>> ^Jinx:

Allah and his prophet can suck my dick.


DEATH to the infidel!!!

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.

>>> I could've saved you the trouble. Just google Paula Jones and follow the trail backwards. BTW, no one here has much to say about how Slick Willie used and tossed Monica. You almost can't fault him, like all textbook sociopaths he has no depth, no real emotions. "I feel your pain." Ha ha ha ha.

But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency.

>>> Even if a President had a spouse who approved of open marriage, they'd be out on their asses. That's just the way the American people are, and vote. Marital infidelity the American people will not abide. Historically speaking, there is no evidence that being a philanderer affects political performance. In other words, when the red chinese stole our missile guidance technology during Clintoon's watch, putting the entire nation in further danger, that had nothing to do with whether he visited Monica that week. That was just being a POS excuse of a president.

>>> Bozo was impeached--and fined $90,000-for lying under oath. If you or I did it we'd still be in prison. He should've stepped down.

>>> Considering the Republic is hanging by a thread with a narcissistic marxist presently at the helm--and a false media which defends, protects and shills for him--the people are ready for someone who will get the job done. It might be Newt, it might be Romney, it might be a talking Chia Pet, but we DO know it ain't gonna be His Earness, unless you've enjoyed the chaos of the last 4 years.

Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.

But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?

>> ^quantumushroom:

A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

Death to the damn commies!!! Death to infidels! Death to Amer.. umm... uhh..

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

Are you kidding? They're all over the place.

I am not religious at all. In fact, I do not believe in god. However, I understand that these people's actions do not reflect a whole population. I think many Christians would find this appalling, and I would agree with them on that matter. Crazy people are everywhere and blaming an entire population on one person's actions is just absurd - regardless of the cause.

This part was good.

You have selectively decided to berate Muslims but I see no difference between you an your fellow Muslims. Many of your co-believers just want piece and prosperity, but you fail to see that.

Except the muslim earns his reputation. Be sure to wiki 'honor killings'. The quran makes it clear the muslim has 3 choices when meeting infidels: convert them, enslave them or kill them. Any other course of action and you are not a real muslim and can be killed along with the other infidels. Yet far-too-many muslims are clearly faithful as they cause problems wherever they're found en masse.

BTW if this piece was real journalism and not anti-Christian propaganda, the "news" source would've found the nearest Christian pastor/deacon/reverend/priest and asked about the Bible and this couple's alleged barbarism.




>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
I dare you make one comment without the following words:
Liberal, Communist, Left, Kenyan.

>> ^quantumushroom:


A twisted tale, and the Communist "News" Network predictably attempts to put all of Christendom on trial for the actions of a minority of mentally ill abusers.
Remember when Obama didn’t want us to jump to the conclusion that the shootings at Fort Hood were a terrorist attack by an Islamic jihadist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Obama would rather we forgot that Hasan screamed “Allah akbar” before he mowed down scores of patriotic Americans and gave away Qurans with his business card before his act of jihad.
Where is that famous liberal "reason" now?

I don't care about his politics or his infidelities. The man is awesome and will always be awesome, end of story.

END OF STORY.

I see what you did there. If we disagree with your statement we are automatically "left" and therefore there is room for us to move to the centre.

I would hope that everyone disagrees with the original, satirical statement, but the horror is, there are people who actually speak and think that way, and the majority of them are on the left. Political correctness came from the left side of the aisle. It is the left that has never taken the threat of communism seriously, even though 100 million people have been murdered by communist regimes the world over.

I call poppycock on that, in fact the whole argument of left vs. right is utter nonsense in my opinion, what matters much more is rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth.

From a certain point of view, left versus right seems arbitrary and bizarrely divided. For example, if the left values "equality" then they would demand women and especially the elderly become handgun experts so as not to be victims of larger or multiple attackers. Conversely, if the American Right championed individual rights as much as it claims, hooking and drugs would already be legal for adults.

Rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth? I'm a big fan of all three. Rational thought is too rare to be made national policy and while it's possible for atheists to be moral, a solid moral foundation is still owned by religion. The third, "truth" has very few friends, because it doesn't care who is offended by it.

Regarding this sift, since few will take a stand, I will: islam is not worth saving. It was founded by a gigolo/pedophile warlord, then layered with still-more bizarre interpretations after his demise. islam is "supercessionary", meaning its laws and doctrines "override" Christianity and Judaism. islam offers 3 choices for followers when they meet infidels: kill, convert, enslave. Any muslim who does not do one of these three is also considered an infidel to be killed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

No nation that wishes to survive should allow more than a handful of muslims to immigrate; they are ill-suited for life in First World Western nations in the 21st century, or the 19th century for that matter. No sane woman should want to see muslims take over, either.




>> ^ghark:

>> ^quantumushroom:
According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.

I see what you did there. If we disagree with your statement we are automatically "left" and therefore there is room for us to move to the centre. I call poppycock on that, in fact the whole argument of left vs. right is utter nonsense in my opinion, what matters much more is rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth.

Very well said, thank you.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX

Look, pretending that you've examined the dictionary definition of sarcasm and irony really shows that you don't get Pats jabs AT ALL. Heres the joke he was making:

He hopes his insults "harms your physical and mental well-being so har that you'll have to lie down for 10 minutes before you can even pray"

Clearly this is a JOKE, he knows full well that no matter what anyone says to anyone ever, certainly not in a public debate, can actually harm people like that. The joke is targeted at people who claims that actual harm has come to them, simply because their beliefs were insulted. IE muslims who just cannot live in a world were people draw their precious prophet, so they have to threaten and scream at everyone, muslim and infidel, until they stop the drawing and apologize for the "crime", and even then they are not satisfied and take the liberty of threatening liberal democratic countries with "revenge".

If you are a certain kind of jihadist, murder and offensive cartoons seems to be reasonable tit-for-tat to you. it is this concept that Pat is mocking with his joke. Cleary he knows, like everybody else , that you cannot be "physically harmed" by an offending joke or insult, he sarcastically pretends to have this awesome superpower that he can harm people with.

It actually reminds me of a great old monty python sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNvi6xG-5Y

@SDGundamX

Look, pretending that you've examined the dictionary definition of sarcasm and irony really shows that you don't get Pats jabs AT ALL. Heres the joke he was making:

He hopes his insults "harms your physical and mental well-being so har that you'll have to lie down for 10 minutes before you can even pray"

Clearly this is a JOKE, he knows full well that no matter what anyone says to anyone ever, certainly not in a public debate, can actually harm people like that. The joke is targeted at people who claims that actual harm has come to them, simply because their beliefs were insulted. IE muslims who just cannot live in a world were people draw their precious prophet, so they have to threaten and scream at everyone, muslim and infidel, until they stop the drawing and apologize for the "crime", and even then they are not satisfied and take the liberty of threatening liberal democratic countries with "revenge".

If you are a certain kind of jihadist, murder and offensive cartoons seems to be reasonable tit-for-tat to you. it is this concept that Pat is mocking with his joke. Cleary he knows, like everybody else , that you cannot be "physically harmed" by an offending joke or insult, he sarcastically pretends to have this awesome superpower that he can harm people with.

It actually reminds me of a great old monty python sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNvi6xG-5Y

You know what I find sadly amusing? All those "cultural supremacists" (most of which hide their xenophobia under a thin mask of concern about Islam's ethical failings) go on about how Judeo-Christian values are better, not realising that Islam is largely a rehash of the Bible/Torah they defend so ardently.

Sharia Law? Taken from the Torah/Old Testament.
Fire for the infidels? An exaggeration of Jesus' infernal invention.
Exterminating your "God's" enemies? Read the Old Testament already.

I just saw what you wrote to Burd.

I suspect he isn't answering because he has left the site again. I know this for a fact, because he told me.

I can see why he leaves. I certainly feel like leaving quite often -- I am appalled that only a handful of people step up to defend his quite reasonable rage.

I also understand why folks don't step up -- because if you do, you get dumped on with the same ugliness. People come here to have a nice time, watch intelligent and funny videos, and then shy away from deeper involvement because of what happens in the comments sections.

I spent over four years lurking on this site, appalled at the way reasonable people were treated. It took that long for me to get the tough skin that blankie is always going on about.

But I'll tell you, this latest little go round made me want to leave, too.

I don't blame Burd for leaving. Although I wish he would come back and band together with folks who support him and his point of view to actually make change around here.

And yes, it is better than YouTube. So I stay. I hold my nose for certain parts of it and stay for the rest. Because the Rest is stellar.


In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Ahh up to your old tricks then eh? What happened to "nigger.videosift.com" as your subdomain name? Is that bannable also?

Why is it you flip out about the word nigger but didn't bring out the ban-hammer for what QM said:

"Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws."

I'm not saying he wasn't being racist btw, and that's not to say I agree with statements like that; but if you weigh the two examples, QM basically said black culture embraces stupidity, infidelity, and crime. You can argue that BK did the same rolled into the word nigger, but I don't agree with that. If anything what BK did was more flippant and aimed at an impoverished section of society, QM has the entire culture rolled up which is, imho, more offensive. Yet there's no outrage on your part here? No ban hammer brought out. Care to explain?
In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
Oh .. the guy who said no wonder black people are called niggers .. yes .. let's come to his defense. Looking forward to it.