hitchens being an alcoholic and it being inappropriate to toast him. What I still stand by - and what really pissed me off to begin with (pardon my French) - is that I do not think the discussion on the Sift has been "O'Reillyfied". Sure, people get heated and say nasty things (I am one of those), but then again, we're only human. As for making snarky comments for the sole purpose of garnering votes, I have to disagree. If you had an inkling of the kind of pestering shite shiny has been here you would understand why most of us have nothing but utter contempt for both him and the ideology he persistently preaches at us (if you feel like it, browse his comment history). I think many of these comments are in the spirit of the following quote by T. Jefferson: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

I would actually be very interested in discussing whether insulting someone's beliefs is an insult to them or not (my position is obviously that it's not).

cheers

@SDGundamX

WARNING: pretty harsh words ahead.

First, I'm not going to take up the "to toast or not to toast" subject, only point out that if you choose to ignore my "sarcasm" label, you can't go on to blame me from straying off topic (also: Hitchens is not an alcoholic, which is why I posted the citation from him about his drinking. What with all the dolts he's debated though, it's little wonder he felt like taking the edge off).

Sifters up/down-vote a comment based on their (dis-)agreement with it's content/sentiment, as do you, so no need to get self-righteous about it. Some comments are sarcastic, some funny, some serious arguments; that's communication for you (you'll note the highest rated comments on VS are not necessarily the most snarky (see here, or my top comment for example).

Saying that we don't pay attention to what other comments say is ridiculous in this context: it is because attention has been paid that snarky witticisms can be writ (and so spot on, may I add). Seriously though, saying that the religion/atheism discussion has been "O'Reillyfied" is incredibly insulting and downright false (unless you're talking about shiny's comments... but since he's pretty much the only one to stand up for his absurd convictions on VS I can see why you'd get that impression, from that side of the argument in any case). You point to my response as an example, but it only shows that I'm making two points: correcting your false statement about what Hitchens does in his debates in the briefest possible manner, and arguing that there is nothing sinister or wrong in drinking to a sick man in homage of what he's accomplished, no matter if alcohol is responsible for his sickness.

It seems to me that, as @ChaosEngine points out, you simply don't like being called out on your false assumptions and accusations. I find it telling that you took the time to answer my comment here, whining about how it's impossible to have a debate, but you chose not to answer to my comment here, in which I call you out on your false assumptions without sarcasm, but with evidence (more on that here). So coming here on your high horse to look down on those of us who sprinkle our arguments with both evidence and sarcasm is the height of hypocrisy when you choose to ignore all the actual debate going on. No wonder you can't understand why sifters no longer respond to shiny's bs, or if they do, with nothing but scorn and derision. Not all of us have the patience of a Christopher Hitchens with people who repeatedly spout the same nonsense no matter how many times it is refuted. If all you can do is resort to complaining about tone then by all means, go somewhere where people do not rustle your feathers or question your assumptions, but don't delude yourself into thinking that that is a more rational debate than the ones here.

Yes, the above is harsh, but sometimes one need be to get a point across. If I didn't think you were capable of rational debate I would simply ignore you (as I do shiny).

Oh, how I wish Ron Paul's helpful suggestion had been "Defense"... Too snarky for the occasion, I suppose.

Holy shit, when I read "murders" I thought it was just because he sang badly. I was getting ready to make a snarky comment about theocratic Cane and the lyrics to "Imagine", and then I pressed play...

absofuckinglutely *TERRIBLE *parody

Canada? Is that a snarky joke?

Really? You think so? I mean, other than the snarky headline which I immediately took back. (It did get you to watch the vid, so my bad behavior is being rewarded.)

I think it is a great idea. I would probably be using the area myself, if they had Ms PacMan.

Is it the beepers? I think that is so there is a system to mandate "turns". At least, that is how I took it.

In reply to this comment by laura:
Yeah, you know...this is actually pretty insulting to men. Like, really.

Agreed.

And thanks for overlooking any snarkiness in my original comment (it was submitted pre-coffee).
>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bamdrew:
(Psst)... hey... letting you in on a secret... NASA's not dead.
New bot (Curiosity) launching to Mars later this year; should land Aug. 2012.
Also, Opportunity found a fucking amazing rock just this week; search out that shit if you're interested.
I'm actually very excited by the new direction in manned space exploration... essentially a focus on funding technology development and testing to make near earth orbit commonplace. http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html
>> ^Boise_Lib:
This is a great video.
RIP US space program.


You're absolutely correct. NASA's alive I'm just mad at the politicians.
I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival at Pluto of the Horizon. Last I heard that will be in 2015-16.
I've always said that in order to have a better manned space program--build more robots. Build a bunch of little ones and spread them all over Mars.

Video or it didn't happen.>> ^hpqp:

LOL! fuck U videosift, FUCK U! People post the stupidist fucking video on the sift in people are all like, feel obliged to comment, even tho they have NOTHING to say!!! Like some dumbass will post a comment copying there favorite lines from the vid and then some dipshit that lives like in, the other side of the wrold will be all "LULZ" even tho they didnt watch the vid, goddammit, becuz thats what they do! I mean, videosift isnt that bad, its the fucking asshole sifters that use it. Like, people post some kitten liking its asshole and will be all like "I have 226 votes!", like, wat the fuck! And then u get dumbasses that are all like, "God will punsih u" and "thank god we have gunz, lol". Videosift the concept was alright, but its the fucking users that fucking fcuk it up, posting shit just so when i go on it i can see like, "oh look! someone made a snarky comment with the sarcasm box tickd!" Its bullshit! at least reddit is meant to be bullshit. you make a post thats been posted a zillion times and drop it out there, and its done! Goddamit riles me uP! I post a vid maybe like, once every like, once a week or so, somethiing that means somehting to me, and then "time to go fuckin post a snarky commetn on someones video", and "oh, i gotta upvote this, I gotta empty my pqueue" well FuCK U and all you sifters who fucking post videos, ur fuckin dead to me!!!

LOL! fuck U videosift, FUCK U! People post the stupidist fucking video on the sift in people are all like, feel obliged to comment, even tho they have NOTHING to say!!! Like some dumbass will post a comment copying there favorite lines from the vid and then some dipshit that lives like in, the other side of the wrold will be all "LULZ" even tho they didnt watch the vid, goddammit, becuz thats what they do! I mean, videosift isnt that bad, its the fucking asshole sifters that use it. Like, people post some kitten liking its asshole and will be all like "I have 226 votes!", like, wat the fuck! And then u get dumbasses that are all like, "God will punsih u" and "thank god we have gunz, lol". Videosift the concept was alright, but its the fucking users that fucking fcuk it up, posting shit just so when i go on it i can see like, "oh look! someone made a snarky comment with the sarcasm box tickd!" Its bullshit! at least reddit is meant to be bullshit. you make a post thats been posted a zillion times and drop it out there, and its done! Goddamit riles me uP! I post a vid maybe like, once every like, once a week or so, somethiing that means somehting to me, and then "time to go fuckin post a snarky commetn on someones video", and "oh, i gotta upvote this, I gotta empty my pqueue" well FuCK U and all you sifters who fucking post videos, ur fuckin dead to me!!!

Actually, weren't we talking about doing one, years ago now, in Orange County? Could've sworn I'd tried to get one stated some time later... on yeah, I did .

Anyways, snarkiness aside, I'm up. Funny, wanted to do a sift meet in California before I leave. Moving to Arizona end of August for school. Good a time as any!

I think Rand Paul's problem, and many other peoples' problem, is that they pick a political philosophy and either take it to extremes or refuse to consider anything else.

I'm a moderate who leans a little toward libertarianism. I think it's important to constantly ask, "Is this something that the government should do?" or "Is this something that is best done by the government?" This is probably seen as "typical behavior" for a libertarian or conservative. The difference is sometimes I think the answer is yes.

Spending 2 billion up front may keep us from having to spend 5 billion on the back end. I don't think Paul is out of line for questioning that statement. I'd want to see the numbers that prove this out if I were on this committee. Where I think he gets ridiculous (as Franken correctly calls him on) is in suggesting that anyone has claimed this will scale perfectly to unlimited heights. He's constructed a strawman claim that spending more money always leads to more savings.

Let's say you have an office and you need to buy pens. You can buy pens for $0.50 a piece or $0.60 a piece, but the 60-cent pens last twice as long. Let's say 5 cases of 50-cent pens will last a year, so 5 cases of 60-cent pens lasts 2 years. You'll obviously see savings in year 2 because you won't have to buy pens at all that year. I don't think I'm saying anything that's not obvious.

But what Paul says essentially is, "Then why not buy 5000 cases of pens?"

If he was asking honestly and out of ignorance, well that would still be somewhat concerning, but it's more irritating to me that he's being snarky about it. There are lots of reasons not to buy 5000 cases of pens. Who knows if the office will even exist in 200 years, let alone still need pens?

So yes, I feel it was entirely appropriate for Franken to call his question absurd. But at the same time, I don't see it as bad that someone (Paul in this case) is getting in there and asking "are we sure this is a good idea?" I just wish he was more rational about it.

The other aggravation this video, and others like it, cause for me is the reaction they get which I might categorize as, "LOL! Libertarians/Conservatives are stupid! Vote Democrat!"

If this is the point you want to make, tell me why I should vote Democrat rather than why I shouldn't vote Republican. Voting for the idiots who will do the least damage is not all that appealing, no matter which party it is.

Yes, thank you.

I started to write something snarky, but deleted it.

The smiles on the faces of the police officers says it all. Serve and protect indeed.