Ooooo….Arizona is ramping up. The fake electors are already indicted, and Giuliani, Powell, and your big daddy are under investigation that’s already tied all 3 personally to the fraud scheme.

Like Georgia, Trump personally made calls that are recorded…no hiding behind subordinates there.

It’s also been discovered that apparently Christina Bobb, Trump’s lawyer, helped fund and staff Cyber Ninjas, the fake auditors that illegally tampered with voting machines and destroyed over $3 million worth of them the counties had to replace, so incompetent they accidentally found more votes for Biden. Doug Logan, the CEO, is listed in lawsuits in Michigan for breaching election security and tampering with voting machines there. He’s a non charged co conspirator in the cases against Stefanie Lambert, failed Trump supported AG candidate Matthew DePerno, and GOP state Rep. Daire Rendon for election interference for Trump. Logan is also listed in Georgia for again tampering with voting machines.

They’re going to be indictment #5, and personally they’re the one I’m rooting for because I want nothing more than to see Trump enter Maricopa County prison with all the conservative cheered horrific treatment that entails and never come out. He doesn’t deserve to die in club fed playing tennis, he deserves to die being fed expired green meat in a tent in 110 degree heat….and it’s looking like that’s likely. 😂

But Hunter took a dick pic you got to share publicly for children to see, so it’s all a wash, right? 🤦‍♂️

Bonus- Trump lackey Peter Navarro is asserting executive privilege as a defense in his trial for not showing up to the Jan 6 hearings under subpoena…but has no evidence Trump ever asserted it, not even his own testimony, and it wouldn’t transfer to him even if Trump had. The judge actually called his defense “weak sauce” in the evidentiary hearings…not a good sign.

Condolences on Joe the (fake) Plumber

Weak sauce. First good snow here in Canada I go out to a parking lot and practice hard braking and recovering from slide outs... comes in handy during the worst of Winter. I do miss my rear wheel drive Pontiac Acadian though... super fun for sliding around.

@Babymech
jesus holy christ...

were you truly unable to discern my tongue firmly planted in cheek?

and then take issue with pay gap discrimination?
ok-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

/cue rainbow

which you may take issue that i used wiki as a reference,which is pretty much your counter-position to my links.

which is just utter weak sauce.

oh that study was by a conservative think tank and therefore they have an "agenda".nevermind that christina hoff sommers is a feminist,nevermind that you didnt refute the numbers..lets just stick with "agenda" to refute any and all statistics that do not coincide with your narrative.

should i gather by implication that christian hoff sommers is not a feminsist?even though she identifies as one? or is she just the "wrong" kind of feminist?

come on man,are you really that blinded by your own bullshit?

and then you proudly attempted to dissect the rest of my comment taking positions i never took,but was rather using to express that in much of our dialogue..i was fucking agreeing with you.

you literally wrote one big,massive and utterly useless straw man.while i was actually trying to have a conversation.i may have indulged in some smart assery but that is mainly due to my perception of you.that i respected you enough not to treat you like a precious little flower or some fragile snowflake.

maybe you see this is as a right/wrong dynamic.

but here is the cold,hard truth:context matters.
and if you insist on viewing this situation in such a narrow and myopic way,the larger context will ALWAYS be unavailable to you.

so until you are ready to evaluate,without bias,new information.that may possibly contradict your current narrative,then you will always be stuck in your own self-delusion.

you were challenged.
your response was lack luster and a straw man.
and i can only assume by your words that any contrary evidence or contradictory opinions that may conflict with your own will be met with similar straw men,presumptions,deflecting and goal post moving.

because if ya cant beat em,
berate and belittle them.

Okay, so.. To start *deeep breath* ..

#1 - Conflating frequency & social norms is the first flaw in your weak sauce argument/opinion/whatever.

Norms are essentially social boundaries.
They ensure a certain level of compliance & conformity in a group.

The frequency of a behavior doesn't determine a norm.
Social acceptance does.

If informal rules are accepted & practiced by enough of the group, it's a (the) norm.

So..

#2 - Because police brutality is practiced & accepted enough.. it's the (a) norm.

A fact proven by comments like this from @lucky760..

A comment that illustrates those exact informal, unwritten rules of compliance.

Completely accepting that "well, of course cops on a powertrip clearly can't control themselves. What did you expect?".

Or comments from jerkfaces like Lantern53 (who is a cop), usually:
"Most people who get shot by the police deserved it."

Because in his child-like brain, only "bad guys get in trouble"..

So if a cop is beating you half (usually all the way) to death.
You must have done some "bad guy stuff" to start.

Which brings us to..

#3 - Your disgustingly ignorant, disingenuous denialism.

"Let's *scoff* pretend that everyday, for every brutal beating you hear about..

There's another even more violent murder..

That's ONLY 365 excessive force murders a year!

That's NOT representative of all 1 million police officers."

...@_@.. just ..@_@... Because:

A) As an "angry black man" who is distinctly enraged by police brutality..

I certainly don't need or appreciate you - a racially illiterate white male - pullin' the fuckin' race card.

"What if I made these generalizations about black people? Hmm? *pouty face* Woodn't da make you a wittle upset?"

THAT SHIT HAPPENS CONSTANTLY. Especially on the internet.

In fact, @BoneRemake has accused me of sellin' out or whatever because..

Most of my recent activity on this site has been a very pointed, belligerent direct response to the stupid shitty cuntbag comments of Videosift's resident racist jingoists.. @bobknight33 & @lantern53.

The latter of which is a police officer of 30 years.

B) Of course not EVERY SINGLE police officer or police interaction is violently excessive.

The point is - it's fucked up that videos like this appear on a regular basis. With little to no punishment for the officers involved.

Sure there are lots of good people in the world..

{Main Point} That means absolutely nothing when you're specifically illustrating & discussing the shitty, bad people in the world. {Main Point}


So yeah, i definitely don't need you and your patronizing AS FUCK white privilege apologist rhetoric to tell me..

"You know, not ALL cops are bad."

Yeah.. i know. Would you also like to tell me about how:

"Every interaction I've had with Law Enforcement has been benign and/or pleasant."

"I've never been followed around a store for fear I might steal something."

..-_-

@bareboards2
my comment was not really directed at you my dear.i painted my premise with a broad brush that expanded from this thread and addressed something i have found to be more and more practiced on the sift.

you posted your reasons why you used the ignore.
to get rid of the "rabble" and make it easier to read posts you enjoy.
now if that means posts that you agree with or dont find offensive ..well..that is kind of my point.

and you are so right.we all have a right to our opinion and in my opinion to sequester posts you disagree or find offensive is intellectually weak.

@VoodooV you literally just made my entire point by your post and i dont know if that was on purpose or by freak accident.

while i agree with your assertion that @shinyblurry tends to wade in the copy/paste waters and he dwells in circular logic land.you have to give the boy props for lending a perspective of a christian fundamentalist on a mainly secular left site.

that boy can rile you all up like a stick to a hornets nest.which is endless entertainment for me.

but lets change that paradigm shall we?
why dont you head down to your nearest baptist church and hand out fliers concerning evolution to the congregation and tell them god doesnt exist.

then maybe you would know what it feels like to get blasted by all sides at once.while shiny lacks in clear debate skills.you gotta admire his courage.

as for @chingalera seeking attention.
i dunno.
maybe you are right.
but the real question is how did you come to that conclusion?
by what means did you discern his intentions?motivations?
crystal ball? black magic? a little fairy come by and whisper in your ear?

no.
you used your OWN subjective understanding.your OWN experiences to presume the motivations of another sifter.
thats weak sauce and you better than that.

and then..finally..you ask for a daddy to come in straighten out the people who you:disagree with.argue in a way you dont find constructive (but may be they do).derail threads that maybe you would have enjoyed more if those pesky kids hadnt messed everything up.

the world dont revolve around you so get over yourself man.for fuck sakes!

i was sincere when i said i love your commentary because i truly do.
smart,witty and you usually have something to say.i ADORE your commentary but you are being self righteous on this thread.

i did something very similar last week to @renatojj and he called me out.he was right and i was wrong.

stop trying to impose your ideals of what constructive participation is based solely on your own and limited understanding.
this is not your sift but rather OURS and things will become chaotic at times.

the sift is organic.
allow it to metamorph into whatever it will become.
we do not need a big daddy to direct where it goes and thats the beauty of this site.

the irony in all this exchange between you and i is that i feel you have something to say and have always admired that about you.
allow other people to have their say as well.

Weak sauce. A good zinger makes you go "oooooh".

@shinyblurry
you have it backwards.
my authority derives from the creator,YOU on the other hand derive your authority from a book.

and please stop deluding yourself into thinking you have any idea who i am.
because you dont.
and to insinuate i have turned people from christ when i have specifically told you details to the contrary is just vulgar.

what saddens me the most is that your unquestioning,slack-jawed adherence to a flawed document will keep you in a perpetual state of spiritual childhood.

the gospels were meant to free you,not enslave you to a book.
but a slave you have become and you defend that tiny prison you live in like a child who only wishes to remain sleeping and dreaming of deliverance.

any information that may be perceived as contrary to your theosophy will have you scouring the apologist pages for a retort.you become copy-paste happy in order to refute any contrary information in regards to the BOOK you hold in your hand.

are you totally unaware of your OWN motivations?
this is a secular site.the majority here are atheists and/or agnostics.
many of them former christians of one flavor or another and some even from fundamentalist families.so they have become quite adept at communicating the flaws they have found in biblical text.

do you think they do this JUST to annoy you?
did it ever occur to you that maybe..just maybe..many here are actually just sharing the very information that changed their minds concerning religion,god and their place in the universe?
and have you noticed how you treat them?
with arrogance and condescension.
the irony being that you will throw a fit if someone treats you in such a manner yet ignore when you,yourself,partake in such bad manners.
it is the height of hypocrisy.

you have made many ignore lists due to your inability to self regulate.Kceaton being the most recent.which is a shame because he is a righteous dude who has the courage to speak from the heart and has often attempted to speak to you with open-ness and honesty.
many here have and you have responded with arrogance,condescension and a self=righteousness that is annoying as it is petty and small.

and all this because you got your authority from a book.
that somehow you have gleaned the mysteries of the cosmos and people who do not garner their understandings from the same,tangible and physical BOOK are somehow automatically wrong.

you are not perfect.
your understandings are flawed.
your arguments are watered-down copy-pasted weak sauce and the majority of the time not even your own.
you are a child who needs to grow up.

and if you ever even suggest that i turn people from christ again,you will be on my ignore list as well.i tire of dealing with your passive aggressive nature.
it has become dull and boring.
grow up shiny.

(sorry for the lengthy rant everybody, but seeing shiny insinuate that i have turned people from christ just set me off)

LOL! So if you get google hits, that makes it true?

Hmm...

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+is+satan

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!! SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=George+W+Bush+Satan

SATAN IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+is+sexy

Rock me, Sexy Jesus!

Dude, seriously, nobody is buying your BS. How in the hell can Obamacare cost millions of jobs when it's not in effect fully, and unemployment is decreasing? *DECREASING!!!* You have no evidence. You have dubious claims based of crackpot analysis that are there to reinforce your delusions about reality. You WANT to believe that's true, and a quick google search where a bunch of rightwing think tanks and media outlets threw up a bunch of crap reinforced it. I could try to google stuff to show it's helped CREATE jobs if I wanted to on liberal think tank pages, but I'm not going to, because I don't have a preconceived outcome I want to be true. If Obamacare works, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't. For the record, I'm not even saying it won't cost jobs. I'm saying it's ridonculous to describe the impacts of a program that's not even fully implemented yet on a complex economic system!

So I guess Reagan was a dirty commie for bailing out Chrysler?! You're arguments are absurd! Your solution to our economic problems was to let Chrysler and GM go bankrupt and balloon unemployment beyond the 10% that it was?!?! Do you have any idea how macroeconomics actually work?! There's a reason why Reagan and Obama both bailed out Chrysler. Had Reagan been president, he would have bailed GM out, too. You know why? Because thankfully, both men when push comes to shove threw ideology out the window on the really big things and did what was best for the country. Lord knows I objected on principle that the banks got bailed out, but it had to be done for the good of everyone. Here we are, several years from those decisions, and unemployment is declining, and the economy is rebounding. You can link as many right wing articles as you want as snarky as you wish to be, but guess what - the policies worked. And I'd say the same thing to liberals who objected to the bank bailouts, too. But the bottom line is the policies are working.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Sorry, but you're wrong.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.
Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.
These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.

P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.

Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.

These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.


P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.




>> ^heropsycho:

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

I was a overweight person like the people you decided to criticize, so yes I do get worked up when assholes say off the cuff retarded shit that once hit me close to my heart. To be overweight is to be constantly brutalized based on the fact you are larger then another. One memory that serves at the moment is a cashier when I was 15, she was mad at me for whatever reason but said " shut up you fat fuck" as if being fat as some how offensive or whatnot.

The stupid sh it you said did hit a notch.

so eat your own shit for a night and fuck your own asshole. Then douche yourself with bleach and be a better person.

Fuck you.



In reply to this comment by Phreezdryd:
>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
This family ate the Klumps.
At least he's getting some exercise?

Seriously ? a high school style joke about his weight ? are you one of those dicks that get at people by criticizing their body weight ?
Weak sauce man, fuckin' weak.

Seriously? You get worked up over such a lame comment? Are you one of those fantastic people that never criticized anybody or typed anything that wasn't pure gold?

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
This family ate the Klumps.
At least he's getting some exercise?

Seriously ? a high school style joke about his weight ? are you one of those dicks that get at people by criticizing their body weight ?
Weak sauce man, fuckin' weak.

Seriously? You get worked up over such a lame comment? Are you one of those fantastic people that never criticized anybody or typed anything that wasn't pure gold?

>> ^Phreezdryd:

This family ate the Klumps.
At least he's getting some exercise?


Seriously ? a high school style joke about his weight ? are you one of those dicks that get at people by criticizing their body weight ?

Weak sauce man, fuckin' weak.

Your Avatar is pretty weak sauce to be honest.

>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

Seth is not Family Guy. Saying whatever he wants on the show is one thing. They don't seem to pull any punches there, but for him to go out and smear someone in person, takes it to another level, and really he's too smart for that.

Moreover, the context of where he was here. In an interview with basically tabloid news, the host trying his best to egg him on to say something he might later regret.
>> ^messenger:

I guess I don't know enough about the context, or I'm not connecting the dots. Care to help?>> ^gwiz665:
Consider the context.
>> ^messenger:
Weak sauce from MacFarlane. I'm with Morgan on this one 100%. Since when does Family Guy have to apologize for crossing the line? Is there any other reason to watch that show besides seeing how much too far they take a joke? They make an art out of it. I'm disappointed MacFarlane is that afraid of Stewart, and of his publicist too, apparently.