I remember when Yahtzee was brand new on the interwebs and I thought he was the second coming. Since then, he's had his ups, a very long and boring down streak, and some in-betweens. He seems to have had a renaissance in quality more recently, and this review is particularly good, but it only affirms my opinion that he shouldn't be a slave to the review format. I think he'd be best employed just being free to rant about whatever gaming or game-related concerns he has from week to week, since a lot of his best ones involve him making a point about a game or the state of gaming anyway, more than they are technical reviews in any sense.

Unless Darken is signing my paycheck, I answer however I damned well please. And my side business selling straw men, well, I didn't build that, Obama did.

Many on that list are Obama 'accomplishments' only for leftists.


Ears didn't end anything in Iraq, it was already happening when he took office.

He had nothing to do with Moammar and would support whoever came out on top.

The stimulus, particularly the bank bailouts, did nothing except put us in greater debt.

The Chevy Volt is a failure.

Government takeover of healthcare?...I only wish ALL the new taxes Obamacare will hit us with would happen at once, so the oblivious can experience the rotten deal and betrayal of Constitution.

FDA regulating tobacco? Another step backwards from ending Drug Prohibition.

The two UNqualified affirmative action judges added to Supreme Court.

Billions lost to green jobs scams/putting the kibosh on the Keystone pipeline.

...and so forth.

Obama running on his record? Go right ahead. It's why he's where he's at today.


>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^quantumushroom:
An "enraged" Maddow doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor is her blather worth commenting on.
It's just nice to see the left dick-punched with their own tactics, the righty version of lib lies like "trickle-down" and "tax cuts for the rich" (and calling everyone a racist).
You all think Obama has a record worth running on? Let him know. Cause even he don't believe it.
"Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama's claims about "creating jobs" with one plain and inescapable fact — "there hasn't been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office." Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost."
>> ^DarkenRahl:
Do you EVER respond to the actual video and/or discussion? You must have a side business selling straw men.
>> ^quantumushroom:
The FORMER big three networks were all liberally-biased for decades (and are still in denial about it).
It's a miracle there are as many righties as there are, with leftists controlling government schools and hollywood.
The internet has saved this nation from the former "fourth estate" who betrayed and murdered real journalism to stump for taxocrats.
There's something wrong when FOX holds one point of view but ALL THE OTHER networks parrot the same line of socialist claptrap.
Oh, I almost forgot. Man-made global warming--or even plain global warming, continues to be a sham.
And fk castro.
THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE RIGHT HAS SPOKEN!



So the answer to @DarkenRahl 's question is...no.
It cracks me up that the right thinks Obama isn't or can't run on his record. He's been running on his record since day one. The right continues to pretend to live in an alternate universe. I know you listen to fox news and they're demonstrably mis-informing people on a regular basis, but you've either missed or willfully ignored his many accomplishments
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma
gazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

Isn't that what liberals want--"dialogue" with our enemies? Nixon also created the EPA. Pobody's nerfect. The 'crook' who had no knowledge of Watergate and never ordered it, but still stepped down, unlike Slick Willie the convicted felon. Nixon is a statesman by comparison to both Bubba AND Obozo.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

You mean the guy with higher test scores than Kerry? By international law tis only a crime to torture recognized enemy soldiers of an actual nation, not IED-laying sh1tbag terrorists. If it saves American lives, I'm for torturing every last one of them.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

Hearsay and bullshit, rebuked testimony, no charges filed. Nice try, though! Nothing brings out the racist in a liberal like a Black conservative, who by the way, is an intellectual giant compared to Obozo's recent affirmative action twins. Oh, and Thomas was never accused of rape like bubba.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Facts? Where? Oh, was that your version of facts? You've failed in your mission. Utterly. I expected less--much less--from a liberal. And you delivered. Let me know when you want another keyboard beating.










>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.
"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.
I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Williams James wrote about the value of religious experience. It tries to reconcile the disparity between reason and spirituality. This is the "code" that Penn is talking about. It does imply relativism over objectivism which does not gel with people of Penn's rationalistic ilk. His intuitions simply don't allow him to have these kind of contradictions whereas religious people do and also do not see them as contradictions hence their intuitions allow for a kind of dualism between the domain of the rational and the domain of religion. The people in the court are not admitting to the fallibility of their religious beliefs yet also denying the possibility of those same beliefs manifesting in such an obvious and concrete way. So they are at peace with being able to both affirm and deny the factual nature of their metaphysical beliefs without causing disharmony provided the transgression sufficiently big or small. Put it into the realm of the civic where personal gain or other self-serving and un-"virtuous" traits can be attributed and they can happily suspend their metaphysics in favour of the rational that Penn is able to apply to all situations.

It is a kind of metaphysical schizophrenia.

United States Constitution - Article VI, paragraph 3.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I'll say a little bit about my experience here, since you brought it up @ZappaDanMan. The reason I signed up to videosift, initially, was to provide a counterpoint to the enormous amount of anti-christian videos I noticed being propelled into the top 15. There was no one here representing the other side of the argument, or posting any Christian videos, so I figured I would be that guy. However, I quickly found out that I was pretty unwelcome here, except, that is, for a few important exceptions. One is @dag. Dag has commented many times that he feels I am a valuable member of the community. Perhaps he recognizes the pitfalls of a lack of diversity in the sift economy. Quite often the comment sections, at least for anything related to religion, are echo chambers for militant anti-theists. That isn't a good thing if you want to have a broad-based appeal.

There are some individual users who have reached out to me, some openly like @enoch, most though in secret. The reason being is because from the beginning there was a concerted campaign to try to get rid of me. The first strategy was to downvote all of my videos and comments and deny my participation in the system. I am sure I am the most downvoted user of all the time. Can anyone (@lucky760) track that? There was a time when I couldn't get a video to last more than half a day. It wasn't because of the nonsense people are posting in this thread, it was because there was a group of people working against me to kill them all off. I have 18 discarded videos in my discarded posts folder. Granted not all of them were that great, but some were sincerely good. Can anyone else claim a number like that? I doubt it, because people don't generally treat eachother like that here.

When that didn't work there was another campaign waged to totally marginalize me by labeling me as a troll. Many people put me on ignore and advised others to do the same. I felt like I had entered into an Amish community and advised them to use zippers instead of buttons. That actually worked because at some point I decided to leave and stopped posting for awhile. I couldn't get any videos published, and every time I posted anywhere people would insult me, or ignore me. It was only because a few people reached out to me that I came back.

These days, it isn't as bad. People just generally ignore me and don't really downvote my videos that much. There has actually been somewhat of a softening towards me and I've gotten a few videos published, which surprised me. I also appreciate @ChaosEngine 's principaled stand and I wish more people thought that way. There have been some people who have consistently given me their votes (I won't name you because it will make you unpopular) even though I know they disagreed with the material. So I am not here to rail against the sift, because I appreciate the people who are being nicer to me, and I pray for all of you whether you like me or not.

The point I am making is that my experience completely affirms everything Zappa said. If you want further proof, just look at the amount of anti-religious vs. religious videos that have been sifted. There is no actual comparison. People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion) and that is why you don't see many videos that inform rather than denigrate religion on the sift.

>> ^seltar:

Good thing that didn't come off as narcissistic at all!>> ^Fletch:
First of all, who turned off the email notification?!?! I haven't receive anything for a couple days, at least.
@pumkinandstorm
PaS, PaS, PaS... I'm your friend. The w/e-way-the-wind-blows Pill-Popper, the Cliquies, and the Badgers running to your "defense" are not. They care not for you nearly as much as they care that you represent 10% of every future star point. You have been beguiled and bamboozled by those whose thin skins betray the indignance-laced Kool-aid they have been drinking for years. They are your Roman Catholic Church. I am your Martin Luther. They are your Tom Cruise. I am your Tory Christman. They are your SLA. I am your windowless black van. They are your enablers, co-dependents. I am your friend. They want your upvotes and the kind of affirmation and vindication they can only receive by collective membership into their twisted groupthink. I want nothing.
Another prolific poster here once left due to the shenanigans of a recently-returned and reformed (?) exile. VS didn't miss a beat. Other people filled in and the same stuff she would have sifted got sifted by others. That's why it was somewhat comical to me when she returned to posting and threatened to stop if the exile was allowed to return. Exile is back, thankfully, and she is still posting, predictably. If you measure your value here by votes and badges, it is a lie. You've been caught up. They are participation ribbons. Everyone gets something eventually, and they don't mean jack shit to those who just want to see the two-headed calf and Journey concert.
Whatever your story... and I mean whatever your story, I stand by what I said. You could be nose-up in an iron lung pecking out smiley faces with a chopstick in your teeth, and I would still maintain that there are infinitely more interesting, meaningful, and rewarding (in RL) pursuits to dedicate hours and hours every day of your life to.
[edit: formatting broke again]



Cool. I was worried that it might.

>> ^Fletch:
First of all, who turned off the email notification?!?! I haven't receive anything for a couple days, at least.
@pumkinandstorm
PaS, PaS, PaS... I'm your friend. The w/e-way-the-wind-blows Pill-Popper, the Cliquies, and the Badgers running to your "defense" are not. They care not for you nearly as much as they care that you represent 10% of every future star point. You have been beguiled and bamboozled by those whose thin skins betray the indignance-laced Kool-aid they have been drinking for years. They are your Roman Catholic Church. I am your Martin Luther. They are your Tom Cruise. I am your Tory Christman. They are your SLA. I am your windowless black van. They are your enablers, co-dependents. I am your friend. They want your upvotes and the kind of affirmation and vindication they can only receive by collective membership into their twisted groupthink. I want nothing.
Another prolific poster here once left due to the shenanigans of a recently-returned and reformed (?) exile. VS didn't miss a beat. Other people filled in and the same stuff she would have sifted got sifted by others. That's why it was somewhat comical to me when she returned to posting and threatened to stop if the exile was allowed to return. Exile is back, thankfully, and she is still posting, predictably. If you measure your value here by votes and badges, it is a lie. You've been caught up. They are participation ribbons. Everyone gets something eventually, and they don't mean jack shit to those who just want to see the two-headed calf and Journey concert.
Whatever your story... and I mean whatever your story, I stand by what I said. You could be nose-up in an iron lung pecking out smiley faces with a chopstick in your teeth, and I would still maintain that there are infinitely more interesting, meaningful, and rewarding (in RL) pursuits to dedicate hours and hours every day of your life to.
[edit: formatting broke again]


I don't think it would have mattered who the comment was from or who it was to...I believe it would have led to the same reaction. I for one come here to have fun, and never like to see things get personal because I think it hurts the site and I guess the people who left the replies feel the same way. I really appreciate that they wanted to make sure I wouldn't feel bullied by anyone here. I hope we can put this whole discussion to rest now. I have videos to watch. P.S. I said hours which is actually only 2 or 3...I didn't say I spent all DAY watching videos. Sheesh. I could think of WORSE things to be taking an interest in.

First of all, who turned off the email notification?!?! I haven't receive anything for a couple days, at least.

@pumkinandstorm

PaS, PaS, PaS... I'm your friend. The w/e-way-the-wind-blows Pill-Popper, the Cliquies, and the Badgers running to your "defense" are not. They care not for you nearly as much as they care that you represent 10% of every future star point. You have been beguiled and bamboozled by those whose thin skins betray the indignance-laced Kool-aid they have been drinking for years. They are your Roman Catholic Church. I am your Martin Luther. They are your Tom Cruise. I am your Tory Christman. They are your SLA. I am your windowless black van. They are your enablers, co-dependents. I am your friend. They want your upvotes and the kind of affirmation and vindication they can only receive by collective membership into their twisted groupthink. I want nothing.

Another prolific poster here once left due to the shenanigans of a recently-returned and reformed (?) exile. VS didn't miss a beat. Other people filled in and the same stuff she would have sifted got sifted by others. That's why it was somewhat comical to me when she returned to posting and threatened to stop if the exile was allowed to return. Exile is back, thankfully, and she is still posting, predictably. If you measure your value here by votes and badges, it is a lie. You've been caught up. They are participation ribbons. Everyone gets something eventually, and they don't mean jack shit to those who just want to see the two-headed calf and Journey concert.

Whatever your story... and I mean whatever your story, I stand by what I said. You could be nose-up in an iron lung pecking out smiley faces with a chopstick in your teeth, and I would still maintain that there are infinitely more interesting, meaningful, and rewarding (in RL) pursuits to dedicate hours and hours every day of your life to.

[edit: formatting broke again]

Now let's just think about this a second.

What are the odds of someone seeing this video who is a parent and anti-gay, realizing that they would never do that to their son/daughter and seriously rethinks their stance on homosexuality.

vs.

A parent who is anti-gay seeing this video and re-affirming their beliefs or if they do have a kid who is gay, finding the "courage" to finally disown their kid.

The former is just a tad bit more likely than the latter. So please. Let's air this stuff out. The more people do stupid shit like this, the more it hastens acceptance.

I'm sorry, but when exactly has been government been bending over backwards for the atheists?

If the gov't was bending over backwards for the atheists..they wouldn't have, needlessly, re-affirmed the CHANGED motto of the USA of "In God We Trust"

If the founders had such a hard on for God, why was the actual motto of the USA, "e pluribus unum?" Or if you're too lazy to google it, "Out of many, one" Why would they expressly prohibit the establishment of a state religion hrm? It's more accurate to say that anyone who says we're a "Christian Nation" or <insert ANY religion here> Nation" is actively flipping the bird to the founders

Pastor Hagee doesn't know his history, obviously.

As usual, dimwits like him don't know what they're talking about.

In reply to this comment by lurgee:
you are too awesome!
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
you are on a mission eh?

Affirmative


Thank you! I guess that makes two of us.

In reply to this comment by lurgee:
you are on a mission eh?

Affirmative

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho: