The individual interviewed quickly moved the subject to health care, which he had obviously spent time thinking about and discussing with others. All the questions from there on are along the same line of inquiry. His answers walk the interviewer through only so far, leading into other questions the interviewer may choose to ask on the same subject. The interviewer tries to be aggressive, but, if you watch it again, he's very early on led into an area where this kid knows his stuff.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Interviewer fell right into his hands?

The interviewer was the one dictating where the conversation went. His questions got more and more specific until he got the answers he was looking for. He did the job of a great interviewer: We know exactly how the interviewee feels about his candidate and why he feels that way.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
has a pretty good handle on current policy. interviewer fell right into his hands.

I never understood how Sen. Clinton would enforce a mandatory universal healthcare system. Anybody have info about this? (... fining people who don't buy into it? jail time if they don't pay those fines? seems like libertarians would crap their pants about this.)

Hey, I thought of you and changed my avatar as well.

Nice...

Oh, I see. For now, as tentative as both rights feel, I think they can be. Again, we were talking about wiretaps and he kicked in guns, and I was trying to thread them together while keeping on the fourth amendment topic. Sorry for sounding convoluted. You should hear me in real life when I don't have the benefit of a backspace key!

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
It sounded like you were saying that you couldn't have the fourth amendment and the second amendment existing in harmony at the same time. That's what I don't get.

The video was about Wiretapping, which is a fourth ammendment issue. Redsky brought up guns, which is a second amendment issue. If he wished discuss the two together then you have to combine the right to own weapons and the right to privacy, that's why I came up with the government making warantless searches your home for guns. Admittedly, a flimsy reach, but most of my thinking is like that

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't get it. Why would the government search everyone's homes?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Redsky-

I think there are other threads that cover the second amendment issue of the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll keep out of those because a friend of mine labeled me a "black powder liberal" on that issue.

This is a fourth amendment issue which of course states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

If you'd wish to mix the two, applying FISA and Wiretapping to gun control, you'd get something like the following scenario: The government having the right to enter EVERYONES home, without your knowledge and without court permission, to search for firearms. Would this be acceptable to you?

Yeah, I'm just really relieved that I wasn't the only one that believed that video didn't belong on the Sift.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Amen, Brother.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
*discuss

I don't want to rain on everybody's parade here, but this is definitely porn, guys. Hilarious, yes; terrible, yes; but still porn.

Oh my god, YES. It's so much fun to troll people that deserve it once in a while (I'm a bad person).

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Butthurt is my second favorite thing to say to someone when they're butthurt. Few sentences will piss a man off more than he already is than: "Don't get all butthurt."


In reply to this comment by JAPR:
If you'd stop being so butthurt about things, maybe you'd realize I was talking about you claiming to not understand why people downvoted. How many times must I hit you before you behave?

Also, relevant: http://www.videosift.com/video/911-The-explosive-reality#comment-289485
As you can see, there's a very good reason people downvote things like this: they're crap.

Bummer, now what am I going to do on Friday nights.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Thanks, Dooder.

...and I forgive you. Just stop coming to my house and throwing pebbles at my window.

50? Nice. I think I'll take a little wander through your published to celebrate.

E: there was a whole bunch of stuff I'd already voted for, and even more that I watched and enjoyed but didn't. Don't know what my problem is! Congrats.

Congratulations on the gold, just put up your goldie post*.

*I'm not responsible for any of it. So says my lawyer.

Your avatar is a photo of you and your profile read like a personal add...

"6'5" 240lbs - Blue eyes - Brown Hair - Conservative - Grew up on the Beach, moved to the mountains. - Love playing Water Polo and Volleyball, riding Moto X, and spending time in the outdoors. -"

Dude. *Shakes head* Dude... If you ever get roasted man it is going to hysterical.

some jokes are better said with a straight face. i figured those who know how critical of ALL religions I am would get a laugh out of the comment

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
A joke? Oh. Heh. (You didn't include a smiley face you hypocrite

In reply to this comment by qruel:
every religion has started off as a cult.(as based on definitions #1,2,4,5,6,7

i don't agree with definition #8 to be used in the context we are talking about because it uses as it's basis "a system for treating human sickness" I think definition #6 is more appropriate

"a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

I won't comment on the rest because my statement was a joke.


In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Here we go again.

From your own definition: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

Do ALL religions fall under the umbrella of that statement? How about this:"any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific."

Dictionary.com

Do you have any facts to support the claim that "Scientology is one of the worlds most loving caring, compassionate religions which brings people together." ???

Seems to me that there are far more loving, caring, compassionate religions out there. The kind who spend countless dollars and resources helping people in need. The Church of Scientology just tries it's hardest to make itself look good and sue the pants off anyone who stands in the way of that goal. Sure, they bring people together... by hypnotizing them!

...and how come all these other less compassionate churches don't have to fight with the government to receive Tax Exempt status?



In reply to this comment by qruel:
You people have no idea what your talking about. Scientology is one of the worlds most loving caring, compassionate religions which brings people together.

NEWSFLASH: ALL RELIGIONS ARE CULTS !

acceptance of a religion from the masses is the only difference between a religion being a cult or not.

CULT http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

every religion has started off as a cult.(as based on definitions #1,2,4,5,6,7

i don't agree with definition #8 to be used in the context we are talking about because it uses as it's basis "a system for treating human sickness" I think definition #6 is more appropriate

"a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

I won't comment on the rest because my statement was a joke.


In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Here we go again.

From your own definition: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

Do ALL religions fall under the umbrella of that statement? How about this:"any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific."

Dictionary.com

Do you have any facts to support the claim that "Scientology is one of the worlds most loving caring, compassionate religions which brings people together." ???

Seems to me that there are far more loving, caring, compassionate religions out there. The kind who spend countless dollars and resources helping people in need. The Church of Scientology just tries it's hardest to make itself look good and sue the pants off anyone who stands in the way of that goal. Sure, they bring people together... by hypnotizing them!

...and how come all these other less compassionate churches don't have to fight with the government to receive Tax Exempt status?



In reply to this comment by qruel:
You people have no idea what your talking about. Scientology is one of the worlds most loving caring, compassionate religions which brings people together.

NEWSFLASH: ALL RELIGIONS ARE CULTS !

acceptance of a religion from the masses is the only difference between a religion being a cult or not.

CULT http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Didn't you now?

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Alas! It didn't make it.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Just dropped by to spread the upvote love, brother!

An SP is a suppressive person. A PTS is a potential trouble source.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I saved it. The Church of Scientology International is ruthless when it comes to lawsuits. That's why it keeps getting taken down so quickly.

I know what KSW is. Keeping Scientology Working.

What's an SP and PTSP? Anyone?