I'm with Stormsinger on this one, this sport is a sport I've always wanted to do, but due to our lakes being mainly muddy as hell and pretty shallow the incentive to dive isn't huge.

If you want to talk about retarded sports, what about walking?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'joe buck, yourself, live, muddy waters, rage, in, the, south, california, satan' to 'joe buck yourself, live, muddy waters, rage, in, the, south, california, satan' - edited by EndAll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'joe, buck, yourself, live, muddy, water, rage, in, the, south, california, satan' to 'joe buck, yourself, live, muddy waters, rage, in, the, south, california, satan' - edited by EndAll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'killer groove, willie dixon, blues' to 'killer groove, willie dixon, blues, harmonica, muddy waters' - edited by EndAll

Tags for this video have been changed from 'muddy waters, mojo, newport, jazz, festival, 1960, 60s' to 'muddy waters, mojo, newport, jazz, festival, 1960, 60s, blues' - edited by EndAll

Damn! I was just in that neighborhood and now it turns out I was wasting my time drinking beer in pubs and taking pics of the ruins of Roman baths when I could have been out slogging around muddy fields looking for treasure.

I can muddy the water some.

He ain't no Bo Diddley or Muddy Waters, but it was allright I guess.

Oh Winstonfield. I can't help but crack a smile every time you use the term 'neo-lib'. Your penchance to muddy discussions and repeat your truthinesses are so enjoyably predictable.

It's funny, but people bite at your bait and then when you switch they don't catch it. You just keep talking, always giving a slight nod to the previous person's view, but never actually facing their arguments. You want to think that anything you can argue someone else into believing is the truth. You want to think the ends justify the means. How can you be so obviously wrong and still consider yourself doing something good?

It's just gotten to the point where all I do is laugh at each of your posts. I used to want to engage you in discussion, but you don't have discussions. You just have you. And, while truly sad (and worthy of sorrow, to which I certainly nod my cap and hope I won't have to feel that for you any more) I can't help but see you doing it to yourself over and over again. At some point one must simply laugh, do you not agree?

And, actually on-topic, I did think Barney pwned this woman, and it's clear she deserves it, but I wonder whether it actually helps the D's case. Once again each side can see it like they want: The D's think the lady got smacked down and the R's rightfully claim that Barney failed to address her point. I know, I know. It's difficult to see that the R's can say that, but it was just like when Obama 'snapped' at that guy in the press conference, saying that he liked to wait a couple days until he fully understood a situation before commenting on it. The D's side claimed their guy showed his stuff and the R's claimed he weaseled out of answering the question.

I wish it were as simple as Winstonfield pretends it is.

>> ^bcglorf:


But the whole truther movement is based around planted explosives in the buildings, is it not? All the videos and information I've gone through hold that in common.
The thing is if the terrorists were able to plant demolition charges in the building, why bother with the airplanes?
If the government was behind it, and they planted the explosives, the question is still why they should bother with the airplanes? It's still easily blamed on the terrorists, it wouldn't even be the first time that terrorists had used explosives against the towers.
The Truther movement's questions do not warrant investigation or follow-up, and I see open ridicule as good a tool as any to keep the gullible from being drawn into their BS. Even if the government WAS behind the attacks, the Truther movement would actually be even worse BS, by dragging a whole class of people questioning the official story off on some goose chase after imaginary demolition charges.


That is one of the main things they claim, yes - I'm not a truther myself, though..

They don't believe that explosives would have been planted by terrorists - or at least not terrorists operating outside of the control of "those in power."

I think they'd argue that both explosives and planes were used for maximum effect (toppling both towers) and because planes provide that strong, visual, undeniable evidence. Obviously there's a need for an outside attacker - those "terrorists" flying the planes. There's also a lot of muddy, suspicious circumstances surrounding the terrorists themselves, and their ties to the mainly fictional 'Al-Qaeda.'

These ideas relies on the belief that there are people in power in Washington, with far too much power, pulling the strings to suit their own agendas. What lends credence to these theories is moreso what happened after the attacks - how the US went to war, looking for Osama in a cave, never finding him, the whole oil thing... certainly suspicious. Then you look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident, realize it's not unheard of to lie to go to war, etc. etc. And when you do some digging you'll find that the evidence for this secret government is quite strong, though widely ignored and often scoffed at. The Iran-Contra scandal was a sort of shocking insight into what goes on behind the scenes, along with many other events like that which most Americans have no clue ever happened.

I dunno though, I'm arguing from their perspective because I do believe there needs to be more investigation. The official report was certainly not an adequate review of the events that took place.

while i agree that it is the extreme factions of the political spectrum that are almost fanatical in their self-righteousness.thinly veiled arguments like this video does not promote a healthy discourse.

i employ his tactic of "shut up" often.not due to a political disagreement but for the use of mis/disinformation.
i agree that limbaugh and hannity have a right to speak,as do ed schutlz among others, but they dont have a right to lie,smear or otherwise confound the truth to propagate an agenda paid for by their superiors.
this is the area where i become extremely incensed.
because they dont have to WIN the argument or debate by sticking to the facts.all they have to do is muddy the waters and make ordinary people say "well..maybe" and thats exactly what they do.
who can forget..
"if your not with us,you're with the terrorists"
"if you think abortion should be legal,you're a murderer of children"
it's called "rhetoric" and according to mr klavan its an exclusive tactic employed by the democrats.
they ALL use that tactic,and if you are not that versed in history,jingoism and political catch'phrases,you can easily get caught up in the manufactured hype.
they are not newsmen,journalists nor reporters.
they are shock jock entertainers and they bring nothing to the table of any substance besides divisiveness and false outrage.
they should all take a big helping of STFU.

*side note* andrew Klavan is a former jew turned born-again christian.he is an author(fantastic one btw) and not a political science teacher,nor a journalist(he failed at that job).
maybe he should?????

That's true, she's made her intent pretty clear, but in general, how would you figure out the intent? If I put up a burning cross, for instance, to show my anger against Christianity, how would a police officer know that it was not against a race (blacks) but something different.

I just think its a muddy ground to walk on.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
I'm sure it would be hard to differentiate but she herself described her intent. Whether or not she is failing to differentiate all Hispanics from illegal immigrants is besides the point because what she said was 'she's sick of these Hispanics taking a piece of her country'
That, for me, outlines her intent.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Huh. Well, then the intent of it is important. I'm allowed to burn a cross for the hell of it, but as a means for racial intimidation it's not constitutional... that's gotta be hard to differentiate.

What about burning flags, swastikas and stuff like that? I would think that as long as it is on her own property it would not be possible to interfere.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Muddy Waters & James Cotton (1966) "Got My Mojo Working". Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

*eia for the horrible set-up they had.. a thin wooden plank stretched across there in what looked like wet, muddy conditions? tut tut

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I loved Accelerando. - you're right, Stross's writing gets a bit muddy at times - but he's a high concept genius. The ideas in the book had me spinning for days.

For me, the best SF writers are futurists - oracles of potential futures- in the tradition of AC Clarke. Stross fits this description nicely.