>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
No wonder liberals want guns banned. They're terrible shots!

Don't downvote funny posts you idiots!
Does anyone know why this guy was actually there? What the hell he was protesting and misinterpreting the Vendetta V for?


They fired his wife who was a Special Ed teacher.

>> ^quantumushroom:

No wonder liberals want guns banned. They're terrible shots!


Don't downvote funny posts you idiots!

Does anyone know why this guy was actually there? What the hell he was protesting and misinterpreting the Vendetta V for?

pushin the big D..need a vote plz=)
http://videosift.com/video/V-for-Vendetta-evey-reborn-movie-scene

>> ^kymbos:

Jesus, BR - you and your tags vendetta.


well honestly its a simple formula.

KEY WORDS,DESCRIPTIVE WORDS. not two syllable bullshit with absolutely no thought behind it, tags are something you have to think about for the future, future generation, IF you put horrendous tags, such as calvados has, then the future generation are likely to create dupes, all because ass hats do not take the required 2 minutes of their oh so special time to think and check off applicable categories. Personally I think its sad someone who has years of membership..shits out on tags and a person who is a year into tenure "has" to remind them....

its more or less a requirement to be in videosift, to make proper tags. so many people are lazy as all hell.. ( and blame siftbot or the search function) for their reluctance to provide proper tags

Jesus, BR - you and your tags vendetta.

I do not mind a downvote, in fact I have been downvoted by many and am fine-as-peach-wine with those downvotes---but when they grow to "Oh, another downvote by, I wonder who? Oh, its Animals again, surprise surprise," I stop finding it amusing.

I was not even offended by you at first, and took many of your downvotes casually.


"Many?" Christ, more weasel language. You're blowing it out of proportion, no where were these FEW and SPREAD OUT OVER TIME downvotes anywhere indicative of anything but disagreement. Even if I downvoted you more, where do you get off deriving any sort of ill-intent from such a small sample? Unless there's a clear pattern of a downvoting spree/vendetta (of which you could have taken the time to take to any of the admins to verify before opening your stupid mouth and spouting more butthurt nonsense), kindly shut the fuck up you overly sensitive twat, and no I'm not literally calling you a gigantic, walking, talking and typing twat, just in case you're confused.

Claiming I'm the one being "touchy" is priceless, more projection from you who felt the need to start something ONCE AGAIN, by making mountains out of molehills, so everyone can see how unfairly you're being treated by big mean me.


Further, I only bolded "Every" because bold is a function on the sift and just like a "downvote," I think it should be used more often. Thanks for unintentionally pointing that out Animals! Learn to get over it please.

Are you thick? It's the choice of words in combination with the bold.

Addionally, I clearly stated that I was using hyperbole(I.E using hyperbole) when I was making the assertions about you "Downvoting ALL," my comments. That makes the statements satire, like the comedy Lewis Black uses... And since I stated they were blown outlandishly out of proportion, everyone knew they were intentionally ficticous. In short, I did not lie, nor did I insult you with a personal attack---I made a clear joke. Kind of like when you were joking (I assume) and called me an "impertinent, lying fuckstick." If you were not joking there, I am sorry I assumed you were; however, I would like you to prove that I am indeed a "fuckstick." And since fuckstick is a made up word, good luck with that.

Oh right. Here I was thinking from the pretty clear cut context that every thing else after your unambiguous statement of fact(that I downvote all your posts) was your intended "hyperbole", ie: I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?


Notice I didn't even bother mentioning the above because it was pretty clear what it was, verbal masturbation, not worth addressing.

But since you chose to preface the next paragraph with "All hyperbole aside..." you afford yourself an easy-out and are then able to disown the previous paragraph when and where you choose, depending on the response you get, despite the fact that it is clear as day what that hyperbole was. Disingenuous, I'd expect no less of you.

Even, for the sake of argument, I assume the entire thing was hyperbole per your lame technicality worthy of the most ineffectual kind of dishonest, sophist wanker, your next paragraph STILL shows that yes, you are still a petty liar. Right after you state, "All hyperbole aside...", which I assume would mean you now intend to be truly taken seriously, you then proceed to lie (once again)about so-called statements I've made while displaying astounding levels of hypocrisy:

What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

First, you assert that I've ever said such a thing AND that this has been the general sentiment of the Sift but is now dying (in thanks, perhaps you assume, to your fine efforts?). Both aren't true and are thus straw-men you use in an attempt to make yourself appear so gosh darned mature and civil, all the while showing traits of someone who wishes to project his own inadequacies onto someone else. In my opinion, you've stooped far lower than your imagined, dishonest staw man version of me and my views. Pots and kettles and all that...

The rest of your "response" can pretty much be summed up as "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!" You know what slang is, you're being a facetious ass.

Lying "holds no place in reason", you big fucking hypocrite.

Threats aside (I find them amusing) it seems, with your diatribe, that you took far more offense to my comments than I to your downvote

Threats? Is this more of the same from you (see: lies)? Because only a crazy person would find something that isn't there amusing. And yes, I take offense at people who pathologically lie more than I or anyone else would a downvote. What is so odd about that? Seems pretty morally consistent to me, but then again, I'm not fucking insane. This asinine observation of yours speaks volumes of your attitude towards honesty.

Lawdeedaw out.

No comment.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
*promote. shh. don't tell anyone i don't want to look cliqueish

thanks man!
that song has been playing in my head for days...
you rock brother!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
On the other hand, O'reily is an patronizingly, mean bastard. Even Glenn Beck is a nice guy even though he panders to a different audience, I wouldn't mind having a beer with him or her, but O'Reily can bask in the radiance of his own piousness.


Really? I agree what you say about O'Reilly, he's arrogant and pompous but at least he maintains a modicum of consistent in his beliefs and I can remotely respect him for that.

In a far fetched way I can agree with what Jon Stewart said about O'Reilly when he was on his show, that he's the only sane voice of reason on the network, even though he's for the most part a wing-nut.

Beck on the other has shown he's more than willing to change his views for the highest bidding network, goes on personal vendetta to destroy people's lives purely for vengeance or otherwise incidental personal or strategic gain and generally comes off as a genuine sleaze-bag.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)
Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...
Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.

You're forgetting obtuse apologetic wanks.
It's OK because everyone else does it wasn't an acceptable rationale when I was 6 years old.



IT IS NOT OKAY BECAUSE everyone does it. Who said that? Only a moron, idiot, or a douche would think that it's okay. Only someone looking to hate everything about my posts BEFORE they understand my posts would misunderstand my post because they have a vendetta against me and just wish to downvote everything I do...

I never said it was okay in any fashion. Did you read that? Point it out to me AFC... I will wait. The proof of your intellect will be nice to see.

I think cops who break the law should go to jail, be fired and that's that. I never professed anything different. Just like teachers and preachers. Throw them all in jail and hold the same accountability and rage towards them all! Hang em all equally!

You remind me, in a small manner, of George W. Bush... A left George Bush, but a Bush nevertheless... Never apologize! Down with all the insane people of religion! Down with police in general!

This is my pretend conversation with AFC. "Lawdeedaw, your arguments are *Making up lies about arguments* wrong on all accounts. How dare you say stuff that I pretend you speak." Me, "I am outta here. Have fun playing with just yourself man *Or girl, I am not really sure.*"

Like I said, I fully expect and deserve to catch flak over the douchebag comment. I'm not going to argue over that.

As to your points...
1) Yes, there clearly is. I was responding to one of them, actually.
2) Absolutely, I would, if they were funny.
3) Wasn't going for a coup de grace.
4) I understand you may have a different perspective, but I disagree that my comment was flippant. Rude and immature, yes, but not flippant. I was completely serious though not well spoken.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
There's no vendetta, I just thought your comment was dumb. I find many comments dumb and I usually keep it to myself, but your rudeness made me feel justified in saying it aloud.

As for why I find this comment dumb:
1) Stating the obvious: Do you think there is a person in the world that doesn't understand the concept of using laughter as a way of dealing with grief?
2) Good taste: Would you chuckle at jokes about eating the corpse of your dead friend? Probably not.
3) A very poor point followed up by an unearned coup de grace. If you want to smack someone down at the end of your comment, you have to earn it.
4) Contributing personal factors: Beyond this, I've encountered some painful deaths over the past couple of years, which probably amplifies my annoyance factor when it comes to flippant, rude comments like the one in question.

Why no intellectual debate? Because it didn't seem worth it. But you've asked, and I've explained it now.

I can't remember what I said to you about Milton Friedman, so send me the link if you want elaboration.

I think you are an OK guy, and definitely no moron, but you do have this way of stating the obvious in a really self-righteous tone that annoys the crap out of me.

Just being honest.

There's no vendetta, I just thought your comment was dumb. I find many comments dumb and I usually keep it to myself, but your rudeness made me feel justified in saying it aloud.

As for why I find this comment dumb:

1) Stating the obvious: Do you think there is a person in the world that doesn't understand the concept of using laughter as a way of dealing with grief?

2) Good taste: Would you chuckle at jokes about eating the corpse of your dead friend? Probably not.

3) A very poor point followed up by an unearned coup de grace. If you want to smack someone down at the end of your comment, you have to earn it.

4) Contributing personal factors: Beyond this, I've encountered some painful deaths over the past couple of years, which probably amplifies my annoyance factor when it comes to flippant, rude comments like the one in question.

Why no intellectual debate? Because it didn't seem worth it. But you've asked, and I've explained it now.

I can't remember what I said to you about Milton Friedman, so send me the link if you want elaboration.

I think you are an OK guy, and definitely no moron, but you do have this way of stating the obvious in a really self-righteous tone that annoys the crap out of me.

Just being honest.


In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I wish I had left the "douchbag" comment off and I actually just sent Roachmojo an apology for that line. I'm not surprised to get some flak for it.

However, your ranting a couple weeks ago over my comment about the Friedman video seemed very unlike you. I'd have expected intelligent debate from you, not that.

I was starting to wonder if I had done something that offended you.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I've always been hostile to lame comments.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'guy, fawkes, g20, protester, theatrical, mask' to 'guy, fawkes, g20, protester, theatrical, mask, v for vendetta' - edited by calvados

This whole story clearly shows that he did something stupid.
Should he pay for what he has done? It sounds like he already is and will continue to.

I'm a firm believer that this should have been solved behind closed doors and not as a public spectacle, the first time she came back. Yes, with professional counseling and law officials as necessary. I'm sure he was in panic mode at the time he made the payment (for whatever reasons). I also believe he should have gone into counseling as well - personally, with his own family. His family are also suffering from this and are also victims here. He has them to think about them as well. Crap like this always comes back to bite you in the ass (emotionally.)

But to what point does one go on suffering and making the other pay. No act of revenge, monetary or emotional will ever begin Cheryl's healing until she decides she wants to heal. The grieving process is a strong one and should be nurtured with professional counseling. Only once she decides to forgive and move-on can her healing begin. Until then, it will only continue to fester in her. I'm hoping she used some of the money towards personal counseling, though it doesn't sound like it. Which makes me question (without the facts and in my own opinion), whether she is in it for healing, personal vendetta or spotlight.

I hope both sides take the time to heal. I hope he takes a more emotional role in helping her heal, and I hope she can learn to move past. "Not forget, just forgive" because that's the only way the healing can begin. and in the end, that's what everyone needs here. Twenty-five years is long time to hold on to this.

that was delightful.
the first time i ever saw stephen fry was in V for Vendetta but it is actually due to the sift that i have become of fan of both fry and ferguson.

the underage viewer viewing it is a valid point, and im curious what dags liability would be in that situation.

however, withstanding that. now that the video has been released from purgatory, i was free too and did infact downvote it, because i didn't like watching it. my whole point is that 1. the gage of offensiveness can't be measured by one person or 4 persons or their penis's. and 2. the voting system is a sufficient guideline to determine if something is siftable, which is a matter of personal preference. personally i find family guy clips viscerally offensive and wish they didn't find their way to the sift, but they do and so i downvote them. if a video hits -3, its gone.

but the talk of bannings and hobblings because a seasoned member posts a provocative video is ridiculous.
and i think i accidentally hit the wrong button and am posting this to sheppard's profile now. but oh well im not going back and redoing it. sorry sheppard.
and now ive lost my train of thought and its time go do real life things. tralalalllala
In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
>> ^peggedbea:
THIS IS NOT PORN. THIS IS A PARODY VIDEO OF OLD LADIES FROM A REPRESSIVE GENERATION LIBERATING THEMSELVES IN THE MOST RIDICULOUS FASHION. AND FUCKING GOOD FOR THEM.
BRAINS APPOLOGY POST SAID IT BEST
titty babies are traumatized by vaginas that are not attached to porn stars.
the polling system is built into the site. and don't even get me started on the number of videos that got mass amounts of votes for being sexy. even if the content itself wasnt intended to strictly titillate, the reason these videos made it to the top was the male sift brain sexualizing it. there is even a video clip from an actual soft core porn vid, allowed to stay without the fuss.
and the talk of bannings, RIDICULOUS.


Soft core is just that - soft core. It shows basically nothing but the odd breast and nothing truly graphic.

This, is not soft core. Videosift doesn't have a "You must be 18 to enter this site" page, this video embed doesn't have a "You must be 18 to view this content" link, however, if you follow the embed you have to click a "I agree that I'm 18 years old" button.

Soft core is displayed on basic cable now. This is not. This is fully graphic material, and other then a small tag of "NSFW" along the side, has nothing to even show what the content is. Right now, I believe the sift is liable if some mother gets pissed off that her kid found something of this quality on here. If there was the "I agree to be 18" button, or the video required you to input age, that would be a horse of a different colour, because that means that the child willingly knew what he was going to be seeing, and the sift has no blame.

It only takes one angry mother to lead a vendetta against something because her child is more special then the others and therefore has to be protected.

That being said, if theres an "I agree that I'm over 18" button on the front page before you can enter the site, who knows how much traffic that'll stop. I came here when I was 17, and granted, would've clicked the button anyway, but there's a lot of goody-two-shoes out there.

Maybe even if there's a system in place that makes it so you have to hit one of the "I'm over 18" buttons to view anything flagged as NSFW, or have to be logged in and have an input age when you sign up. But as it stands right now, this is not educational, this is not art. This is a bunch of women sitting around for one common goal. You want to see something of this sort? Go to a free porn site then. The sift is not one. And again, softcore clips are not as bad, they're on basic cable now. But they're still up to dags discretion.