>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner. Give it a rest. Not everything is a debate. Did you see how much you wrote trying to convince people you were correct? It really burns your ass to be incorrect, doesn't it?

I'm not a fan of people saying things that aren't true. It burns my ass when people double down on falsehoods I call out, even when I'm pointing it out in a humorous way.

For example:
>> ^blankfist:
My point was: Those old people are dying out. Racism will never die. Ever. It will always be here. And I'm not just talking about whites. But the days of the out-and-out colored vs. white water fountains are gone. See how simple that was?


So okay, racism will always be with us. Compare that with:>> ^blankfist:

My grandmother was a racist. Was. That's why I think this guy can be so calm, because he knows that era is almost at a close.


Look, I assumed you didn't mean what I thought you meant, and I figured a little poking from me would get you to clarify it. Instead you doubled down on the statement, and tossed insults at me.

If you don't like debate, don't do stuff like that. It takes two to tango, and you always are up for a tango.

@NetRunner. Give it a rest. Not everything is a debate. Did you see how much you wrote trying to convince people you were correct? It really burns your ass to be incorrect, doesn't it?

My point was: Those old people are dying out. Racism will never die. Ever. It will always be here. And I'm not just talking about whites. But the days of the out-and-out colored vs. white water fountains are gone. See how simple that was?

"I'd love to see it."

I'd love to see it to, just for the comedy factor of Paul shoving his anti-war stance down the throats of the idiots that make up the Sarah Palin GOP.

But it will never happen. The powers that be who run the GOP and the news media won't allow it. If Paul was smart (which he's not) he'd just run as a lib instead of a fake Republican (RINO!). But he won't. So, your pipe dream of Paul vs Obama will never, ever, ever happen. Instead we'll have the laugh fest that is Romney vs Obama, or Palin vs Obama.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This objection is laughable. Rape isn't against he law because of speech, its against the law because of force. Freedom for all makes the idea that freedom at the cost of one non-permissible. Your example is so nonsensical that I can't even get my head around it and hope that you use another example, because I lost you completely. (when you use an example, no matter extreme or not, it at least has to address the same issue)
And, if you are just going to be given a permit anyway, why the hoops? I will tell you why, so cops like this can harass you. This is why the first amendment exists in the absolute form it does. Because when you start giving the state arbitrary standards to regulate speak, stuff like this is inevitable. Like the FCC regulating TV shows, radio, and soon the internet (I have no doubt they will try, look at Australia). Freedom is fragile. It isn't the natural condition. It is the natural condition of man to dominate others. It is why I get so reactionary to any violation of freedoms, no matter how small.


Simple elementarty deer watsony...

There used to be a law against setting fire to an American flag. Now that law has been deemed void. However, arson can and is illegal if it is against property. You set your own house on fire as a statement and guess what? Arrested. You set a flag on fire? Nope, cannot touch you.

I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here.

You are the one being far too broad in your assumption that CONGRESS SHALL NEVER, EVER, EVER MAKE A LAW that infringes upon any form of protest whatsoever. I am pointing out that as incorrect.

Morality should never drive laws. Ever. That is what we call theocracy. There is no reason that people in the south could then force atheists to pray or some such non-sense. I repeat, laws and morality should never meat, ever. You can form laws based chiefly on reason, a language that a person of any morality can speak. People of differing moralities trying to establish a legal framework around their personal beliefs means that it comes at the direct cost of freedom of the other man. One mans God is the other mans devil, one mans life lone dream is the others weakness. In reality, the system has turned into what you have said, and that is the main problem with it.

I, for one, want the continuing evolution of human morality to be an issue for culture to decide, not men with guns. If we can agree that we don't know if we are "necessarily work[ing] towards a "better" morality", and further that we might not be operating in a good morality, then does it make since to make criminals out of people for operating on their own morality? That is what we are doing here. We are making people criminals for what they believe. What they believe is ugly. But you have now made it the responsibility of the state to punish those who's morality becomes objectionable, and that one can come and bite you in the ass in the worst kind of way. Is it horrible to be so close minded and bigoted as to not want to hire/do business with someone because of color? Yes. Should we send him to jail? No. If he beats up a person because they are of color? Duh.

>> ^gwiz665:

Laws are things we make. Morals are things we have. Our laws are based on the morality at the time it was made. The prevalent morality changes over time (hopefully for the better), thus laws change over time (hopefully for the better). This is the nature of morality - relative, ever-changing, evolving.
It does not necessarily work towards a "better" morality, just like evolution doesn't necessarily make "better" animals, only animals better at reproducing themselves. Which factors affect morality, I don't know, but I would guess that it relies much on factors like upbringing, teachings, personal growth and maturity etc etc. Lots and lots of factors.
As we as a species become more and more advanced, different issues come up and our morals on that issue starts developing. For now, most people are against human cloning, for instance. That will likely change over the next period of time, when we can easily clone bodyparts from our own cells, or even make ourselves a twin brother or sister.
The evolution of morality is a good thing, it shows that we're striving to get better, which in my mind, at least, is the ultimate goal of our race. Be all we can be. Hoohaah.

It also happens to run the faulty notion of absolute morality into the ground, which I'm not averse to either.

>> ^Shepppard:


For instance, if I got a grounder and it looked like the guy would beat me to the base, I'd slide and touch the bag with my foot, sounds silly but almost nobody thinks to slide into first base, and it would get me there a half second before them.


Wow, you must have been some special first basemen.

Did you ever wonder why runners don't slide into first base or that professional players (fielders) never (NEVER) never ever fucking slide into a base? Just ponder it a moment.

It is never faster than running full out. The only reason to slide is to get a part of your body to touch and then stick on the base. Because the runner has to decelerate and stay on the base. That is the only reason.

I good first baseman will run to the base instead of sliding. The only benefit of sliding is to avoid a collision if you were the fielder. But slowing down and decelerating will not get you there any faster.

I love it. I wasn't complaining. I think it's awesome. I love it when people are incentivized to 'get one over' on the system. Because if we've learned anything about the social condition it's that removing money from its parts and focusing it instead to a monolithic center is never, ever, ever, ever, ever a set up for failure.

I don't care so much about the insurance companies. It's the doctors and hospitals that will be the butt of this joke when the punchline is delivered in 2014.

The contagion of fear and anger can infect those you might least expect. Take the case of Chris Reichert who became an Internet sensation when he threw dollar bills hostilely at a man suffering from Parkinson’s Disease (video here: 1:15 mark). In the days following the incident, Reichert struggled to make sense of what he had done. He finally came forward to issue an apology.

"I snapped. I absolutely snapped and I can't explain it any other way… He's got every right to do what he did and some may say I did too, but what I did was shameful," Reichert said. "I haven't slept since that day... I made a donation (to a local Parkinson's disease group) and that starts the healing process."

Reichert said he is not politically active. He said he heard about the rally on the radio and a neighbor invited him to attend. "That was my first time at any political rally and I'm never going to another one," Reichert said. "I will never ever, ever go to another one."

http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/85193-fear-and-loathing-in-ohio

They're not in Iraq for a simple reason, they are rich. Iv'e never ever ever ever seen a person in uniform that was from a wealthy family, let alone one who could afford a three piece business suit. People talk a good game but won't sacrafice years of their lives to wallow in the trenches for minimum wage. Their was only the football player who joined the airborn rangers. If you want action you become a grunt, if you want the glory associated with being a grunt, you become a marine. If you are dangerous, wreckless bastard who is indifferent to either notion, you become a ranger. If you come from a rich family, you go to a good university and become middle managment at a law firm. Simple. Politics has nothing to do with the uniform, it's the suits a million miles away that deal with that shit.

no. never. never ever ever ever. never.

is anyone even being a pest lately?
usually, i mean since billoreilly and captainplanet were taken out, anyone pushing the envelope (that isnt a self linking probie spammer worthy of an instaban) is a seasoned member who isn't doing any real harm, gets hobbled immediately and no one would vote to ban them anyway.

you're opening up a slippery slope with this. "so and so got banned for this and this, but we didnt even call a siftquisition on this so and so for this similar thing". siftquisistions amount to nothing but unnecessary drama (remember burdturgler vs. usesprozac) or a place to make a public mockery of the whole process (remember thinker247 vs. peggedbea, yes, we were laughing hysterically at anyone taking it seriously).

we have hobblings to render anyone intent on doing any damage powerless immediately. and even that's ridiculous most of the time, but i don't object to it being an option in the case of someone abusing the discard or downvote button. but think that's pretty much the only time it should be used. the last time a rash of hobblings and discussion of bannings broke out it was over a provocative video that promoted healthy debate and i thought that was the point anyway? to foster intelligent conversation and healthy debate? seasoned members pushing the envelope and forcing us to redefine ourselves or reexamine ourselves is not a bad thing.

in cases of personal profile abuse, i really don't ever want to see that become a public spectacle ever ever again. especially since tone and intent are so hard to clearly distinguish online. and people are allowed to squabble and dislike each other and most of the time its just a joke anyway. leave that between the people involved and admins if it's really out of hand.

i will say that i think the ignore feature could use a tweak, maybe we could make it impossible for anyone you have on ignore to leave a comment on your profile. that would take care of profile abuse "i don't like what you're saying to me, so i'm not going to let you say it here anymore." done. no need for further drama.

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

Waste? On VideoSift? Never. Only ever constructive, enlightening stuff going on here.>> ^westy:
Dag your just a big troll , just tally up all the time you have caused people to waste.

>> ^kymbos:
I'm so glad I didn't watch this. The conversation is enough for me.


Never ever ever go back on this. Ever.


EVER.

the conservatives will never ever ever ever ever ever be pleased with anything he does, ever. and hes only pissing off everyone else.
so mr. president, with your 1 term.... give us a green and updated infrastructure, give us more high speed rails, pass meaningful climate change legislation, bitch slap wall street, actually fix healthcare, end some fucking wars, repeal dont ask dont tell.

I wish it were something a lot different, but pass it as it is, make it better over time. I'm with Krugman on this one.

The bill so far, is a lot better than the status quo. Soon, 30million people will have health-care who don't today. That is with or without the public-option. From all accounts, the bill is better than the system we have today, and we can pass this, declare victory, then keep on fighting. "Don't let the perfect be enemy of the good".

The Republicans will never, ever, ever, in a million years vote for "socialized medicine". There will never be bi-partisanship on this issue. The conservatives will never bring a bill that vastly regulates the financial and insurance industries. Never.

Fortunately the debate over health-care right now is not left vs right. It is liberal vs conservative/centrist democrats, and one droopy Lieberman.

I think people need to remember that when you're online friends, it doesn't mean you will get along at all in person. I know people who, after years of being great online friends...meeting...and never talking ever again!

The lesson here...don't meet people off the net unless its through lavalife for sex.