the incorrect spelling of panties

In reply to this comment by SaNdMaN:
>> ^eric3579Parisian women don't wear bras and or pannies.

What's "pannies"?

>> ^eric3579Parisian women don't wear bras and or pannies.

What's "pannies"?

Damn you, rasch, you beat me to it, you slippery-fingaz, you. And was it absolutely necessary to steal my idea for a congratulatory image, too?? Sheesh.

Anyhow, Pete is a great guy, a real top-quality sifter who's achieved this milestone just now because he simply hasn't been rushing it - unlike me (me, I'm not rushing it, not a real quality sifter either). And I'm not saying it just because he's already bribed me with his first promote, no... Well, I might be, but I also just took a stroll trough his Sifted Videos and had some 10+ reclaimvotes to declare. So there you go, a top bloke if there ever was one.

>> ^Psychologic:
It also makes the assumption that the purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the species.
There are lots of married people who never have kids, and then are plenty of unmarried people (including homosexuals) who do have children. If marriage isn't required to have children then why even offer it in the first place?


No, the point is that marriage is expensive to society and the government. If they're going to grant these subsidies (marriage licenses), they want to know why. They'll grant them if the probable benefit to society is greater than the cost. Heterosexual couples are likely to produce more teachers, scientists, doctors, soldiers, and tax-payers so it's worth it to society.

You cannot gain state death benefits through contract. You cannot prevent your deceased partner's house from being sold for taxes through contract. You cannot gain the benefits of marriage trough contract.

Yes, you can - look up your state's laws on wills and testaments.

Sorry, the "secular" argument here boils down to "homosexuals don't deserve equal rights because the government won't directly profit from it.

No, homosexual marriage doesn't give anything back to society but it does take from it. So until the homosexual community can show how their marriages benefit society, they shouldn't because it's a burden to the whole.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

That is a terribly narrow statement. Under that rationale people who cannot, or choose not to, have kids should not be allowed to marry. It also makes the assumption that the purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the species.

There are lots of married people who never have kids, and then are plenty of unmarried people (including homosexuals) who do have children. If marriage isn't required to have children then why even offer it in the first place?



Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir.

You cannot gain state death benefits through contract. You cannot prevent your deceased partner's house from being sold for taxes through contract. You cannot gain the benefits of marriage trough contract.




Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation.

Lets not forget women being sold as property to the highest bidder for social status. Are we a worse society for not adhering to the "traditional" marriage?


there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause.

There has been a lot more research since 2004. Children in loving, supportive homes do the best, even when the parents are homosexual. This was actually the subject of much evidence in the recent Iowa court case, with most (if not all) studies and evidence siding with the plaintiffs.

Also, if kids need two opposite-sex parents then why do we allow unmarried people to procreate?


Sorry, the "secular" argument here boils down to "homosexuals don't deserve equal rights because the government won't directly profit from it."

>> ^cdominus:
So Ron Paul's constituents are supposed to pay taxes and get nothing back on principle? If his district could opt out of paying taxes I would understand your point but they can't so I don't.


Actually yes. If Ron Paul's constituents want there to be spending cuts, let them be the first to forego feeding at the pork trough.

Either this is a principled stand, or it isn't.

If the idea here is to reduce the deficit, that means continuing to pay taxes, or pay higher taxes, while cutting spending. That's what "living within your means" is supposed to mean, right?

Or perhaps you think that meant cutting spending on other people first, while continuing to get your own taxes cut?

>> ^bovan:

I kinda like the definition of levitation... even though he fails on all points..
If you are to suspend yourself against gravity (all gravity).. You would no longer fall towards the earth, and as the earth moves you would simply continue on your on trajectory trough (and your corpse will fly out of) our solar system at roughly 100,000 km/h.
I'm sure if you do it inside, you might be able to stay on earth due to the surrounding walls, but you better hope there's noone around who wanna play a prank on "the floating guy who tries to pick up girls using magic tricks"... I mean.. once you establish how to have gravity not affect you, it might take some time to figure out how to reverse it..


You need to go back to physics 1 and revisit relative motion. In the universe you describe above (100Mm/h bloodstain) you also wouldn't be able to throw a tennis ball straight up while riding inside a train without the ball impaling you as soon as it leaves your hand...

anti-gravity or levitation is simply finding a way to produce and apply a constant force of 9.8 m/s^2 in the "up" direction. ("up" defined as the vector pointing away from the center of the earth).

q.e.d. this guy fails at life.

>> ^bovan:
If you are to suspend yourself against gravity (all gravity).. You would no longer fall towards the earth, and as the earth moves you would simply continue on your on trajectory trough (and your corpse will fly out of) our solar system at roughly 100,000 km/h.

I'm sure if you do it inside, you might be able to stay on earth due to the surrounding walls, but you better hope there's noone around who wanna play a prank on "the floating guy who tries to pick up girls using magic tricks".


I imagine hitting the wall, ceiling, etc. at 100,000 km/h might leave a bit of a stain.

Levitation (from Latin levitas "lightness") is the process by which an object is
- suspended against gravity
- in a stable position
- without physical contact

I kinda like the definition of levitation... even though he fails on all points..

If you are to suspend yourself against gravity (all gravity).. You would no longer fall towards the earth, and as the earth moves you would simply continue on your on trajectory trough (and your corpse will fly out of) our solar system at roughly 100,000 km/h.

I'm sure if you do it inside, you might be able to stay on earth due to the surrounding walls, but you better hope there's noone around who wanna play a prank on "the floating guy who tries to pick up girls using magic tricks"... I mean.. once you establish how to have gravity not affect you, it might take some time to figure out how to reverse it..

I dont think this guy has learned to levitate, but if he ever figure it out, i'm sure The Hoff would do the right thing...

>> ^JiggaJonson:
As much of a nerd as I am for things like HDTV and what not I often ask myself wtf our country is doing spending money on something like "the digital switch" when we still have so many other problems.


To free up more air space for more channels, and/or new technologies like for example long range wireless internet for rural areas.
Yet somehow I doubt that the freed bands will be used for anything other than more channels for the big companies, they are after all the ones with the money.
And if your digital systems are anything like ours, it will allow for encrypted channels trough your antenna. Pay TV without cable or satellite.

Why are you forced to switch? Because there is money to be made.

Arrrrrghh... half-way trough I feel exactly like him.

Once again, this exploitation of disaster for corporate gain--free money for the CEOs--gives Bush the excuse he needs to use the bailout of the automakers as collateral to get the Dems. to ratify a free trade deal with Colombia... brokered by none other than our very own Rahm Emmanuel.

Just when you thought democracy couldn't get decimated any further.. or that the cynicism couldn't rise any higher... yet so typical of the way Washington seems to work, the place where all the wealthy line up at the trough to feed on the taxpayers' expense.

Oh, look at that, it sifted! So it should have. It was f'in funny.

In reply to this comment by Abducted:
Thanks
Thought this wouldn't go trough the sift when it only got a couple of votes while unsifted.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
"You're living in a cartoon world."
Priceless. Good one Abducted.

Thanks
Thought this wouldn't go trough the sift when it only got a couple of votes while unsifted.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
"You're living in a cartoon world."
Priceless. Good one Abducted.

>> ^Abducted:
I have for this post assumed that people don't go trough comments on the videos as this would be nearly impossible to regulate as channels can be changed after a comment is posted. An option to turn them off for this channel maybe?


Actually, let's generalize that idea to the entire sift -- An option to disable comments for safer viewing. Now where's that thread detailing suggestions for the next version?