>> ^westy:

Nice story ,
having said that if i was in a war zone id rather not have some guy next to me playing tunes on the trumpit.


You have to remember that this was WW2 and there were no thermal scopes, infrared, ect... So when it got dark it was pretty much a stalemate between sides and they would wait til dawn to resume fighting. On an off chance they would attack under the light of flares but that was few and far between. So playing music didn't necessarily expose you or your mates to enemy fire.

Can't make his point clear, so he continues to ramble on endlessly in hopes of accidentally making it...which he never quite does.

While some of this is coherent thought, it skews into the preach zone which then becomes corrupted by political leanings one way or another.

The real problem can be highlighted by using this person as example A -- he's right, and if you don't agree with everything he says, you're wrong. It's this exact kind of thinking on both sides that keeps everything at stalemate, yet everyone seems to ignore it. It's easier to latch onto the ideas you agree with than to consider the other side. The REAL fact is -- contrary to everything this man says -- is that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but neither side is willing to meet half way...so the problem continues to manifest itself.

I can see this in half the posts I read on sift...the most vocal arguments come from the far left or the far right...neither of which even listen to the other side, they merely use the time reading the others points to think up their equally useless responses.

I've never once touched a blizzard game for better or worse. I knew if i touched WOW or Starcrack, I would be addicted to the game forever. So when I was watching this to kill time I watched it with no real understanding. I knew the robot thingies were fighting bugs, and both players had high APM and were considered allstar players. But as the game progress continued, I was genuinely entertained.

Each one of these guys basically crippled each other to near stalemate, and still fought to the bitter and epic ending of unbelievable awesomeness. Lets just say Old M. Night couldn't pull off this kinda ending.

>> ^marinara:

deficit commission is actually bipartisan.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/62034
points 2-4 are actually democratic positions. Am I wrong?
if I am excuse the downvote


Yes, you're wrong. Dem's do NOT want to end Social Security, nor are they wanting to extend Bush's tax cut for top %1.

The deficit commission is "bipartisan", but it's a total joke. Obama put it together because of senate GOP fillibuster/stalemate, but GOP isn't doing shit even from within the "bipartisan" commission.


(ps: Linking to Jane Hamsher / Firedog is a bit, uggh. There's a reason they're called the "Firebaggers". They like Obama about as much as Michelle Bachmann's Teabagger party does.)

^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/LarsaruS" title="member since December 27th, 2009" class="profilelink">LarsaruS
So you don't like the ufc.. because you can't paralyze people? ..?!?!?
It's supposed to be sport fighting. Not televised manslaughter.
There are rules in place to protect people's lives and careers.
Perfect example. Mark Coleman Vs. Allan Goes at min 1:55
Throwing knees to Goes' head while he's already in a choke on the ground.
Goes' brain is starved of oxygen while it's being bounced around his skull.
His neck is cranked and being compressed even more with each blow.
Goes was knocked out thankfully. If not:
1- His skull would've been busted open
2- His neck would've been snapped



Coleman was not choking or neckcranking Goes. It is physically impossible for you to effectively choke someone close to your body and land knees at the same time, especially since a large portion of the power in a knee strike comes from your core. Knee strikes from this position should be perfectly legal, to reduce the amount of stalling and stalemates that you frequently see in the UFC. What the ufc has done is neutralize what was previously an extremely disadvantageous position for guy on the bottom.

From a spectator standpoint Pride fights are more intense to watch. Due to the lack of ruling against head kicks while the opponent is on the ground, the grappling stalemates common in the UFC are fewer.

Here's Joe Rogan's opinion on the matter. It's not too absolute, but he points out benefits of both: http://blog.joerogan.net/archives/1772

this show bores me.
i used to find it funny and entertaining but now it is just the same old shit every time.
some person calls up...
tries to use a literary hybrid to back up their claims of god.
the hosts vivisects this poorly thought out premise but due to the fact that the caller is not AWARE that their premise is based on a literary hybrid and believes it to be factual (i am looking at YOU fundamentalists),they get spanked pretty soundly.
now maybe they should get spanked..they did after all call the show and not vice versa..but that does not change the fact that this show has become a skipping record.

the fundamental core of this argument is stalemated by design.
you cannot disprove faith..nor can you prove it.
the only time it is even possible is if a person of faith bases their entire paradigm based on the bible.the bible is organic.we can touch,feel and most importantly READ the bible.
if you can read it..you can argue it.
sadly most people have not read the very text that they base their faith on (i am looking at your again fundamentalist) and they fall into the trap because most atheists i know HAVE read the bible.
it is actually a very good tool.
to use the very thing many people have based their faith on to rip the the wool off their eyes but i have never...not once..seen this work to diminish someones faith.
maybe faith in their religion.the dogma they grew up with but not the core of that faith.

so watching this program has become something akin to watching turtles fuck.
yeah..it is interesting for a few minutes but then it just gets repetitive and boring.

Can't find a replacement. Here's the transcript in case some lonely wanderer wonders what this video was about:

Oct 14, 2008
"MADDOW: Coming up, Academy Award-winning director, Oliver Stone, joins us here in the studio to talk about his new film “W” or “double-u” if you‘re one of those east coast media elitists. Hopefully, I can persuade Mr. Stone to share his opinions about the life and career of President George W. Bush, but you know how shy Mr. Stone is. I will do what I can.

First though, it‘s time for a few underreported holy mackerel stories in today‘s news. Ready for the first one? Quote, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.” What? Huh? What I said was, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.”

Does that make any sense to you? Yes, me neither. And neither did it make sense to the judge, the military officers, or lawyers working one of the tribunals at Guantanamo recently, when an American paid Arabic translator dictated to them that nonsense sentence, as if it made sense in English.

Does the phrase “lost in translation” spring to mind? Five key defendants charged in conjunction with 9/11 are moving towards jury trials. The U.S. military lawyers assigned to defend them say that translation services have been done so on the cheap that they estimate about half of what a defendant stated in the hearing room was mistranslated and a ¼ of what was said in English in the courtroom never made it back to the defendant. There are standards for these sorts of things, you know, at, say, federal courts or the international criminal courts but at Guantanamo, apparently? Not so much.

Remember the case there about Osama bin Laden‘s alleged driver? That actual phrase, “bin Laden‘s driver” was repeatedly translated as “bin Laden‘s lawyer.” What‘s the difference?

And time is running out for American troops to be in Iraq legally. The United Nation‘s mandate that allows our troops to be there expires at the end of this year. What happens when that mandate expires? Well, the Bush administration has long expressed confidence that the Iraqi government and the White House could sign a status-of-forces agreement—a country-to-country, one-on-one plan for keeping our troops there.

But after months of a stalemate and trying to reach such an agreement, one of the Iraqi vice presidents this week finally said that he doesn‘t think it‘s going to happen in time. So, that means after December 31st, it will be illegal for American troops to be on Iraqi streets.

Karen DeYoung from “The Washington Post” reports today that American officials are looking for a plan B if the status-of-forces negotiations really don‘t work out. What is plan B? Apparently, the Bush administration might try to get that U.N. mandate extended. That would require a vote in the U.N. Security Council where Russia holds a veto and Russia, you may recall, would just love an opportunity like that to shove us our locker and steal our lunch money.

So that makes me think “B” in that plan stands for “bad,” as in if that‘s your only plan, that‘s a bad plan. Karen DeYoung suggests that a few other plan Bs might be in the works as well, though Plan B-1 - I guess we‘d call it. A plan B-1 would be, quote, “a simple handshake agreement between Bush and the Iraqi prime minister to keep troops around until the next president takes over and starts negotiating again.”

A handshake deal? You would ride 150,000 American lives on a handshake deal? Maybe I could suggest a plan C, “C” as in “see you.” If the Iraqi government doesn‘t want us to stay enough to sign a deal for to us stay, how about we leave?"

@geesussfreak.
either you didnt read my entire post or you were offering a helping hand.
either system is flawed if taken to its extreme.
both have their inherent advantages and disadvantages.
game theory espouses the harnessing of mans selfish nature to create an equilibrium and was used almost exclusively during the cold war.
so while it did create a stalemate it also promoted a protracted and prolonged conflict.
on the other hand,co-operation can reap benefits that are much more quickly manifested yet takes a certain thing called "trust" that game theory was never really able to resolve.
i use these examples to illuminate my previous post.
sometimes stalemate is the only option and is necessary,other times it is co-operation that brings the biggest rewards.

i would like to know where this system of pure individual rights exists?
is it a country?a city?township?
where on planet earth is this place of pure individual rights?
said the spider to the fly......

I've always found this facinating - the idea that North America is divided into 9 subcultures already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America

I think we'd all be much happier if we split along cultural lines... conservatives could try it their way in the south (and I'd move north), liberals could try it their way, and we'd all learn the lessons from each instead of this constant 2 party stalemate.

Makes sense Russia thinks a breakup is imminant because it's pretty much exactly what happened to them in 1990 minus the Glasnost. Failed war in Afganistan, economy crashed then break up... few would've believed it just a few years beforehand.

You must consider yourself pretty clever, but are you clever enough to realize that Rooks, Knights, Bishops and even the Queen are pawns? Its true that a Queen is more powerful than a Pawn, and certainly what better way is there to entice someone to your ends than by dangling the promise of promotion over their heads?

It's lasted me so far, and done its job in things. I'm not getting anything out of supporting Health Care Reform in USA. Thanks to Mass Health in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I already get the best health care. I would fairly wager, its better in content and amount then alot of other plans in other states. But experience and observation has taught me, that no one should be without health care coverage. Be they healthy or not. Young or not. Poor or not. Best way to deal with cancer, is to spot it early. Best way to fight alot of the diseases that ravage humanity (like AIDS, or H1N1), is to spot it early and eliminate it. Best way to deal with Depression, is to have more therapists who are trained to diagnosis it quickly, and work on someone to heal a deadly wound.

You want to play little games with other people's health?

But you are wrong to think that the Queen is the most powerful piece...the King is, for even though he can move but a space at a time, he has convinced every other member of the board to risk their lives in the service of his ends.

No, the King is not the most powerful. He's the most integrated component of the whole. Since, to win, a King must have one other peice. If both sides have just a King, its a forever stalemate. And obviously, you've never played Nightmare Chess from Wizards of the Coast.

So I guess I'll ask you again; how confident are you that you aren't playing the role of the pawn, spending, wasting, and even risking your life trying to obtain some carrot danging in front of your face...be it women, knowledge, wealth, fame, power - all for the service of some king, who has his own agenda; one who equates the value of your life with that of an ordinary chess piece?

As I stated before, I'm not a pawn. To be a pawn, one must have something to gain. I myself have nothing to gain, nor lose, regardless of how health care reform turns out in the USA. Count me a liberal. But I do get concern with the health of my country men (and women). Their finanical well-being is key to solving this ressession that the USA is in. But if health care contuines on its current track, the amount Americans pay for health care will be about double what they do now. They cant afford it now. What planet do conservatives/republicans live on, that makes them think, Americans will afford it anymore in five years?

Mr. Obama, is not a King, nor a dictator. He's been holding himself responsible for his actions and words. Something the previous president could not accomplish. Might be one of the reasons, republicans arent in the White House.

Now, what if that chess peice you were talking about, held within it, a micro-chip containing the Cure to Cancer. How valuable would that be? How quickly do you think I would become a multi-TRILLIONAIRE?

"Groundbreaking for the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966. The North Tower (1) was completed in December 1970 and the South Tower (2) was finished in July 1971" -Wiki
----> 6 years to build em

"Initial plans, made public in 1961, identified a site along the East River for the World Trade Center.[6] As a bi-state agency, the Port Authority required approval from both the governors of New York and New Jersey in order to undertake new projects. New Jersey Governor Robert B. Meyner objected to New York getting a $335 million project.[7] Toward the end of 1961, negotiations with outgoing New Jersey Governor Meyner reached a stalemate." -Wiki
----> 6 years to plan for em

6+6=12...

Under optimum conditions and not counting any cleanup time/politics regarding the memorial site it should take at LEAST 12 years based on the initial build. How disingenuous can you be?? Do 30 seconds worth of research Glenn Beck. Until then, stop feeding America your lies.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^curiousity:
You left out the brainwashed people...
You guys should try having a more open and critical mind, there are people out there who think different about politics, don't take the easy way out.


I enjoyed the passive aggressiveness of your response. Thanks!

This was a flippant remark. Let me explain. A "shallow, or lacking in seriousness" comment that was made because it was late at night and I was tired. I will try to make the flippancy of future remarks more noticeable, should they be flippant.

Did it really look like an effort to have add a serious comment? I'll try to make up for the misunderstanding with a more serious response. I find it ineffective and irritating to discuss health care because it is rare for people to sit down and discuss a topic thoroughly. Near impossible on the internet. Why do you believe it? What information are you using? Is that information reliable? Has that information been interpreted or affected by how the it was obtained that skewed it in a direction and can you correct for it... and agree on the correction? Just look at some of the arguments above. Try to remove yourself from your personal beliefs and read both sides from a critical point of view. There are many different issues being discussed and people are fairly set in their beliefs. This won't end in a rational discussion because people approach it as an argument. In an argument, someone wins and someone loses (wins and loses broken up into partials.) However, on the internet, arguments usually end up in stalemates.

Let's be honest here. Although my original comment was flippant, there was a twinge of seriousness there. There are brainwashed people who are against free public health care. I'm referring to the people who get information from their favorite tv/radio host or some personally-respected person and believes them verbatim. No effort to investigate, no curiosity at all. That's fine because we can't be curious about everything, but those people will hold onto their beliefs, pushing them as facts, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Of course, these people exists on all sides of an issue.

As for military medical, I spent 6 years in the Navy. Most of the medical was atrocious. There were a few good doctors and you did your best to become friends with them. Of course it is just anecdotal evidence, but there is quite a bit of it.

Take anything and everything you see in the media with a grain of salt. While it may hold truth, it is truth through a filtered lens.

During the Bush era there were mass protests from thousands to tens of thousands across the country regarding everything from election fraud for the first election run, to anti-torture and anti-war rallies later in the administration.

Few were covered in the new media to any substantive degree. A short image here or there, but never anything in depth regarding a pro/con discussion over their protester grievances. Nothing. In the 1960's these protests were reported on. They were broadcast. The anti-war/Vietnam movement was highly vocal and highly publicized in comparison.

The media, through the puppet-strings of the powers-that-be show you what they want you to see. Unbiased reporting does not exist in 'for profit' media driven by 'image' over 'substance'.

Remember the events surrounding the so-called Russian invasion of Georgia? In the immediate aftermath, Russia was made into the aggressive power. The media ate up the story and broadcast it far and wide. Later it was proven that Russia was not in this alone. The US (Bush Administration) through oil deals was making an agressive resource/power grab through a major supply route. Russia did not like this. Georgia shot first. Russia then trampled Georgia with overbearing and far too much force. The US supplied Georgia with knowledge, logistics, and military hardware. Did you happen to notice the Georgian soldiers in the media broadcasts were wearing US variant fatigues and wielding M16's? Well. there you have it. The truth later came out and was exposed to a degree, and the 'power chess-game' effectively hit a stalemate. Stories of an embedded dead US soldier and another captured were quickly buried. The media quickly focused on other subjects and it disappeared from the lime light.

Regarding Iran.. these protest are real and are not sponsored by the CIA (though they certainly may have their fingers in the pie). However, the coverage of the events to direct public opinion in the west, is most assuredly tainted and smells bad.

We so quickly forget all the dead Burmese, Tibetans, and all those 'we' willfully ignored in Darfur. The US is a nation that takes action when it's financial/economic/resource interests are at stake and will spare no expense to exert it's force in such circumstances. However if it involves a backwater nation with negligible resources, or lacking of strategic value. Then they get but a word or two, a mention at the UN, and a piddly budget allotment that wouldn't be enough to keep a single small town public US school functioning for a year.

I'm a person who takes a long time and prepares extensively before making big decisions. But I'm almost incapable of caring about smaller decisions... where precisely to eat, what precisely to wear, whether to go to a small event or not, etc.. So to an extent my default lifestyle is 'go with the flow'.

Women who do care about the 'average' decision or who are more disciplined and orderly about smaller stuff get stressed out by me. 'How about (random restaurant I like), or (unrelated random restaurant)... no? well I literally just need food and would like to get that food while hanging out with you, the person who is more particular, so maybe you should decide... oh, you don't know what you want... okay...'

I hated constantly getting stalemated in the middle of a completely inconsequential decision in my last relationship. Either be decisive or 'go with the flow'!