Only two? With that kinda cash I could think way bigger than that.
>> ^probie:

What would I do with 85 billion dollars?
Two chicks at the same time, man.

>> ^probie:

What would I do with 85 billion dollars?
Two chicks at the same time, man.


You could buy every man on earth two chicks at the same time.

>> ^Quboid:


Why wouldn't it be?
An attack ad is one that attacks your opponent, rather than, oh I don't know, TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COUNTRY.
What's that about creating jobs? No, not the other guy destroying jobs, you creating them. What's that about taxes? No, not the other guy not paying enough, you reforming them, or not. What's that about foreign policy? No, not how the other guy would or wouldn't declare war on Iran, what would you do? What's that about the environment? No, not what the other guy drives, what you will do about clean air. What's that about the deficit? No, not how the other guy will increase it, how you will decrease it.
Jesus Christ, it's July and I'm jaded by this fucking election already. I like Obama, relatively speaking, but this is negative campaigning bullshit and I'm rather concerned that people can't even see that any more. Imagine how pissed off I'd be if I lived in the US!


Agreed, it is by far the worst aspect of American politics. I think there should be an advertising regulation covering political ads that you cannot mention your opponent, all you can do is promote your own policies, although that would probably violate the first amendment in the US. Maybe just have the candidates sign an agreement?

>> ^Solid_Muldoon:

Why is telling the truth considered an attack?


Why wouldn't it be?

An attack ad is one that attacks your opponent, rather than, oh I don't know, TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COUNTRY.

What's that about creating jobs? No, not the other guy destroying jobs, you creating them. What's that about taxes? No, not the other guy not paying enough, you reforming them, or not. What's that about foreign policy? No, not how the other guy would or wouldn't declare war on Iran, what would you do? What's that about the environment? No, not what the other guy drives, what you will do about clean air. What's that about the deficit? No, not how the other guy will increase it, how you will decrease it.

Jesus Christ, it's July and I'm jaded by this fucking election already. I like Obama, relatively speaking, but this is negative campaigning bullshit and I'm rather concerned that people can't even see that any more. Imagine how pissed off I'd be if I lived in the US!

Your probably right I admit I am a bit ignorant of this particular sport, and after watching it again there wasn't any real time between when the ref. got there and when the ball hits them. So the ref. very may have been in the process of telling the guy to get up or get off the field. I guess I just got the impression the first time I watched it that the ref. was basically taking the guys word that he was injured and was fixing to issue a penalty. I could be wrong in this case though because not enough time elapsed for the ref. to even make a decision. Still my final word is like or not he was right the guy was obviously faking it. And the only fair call in my mind would have been to penalize them both for unsportsmanlike conduct.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.
But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?
I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!


Ok I'll preface this with saying I've been a soccer referee for the last 15 years. When I'm confronted by this situation I confront the individual and I get them up. If they don't want to get up I call on their coach and he has to leave the field, and his team plays short a man because of it (unless they want to sub which if he's faking probably not) and I add time if it's necessary. The players do nothing, they have no rights to grab him, pick him up, or tell me he's faking, it's my job to deal with the "injury," manage the clock and get the game going again.
So I don't know what you're saying about the officials knew the "fucked up" what in the world did they do wrong? He did exactly what he was supposed to. He went over to the player and told him to get to his feet, big deal get on with the game. Beckham is causing problems that makes the referees job harder cause now their could be a serious altercation after the match, possibly with serious consequences.

>> ^Auger8:

I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.
But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?
I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.

>>




Ok I'll preface this with saying I've been a soccer referee for the last 15 years. When I'm confronted by this situation I confront the individual and I get them up. If they don't want to get up I call on their coach and he has to leave the field, and his team plays short a man because of it (unless they want to sub which if he's faking probably not) and I add time if it's necessary. The players do nothing, they have no rights to grab him, pick him up, or tell me he's faking, it's my job to deal with the "injury," manage the clock and get the game going again.

So I don't know what you're saying about the officials knew the "fucked up" what in the world did they do wrong? He did exactly what he was supposed to. He went over to the player and told him to get to his feet, big deal get on with the game. Beckham is causing problems that makes the referees job harder cause now their could be a serious altercation after the match, possibly with serious consequences.

I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.

But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?

I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!

Why would you do that to Ameripig?

>> ^oritteropo:

What do you mean by "people like you"? Who are you lumping me in with? How does it affect you, personally, if politicians in a far off land make decisions that neither of us would agree with in our homelands?
Please either mark your other profile comment as private or edit it to remove my comment or delete it, I didn't want my comment public or I would not have ticked the private box.
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^oritteropo:
Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.
And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.



Why does it have to affect me personally? I mean it affects me, but not directly (thankfully I dont live in one of those countries where it would), though there is no denying that the US has a huge influence on my country aswell. I can think around the next corner. I know how decisions in foreign policy of a superpower affect people on the whole world. You can see it every day. You want to tell me that it doesnt affect the whole world how the US has treated the middle east for the last 5+ decades? Do you really think they hate the US and their supporters because they are "free"? Do you think they wont forget that the US and other western countries supported the "Israelis" all the way where they are today? What would you do if someone took a good chunk of your property and just give it someone else? And a few decades later all you have left is only a spot for you to sleep and defecate on, because everything else has been taken by those, and you are treated like criminals by them and the majority of the world, because they control media in said superpower and you dont. Who would you blame for that? Only the one taking your land or also the one who allowed them to take it and continue to support them?
Or are you hiding behind your hypocrite ethics and moral by saying "thats not an excuse"?

The Vietnam war, based on lies, the attack on Iraq 2003, based on lies, etc, etc, etc, didnt affect the world??? It didnt affect me? How can you think that? Do you really think other regimes dont look at the USA and think to themselves, if they are the biggest hypocrites on this earth, why cant we be? There are enough examples for that, even in Europe. European governments suddenly made as bad and audacious decisions in foreign and internal policies and were inspired by the sudden and open showing of totalitarianism. Some even follow the US like they are their lapdogs. That doesnt affect me or anyone in the world?

Sorry, but if you dont realize how a superpower like the US acting with such massive and audacious hypocrisy, for every human on this earth with an IQ higher than 50 to see, then I have nothing else to say.

The thing was an hour long, and believe it or not, I've seen lots of TV shows of people giving their stories of wacky supernatural/mystical things that happened to them, and I was pretty sure seeing one more wouldn't tip the balance, just like watching another Donald Trump stump speech would lead me to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. My first comment was about what you had said about God having patience. My second comment was about my own theory of the link between mental trauma and mystical experience. Neither required me to spend an hour watching it. I'm sure you're probably sick of people lumping you in with all the crazy religious people we see in the world, so why do it to me? I mentioned that I hadn't watched it just in case my prediction was wrong (seems it might have been -- still haven't watched it), in which case you could ignore it or politely tell me so.

The reason young people and atheists (I'm not young, BTW) might not be interested in seeing a show like this is that it's utterly unreliable. Young people in the West are more skilled in critical thinking today than ever before, and atheists are a self-selecting group of people who require reliable evidence for things. To both groups, an anecdotal testimony recreation on TV is one of the least reliable sources of evidence. Your story, SB, as you've presented it here, is more credible than this one, and I've spent many, many hours reading, thinking and commenting about it, so cut me a little slack, will ya? No promises, but I do now intend to watch it all and comment at some time. Relatively busy the next several weeks

Sorry to lump you in, and yes I do understand that time is fleeting. I am not exactly jazzed to watch many of the videos I see here on the sift, but I will if there is potential for a good conversation. It's just a frustration that I encounter that many people are unwilling to consider what you're saying, or indeed even read it. It's probably just a cultural thing. I think more and more people have ADD and we are programmed in the culture to need instant gratification. In any case, I do not say you are like that. You have engaged me and considered what I have said, if not only to falsify it, but that's okay. I have enjoyed our conversations.

I'm not operating in any way towards any god. I don't believe in them, remember? Your specific God cannot exist as described, and I am so sceptical of any other gods that I live as if they don't exist either. You are operating under the faulty premise that I will accept something other than empirical evidence as the foundation of anything I believe. What makes you think I (or any other sceptic) would suddenly change my approach now, when it comes to arguably the single most important fact of my existence? Why would I lower the bar of acceptable evidence when the stakes are the highest? Even if I took a "just-in-case" approach, and did all the things the Bible said, I wouldn't believe in any of the things I was doing. In fact, as I consider that Christianity would make me a worse person, it would be selfish of me to choose to definitely hurt people on the off chance it might save my hide.

I agree that my God, as you currently understand Him, could not exist. Neither am I expecting you to lower your standards; I am only asking you to consider the issue rationally. If God exists, the entire Universe is empirical evidence of His existence. Is this not the case? So logically, trying to find empirical evidence of God is as easy as looking outside, or in a mirror. You happen to think its plausible that this is all happenstance, which I think requires quite a bit more faith than belief in a supernatural creation. I am sure you will disagree because you're a materialist, but your material had to come from somewhere. The main point is, trying to test for God is a fairly absurd idea. How would you do that?

I don't think you should take a "just in case" approach either. Becoming a Christian for fire insurance and nothing else is almost never a genuine conversion. You need to be born again, which is a supernatural transformation of your entire being. Anything short of that and you have no salvation.

When I was a young teen, and I was losing my faith (which had been absolute as a child). It was a bit distressing, and I used to pray that fairly often. I got no answer, and eventually forgot about God. I've always been interested in the concept of faith, but I've never again believed.

This happens to quite a number of catholics. The reason being, catholicism is very nearly a pagan religion, and it's an actual miracle if any Catholics do find God. There are more than a few that are saved, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages. Only God knows their hearts.

I am. And for me, truth is borne out by empirical evidence and personal experience, not preachers, or ancient fantasy books of dubious origin. I see exactly zero evidence for God. It's not even an interesting theory for me because it only explains, and doesn't predict.

God predicts the future. That's part of what makes the bible credible, is the literal fulfillment of prophecy. The nation of israel, for example, being reformed after 2000 years was predicted by prophecy. Such a thing has never happened before, that a people retained their racial purity and cultural heritage after being scattered all over the world, and then brought back to the same spot to form their own country again. The destruction of Jerusalem was also predicted in advance. As was the coming of the Messiah. There are many of these.

If God makes a box, he doesn't have to live inside the box. He can be eternal, but the word "eternal" itself is bound in time. Maybe you meant "omnipresent?" I'm particular about definitions.

He is omnipresent, yes. Eternal is timelessness..what it means to have no beginning and no ending.

OK. I've done it. I've put my money where my mouth is, and I actually got on my knees next to the computer, put my hands together, and prayed for God to reveal himself. I also told him that I was more interested in truth than in comfort, and if he revealed himself to be true, that I would use his guidance to find and follow the best path I could take in life. I used no biblical terms like "saviour" or "lord" because this is about me and God. If he wants to lead me to the Bible, he can do that. I asked him to be clear -- a double rainbow won't cut it. I was sincere. Any predictions?

My prediction is that God will honor your prayer if you are sincere in your desire to know Him, and the truth about Him. I think He will probably test the genuineness of your prayer. To God, talk is cheap. Anyone can say those words, but only those who mean them will find Him. He may offer you a choice that requires you to soften your heart and do something you wouldn't normally do. So be aware of that in the days to come. If you want my ultimate prediction, I believe that He will save you. God bless.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Hybrid:


Moral of the story. Use polls wisely and always think about the long term consequences.


Ya, I think that was my point, in a round about way. Well said, confusing, but well said

I call BS.>> ^Hybrid:

Yes, AND I have good teeth!>> ^kymbos:
You're BRITISH?!?

Yes, AND I have good teeth!>> ^kymbos:

You're BRITISH?!?