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.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 19 Badge!

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Hmmm... I don't get it. What's siftable about this video?

It's a commercial from the future - literally. I travelled through time and brought this back to share with everyone, and now you're gonna tell me this ain't siftable?!

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Wouldn't you be afraid she'd malfunction and rip your dick off?
I mean, that's a possibility with real women too, but usually they give you some kind of warning.


I suppose, but maybe that's part of the excitement?

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
You can't critique something you've played literally less than 10% of.

Seriously, I'm not generally one of the people who get pissed off at his reviews. However, when 90% of what he's saying is very obviously wrong, I have a problem with that. [...]


Imagine me as a back then Eve Online nerd when he did his review of that playing the game like a single player :-)

For the record- I still enjoy his videos.

TLDR: I feeeel your paaaaaaaain.

>> ^renatojj:

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I have no problem with smaller communities deciding local issues. But certain things are universal and allowing states to decide them is simply wrong. If you were a minority in the south in the 60s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think it was a good idea to "let the states decide".

>> ^renatojj:
I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Allowing a woman to control her reproductive cycle and to have access to safe medical procedures is absolutely a fundamental human right.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. FWIW, on a personal level, I hate the idea of abortion as contraception. However, that is not my decision to make, I don't have to carry a child to term and then deal with the consequences. I find it ironic that I have to convince a libertarian that creating a law controlling what a woman does to her own body is a bad thing.

>> ^renatojj:
Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.


And what if every state bans it? What about the case where a woman dies in a hospital because a doctor can't perform a surgery that saves the life of the mother over the child? Should she get out of the operating room and get on a bus then?

>> ^renatojj:

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.
Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

The "Christian" excuse doesn't cut it. It is not a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to suspend your faculties. Obama is a christian and he accepts evolution. Hell, Huntsman is a mormon and he doesn't have a problem with it. How would you feel if he said he didn't believe in gravity?

>> ^renatojj:
I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

I'm not going to get into an AGW debate here. I will simply say that I have yet to meet a global warming skeptic who actually understands the science. Hell, I don't understand the science, but I tend to believe the people who actually researched it over the oil companies.

>> ^renatojj:
Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.
Don't get me wrong, governments need limits on their powers too. There must be balance, but given the choice I would rather the power reside with the elected representatives than the private sector.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting their cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

It's not really about the money. In the grand scheme of things $500 is nothing and I'm pretty sure RP can live without it. It's the principle of the thing. Keeping the money sends a message (rightly or wrongly) of tacit approval. If he doesn't want to give them back the money, fine, give it to an anti-hate charity or something. Anything to make the point that you do not agree with these weak and frightened bigots.

>> ^renatojj:
Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.
What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Nope, but you can outlaw actions. As for your lesbian bar example, I would say they are just as wrong for kicking me out for being a man as I would be for kicking them out for being a lesbian.

The freedom to put up a "no blacks, jews or irish" sign is not a freedom I want to protect.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

Thing is, he wants to do the opposite of protecting freedom. Protecting freedom is an active position. RP wants government to get out of the way. Historically, that never works out for the little guy.

edit: btw, props to you for defending your position rationally and eloquently. Nice to be able to debate this without name-calling or screaming matches, and if I've said anything you take as ad hominem, that was not my intention.

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.

Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.

Maybe you're right about the Panama Canal, idk

Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting *their* cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.

What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

I agree with you that the constitution should be updated with the times, that's why it's amendable. The problem is that many things we allow the Federal government to do today were never properly amended. So it makes sense to set things straight and start by following the constitution.

Statement From Antonio Buehler:

On January 1st, 2012 sometime between 1:00 am
and 1:30 am, I was driving my friend home from
a New Years Eve party. I was the designated
driver and was sober. We pulled into the 7-11 on
Lamar & West 10th in Austin TX to get gas, and
we saw ourselves near a car that was pulled over
with two police cruisers behind it. A black woman
was being given a field sobriety test in the cold.
She seemed to be getting bossed around by the
cops, and we both took notice. They had her doing
the heel to toe test in high heels. In the passenger
seat was a young Hispanic lady who appeared to
be on her phone.
She was doing nothing aggressive.

As we finished pumping gas, a cop had gone over
to the passenger side door and opened it.
Soon after we heard a terrible scream and watched
in horror as the very built cop started yanking this
poor girl from the car. The other cop came up
and joined in on the abuse.

My friend and I stayed within two arms lengths of
the truck, and tried to take pictures and yelled at the
cops to stop assaulting the girl.

After that, one cop came up to me yelling at me and
asking why I was taking pictures. I said it was my
right in public, and he pushed me into the truck and
started yelling in my face. I asked him why he
pushed me, I put up my arms to show I wasn't a
threat, told him to get out of my face, and that I had
done nothing illegal. He then grabbed my arm, and
pinned me against the truck, at which time
he claimed I "spit" on him.

They arrested me, claimed it was for "interfering
with an investigation". By the time I got to their
truck, it was a DUI and they made me blow. It didn't
register, and by the time I got to jail it was then a
"felony harassment" and a "resisting arrest" charge.

The woman was arrested for "public intoxication".
The cops said that she was interfering with their DUI
investigation because she yelled to her friend not to
submit to any tests. Interestingly, neither of us was
charged with interfering in an investigation.

*throws even more power points at you*

I've done that to my grandparents (who I was raised by). I moved across the country for school so I never got to see them. One year I got a cheap flight on new years eve, then went over to their house with a fake mustache. My grandma couldn't stop laughing.

Yes, excellent stuff.

Robert T Frederick, the first CO of the Devil's Brigade, is my personal hero. Winston Churchill called him "the greatest fighting general of all time" and said "if we had had a dozen more like him we would have smashed Hitler in 1942". His biography, The Last Fighting General is definitely worth a read.

Also quite coincidentally, I found out New Year's Eve that the father of a family friend was in the Devil's Brigade. He hadn't told anyone until shortly before he died... They truly were amazing men.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Complete coincidence, but I just watched "The Devil's Brigade" 3 nights ago. Really great vintage WWII movie, realistic or not.

If you haven't seen it yet I recommend checking it out at your local Bittorrent multiplex.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062886/

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway.

This world was originally without any death, or suffering. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered the world with it, and that is the reason it is fallen. They made that choice out of free will. God could have forced their obedience, or could have simply never given them a choice, but you can't have a loving relationship with robots who can't choose not to love you.

You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.

Satan is a created being. He isn't omni-anything. He tempted Adam and Eve to sin, but it isn't his fault persay. He didn't force them to sin.

If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.

Or He created them as free moral agents who are capable of defying His will, and they freely chose to defy His will and wreck His creation, even over His direct warnings. He sent Jesus Christ to fix the problem of sin, which He did on the cross 2000 years ago. God has adjudicated the entire matter through His Son, and anyone who wishes to obtain forgiveness for sin and avoid punishment, as well as receieve eternal life, can do so through Him. Whoever wants to reject their pardon and ignore Gods warnings and take their chances will face Gods judgement at the end of the world.

>> ^messenger:
God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway. You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.
If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.>> ^shinyblurry:
We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

>> ^Asmo:

I don't get this fascination with 'beating' WoW, if a game makes money and returns on investment, and it's players enjoy it, isn't that the definition of success? I personally hate EVE gameplay but people enjoy it and the company makes money. So it doesn't kill wow, it's an entirely diff game and appeals to diff people...


Also I don't agree that you "kill" a game that has reached the amazing success WoW has. There's no such thing as a WoW Killer...there's just the next logical step in gaming. Which I believe now is SW:TOR with it's fully voiced quests and all that jazz, it makes me feel like I'm playing a single player game. That's all I've ever wanted when soloing in a MMO.

I don't get this fascination with 'beating' WoW, if a game makes money and returns on investment, and it's players enjoy it, isn't that the definition of success? I personally hate EVE gameplay but people enjoy it and the company makes money. So it doesn't kill wow, it's an entirely diff game and appeals to diff people...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082228/YouTube-video-Montreal-Chinese-restaurant-brawl-New-Years-Eve.html

The Artist was my favourite movie this year. I saw it on New Year's Eve to boot!

Interesting point (the date), it's brought in on New Year's Eve when festivities are at fever pitch & nobody's taking a blinding bit of notice....Kind of reminds me of this from just over ten years ago.

I can't invoke "quality" 'cos I've got a question over in sift talk about it at the mo, but that won't stop me from giving this vid a *doublepromote 'cos I just l-o-v-e politicians being exposed for the snake-charmers that they are.