ok, ^J-Rova.

foremost, i just wanna' say that my initial statements, and query, were 100% sincere, so i really don't know why your following post (the one to which i replied, in kind) so reeked of dismissiveness, while simultaneously laying zero logical basis, for your abrupt conclusion.

other than the basis being, you're more accustomed to this kind of discussion on YouTube, etc., which would be understandable.

in other words? to me, your post looked like, "i trust the Fed, so you should, too. QED."

i'm counting on you, knowing more than me (or what i can scrape together from wiki citations),
about economics.
'cuz, watching money move?
bores me, as much as programming might very well bore you. ok?
please count on me, and 98% of anyone you're likely to address here on the sift, for 2 things.
1) i'm here to enjoy, and learn. not fight. and won't say anything in text, that i wouldn't say to your face.
2) whether liberal or conservative, in either the social or fiscal sense? we're going to know the Fed is more than one guy. srsly.

i know, you answered, "No. That was to clarify...", but look what you said next. closely, ok?
"... who may have been under that impression ..."
right. the impression, that we were discussing, was that... 'anyone here thought it was just one guy.'
which actually means, your reply meant...
"Yes. That was to clarify, for anyone who may have been under that impression."

liberal/conservative, social/fiscal, and their curiosity levels, being irrelevant.

so, let's start over.

i'm owen / m15. i'm a libertarian.
socially, very liberal. (pro-choice, -drugs, etc.)
fiscally, quite conservative. (you're paying, for your drugs, abortions, etc.)

which, in my case, equates to: fiscally, a fuckload more conservative than most any Republican currently holding prominent office. seeing as how, with the exception of Paul and a few other gems, of varying caratweight to be certain, most prominent Republicans aren't fiscally conservative.

they merely think we should feed the extra taxes (and/or massive intl loans) into the top of the machine, rather than the bottom. dig?

so. this is where, we came in.

i'd really like to hear from someone, who knows exactly why they think the Federal Reserve is a good idea.

if you think you can? cool!
if not? equally cool!

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
> no hon, its not even that the last one isn't my cup of tea...
smibbo called me hon!
> its that a lot of my vid-watching is done at the laptop while nursing the baby and thus I often turn down the sound.
aHAAAaaa! right. shoulda' thought of that. i beens a daady befor.
>...either vids I have already seen (esp most music vids)...
and a lot of good music i found here, gets stuck in the 'teens. it's why the jukebox was my 1st list here!

youdaman, dft.

m15 left a bold, smoochy reply beneath this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
He's alive... ALIVE! *promote

m15's right; might as well *discard it now.

aloha!
m15 thatched a thankyou beneath this thoroughly thumbed-up thummary by Fiver2:
Ima have to say WTF?!?!!?
Budweiser...Destroyer of beer!

Some of the scenes from this movie still scare me, even after I've seen it several times. Nice pick, m15.

(I'm going to call you "m15" from now on. Makes you sound like you're some sort of advanced assault weapon. How cool is that?)

so much so, that i was looking for the actual 'digg' link.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
This is the funniest thing I've ever read at SA. I bet you'll dig it. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/debunking-ewok-myth.php
In reply to this blindingly pithy drivel by m15:
something awful, this way comes.

fuck you, zod! eat cellophane!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Kneel before the power of Zod!

In reply to this jibberjab by m15

ps. this one time, i'm not going to upvote any comments on this page, because you already know what i would and would not endorse.

[EDIT] m15 temporary upvote moratorium - rescinded. 8 am, eastern, the states, Jan 17 2008. case closed. my upvoting, or lack thereof, no longer affects outcome. which is that what i had hoped for and expected, and believed most favorable, for all involved.

ok. obviously i have a little explaining to do too. so, here's where this all starts, for me:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Gay-adoption-PSA

came across that on the unsifted queue, all sorted the way i like, and i start watching, and it's weird, but i seem to think it has a weird way of actually trying to say something important.

so then i look at the sifter, and it's shroom. and honestly, i'm pleasantly surprised.
'cuz i didn't see anything, attacking the message, from him. and it reminded me of another very recent, much cooler, and pretty fucking amazing sift, all things considered, by Doc_M:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-after-his-close-New-Hampshire-loss-Yes-We-Can

which really blew me away, and i told him so. because, as a Lib, i really am very accustomed to being able to work almost as well with the (Social Liberal) Dems, as the (normally Fiscal Conservative) Reps.

i just honestly don't think shroom is here to get along, the way that i often see Doc and deedub making real efforts to get along with everyone, and make honest arguments, when they can't agree.

here's another guy on the mostly-right, who happens to be just about the sharpest i've seen on YouTube, from a mostly conservative stance:

http://www.videosift.com/member/justa11en

because he does a better job, of making sharp, honest arguments, and defending his point of view, than (and SO not intended as a slam on Doc or Deedub) anyone i've seen defend a Conservative point fo view, here at the sift.

which is exactly why i asked him to create a login here, for possible future use, after he uploaded this:

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-Day-Resolution

i do not see, in shroom, what i see in the other 3 i mention. i don't think he's here to get along. i think he's here to push buttons.
and i know many here that wholeheartedly agree, and we all let him, because we're 10 times more tolerant than he'll ever be, and he knows it, and it probably really pisses him off.

to my knowledge, we have more than just the "mores" here. we have some "folkways". and one of 'em says, you try hard not to downvote, while unsifted, without a comment/reason.
the second, and more important, says you don't target an individual, and downvote their queue with clearly nothing more than malice in mind.

would shroom like to explain to anyone here, what he found so distasteful, about 2 malaysian kids holding hands?
while he tosses up a hacked-up PSA, from the 80's, about domestic violence, that we're supposed to find fucking amusing now?
it's the only upvote i've ever given here, that i genuinely regret.

because unlike the other 2 clips, that i did really like, and gave an honest (if confused) upvote, that one i only upvoted, in a vain attempt to be able to say what i wanted to tell him, and not have him do, the very thing he did anyway.

that's not all i have to say about the whole damn thing, but i also don't want to waste anyone's time. i just thought this was the pertinent timeline, from my point of view, and i'd be happy to bookmark this, answer any questions, as soon and as accurately as i can, and let everyone else here decide what, if anything, should happen to either of us.

thank you, all, for taking the time to read this. srsly.

- owen / m15

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:


In reply to ant's beloved downvote of this comment by m15:
ha!
of all people i would've expected a downvote from....
thanks ant. good for you. keep the rest of us dumb fucks guessing.

In reply to ant's beloved downvote of this comment by m15:
ha!
of all people i would've expected a downvote from....
thanks ant. good for you. keep the rest of us dumb fucks guessing.

m15 concurs with this comment by joedirt
I call BS ...

Heh! I may only have been a 'smurf' (and a 4&out, at Hickam!) but I knew well enough, that you'd think that, too. Affirmative, MG. m15 out.

> but when I read "gunny" (which is short for Gunrock, I know) I think Gunnery Sergeant. You can just call me MG