In essence, they agree with Obama because they feel he is a good guy, rather than agreeing with him because his policies match theirs. In a similar sense, QM believes that people disagreed with Bush solely because they didn't like him as a person.

Some of us are amazed that people are so desperate to smoke Obama's used toilet paper DESPITE the overwhelming evidence that he's a cheating, lying, unlikable, business as usual Chicago thug pol. Over the past few days alone he has shown an apalling lack of grace. Opposing agendas are labeled with propogandistic slurs. He insults other points of view. He gets angry with media when they ask him 'real' questions. He wails doom and gloom and uses scare tactics. He breaks his promises. He hides substantive errors in judgement with glib dismissals. Some other pol acting like this bozo would be pilloried (and rightly so).

I can only deduce two reasons for this incredible lack of intellectual honesty regarding Obama...

ONE: Unlike Bush, the media ignores his blunders, hides his gaffes, and gives him kid glove treatment instead of hard journalism. With the media abandoning its credibility in an effort to carry his water, it leaves the the unthinking, ignorant, and intellectually lazy masses believing he's a 'great guy' in spite of plentiful evidence to the contrary.

TWO: A bunch of people sucked into the Obama hype machine are now mentally and socially invested in the man. They praised him because he could 'talk good'. It was shallow, but they are on the record for it and so they want him to be good for no other reason than he is 'thier guy'. Call it buyer's remorse, or desperation, or whatever. The end result is that Obama could go out tomorrow and club baby seals to death with his bare hands and they'd still apologize for him. They just can't bring themselves to admit that they were wrong.

These are the Obama zombies. Such persons will clink glasses of Flavor-aid as they use the audacity of hope to leap onto the Hale-Bopp comet and fly through Heaven's Gate.

You winston, are precisely why most agnostics / atheists feel the way they do.

I never knew my powers were so far-reaching. I clearly need to start directing my incredible influence over atheists and agnosts to more personally profitable venues. "Yoooou will giiiive me aaaaall your moooooney..."

having to face hateful bile like yours constantly will naturally bring a portion of them to the forefront to throw your own words back at you.

I'm a critic of entertainment - not of philosophy. This vid sucks as entertainment because it is 92.86% bellyaching and 7.14% vaguely OK message. Epic fail.

Regardless I judge people by thier deeds. Look at Videosift objectively. Only about 000.1% of the vids are 'Theists attacking Atheism' About 30% are 'Athiests attacking Theism'. Therefore, being an objective analyst I have no choice but to draw the inevitable conclusion that Athists are intolerant, hateful, bigoted, and cruel to others who do not believe in what they believe in. In the words of one of the worlds great philosophers - "Physicians, heal thyselves."

the majority of this video is almost exactly how every person who doesn't stay with they're parents religion ends up feeling/reacting.

I'd say it is a one-sided presentation embelleshed and exaggerated to a degree that is not distinguishable from fiction. I bet the parents, Sanjay, and everyone else who was so grossly caracatured in the video would tell a very different story. But there it is. Most of the stories of this nature cannot get the author's desired point across without misrepresenting other points of view.

^You just as good as said that I'll stop being a troll as soon as I "come around" and share your opinions. You think that I need to start seeing things from other points of view, and then I will no longer be a troll?
No, I didn't say that. It's how you react to other people's opinions that's bothering me.

Are you saying that I go with my gut on issues unrelated to religion...because I am religious and that's what we do? What?
Seriously, don't tell me you haven't heard of George Bush making decisions on his GUT feeling? I was referring to nothing else there.

I get annoyed when I see a video that I find offensive (I'm sorry you don't share my view!) being enthusiastically upvoted. I get frustrated when you are all patting each other's backs and congratulating yourselves for opinions that I consider to be incorrect.
I've shown that I can be angered by people expressing opinions that are not my own? How do you feel when you read my comments? Angered? That does not mean that I am trying to make you mad.
Honestly, I don't remember ever being angered by anything anyone has written on the internet. That doesn't mean I don't understand one could get angry, but I also think your anger treshold is set rather low.

I have never, ever "preached" about creation or afterlife. This misunderstanding is something that some sifters tend to do. If you're religious, suddenly you are lumped into a group and the opinions of people you've never agreed with are suddenly your own. It is an interesting phenomenon.
Yes it is and I'm sure refuting a superstition as illogical by proof of other superstitions has been studied. But it's not unlike a member of a religion thinking that every other religion but his is the right one. Atheists just take it one religion further

>> ^thepinky:
^You just as good as said that I'll stop being a troll as soon as I "come around" and share your opinions. You think that I need to start seeing things from other points of view, and then I will no longer be a troll?

Seeing an issue from someone else's point of view does not imply adopting their conclusions and opinions as your own. It only implies "walking a mile in a another man's shoes" -- stepping outside of one's own perspective to adopt another's, however briefly and imperfectly. Obviously, this is always incomplete and filtered through one's own experience. But the ability to empathize with others, in the most general sense, is arguably the most important of all social skills. It's what allows (semi-)coherent social interactions in the first place.
(Shameless brain channel plug - search for mirror neurons to learn about the cellular basis for this ability.)

Being religious and conservative does not automatically make me less open-minded than you, and it doesn't make me a troll.

While neither of those qualities makes you a troll, I think it is fair to say that religious people are generally less open minded than non-believers. (Perhaps that should be restricted to agnostics - I suppose many strong atheists are just as close minded as those on the opposite side of the spectrum.) Absolute belief (or disbelief) in the existence of God entails certain cognitive consequences. For instance, religious people often have a hard time comprehending how an atheist could be a moral being, because for a believer, all morality stems from God. So, without Him, how can morality exist? Thus, anyone that rejects His existence also rejects morality. Every atheist and agnostic reading this will instantly recognize the absurdity of such a proposition, but for nearly every religious person I've every known, it's an accepted matter of fact. Essentially, absolute belief in anything causes the believer to be cognitively incapable of adopting certain points of view, because the original belief makes some points of view incomprehensible.

I have no doubt that you are a good and well-intentioned person, pinky. You are at that age of possibly greatest optimism and idealism. It's a wonderful place. Enjoy it. But don't allow it's comfort to prevent you from growing. It's kind of like the apple in the garden - knowledge is a double-edged sword. You'll lose some of that optimism, but you gain an understanding of your fellow humans. Unlike the original sin, though, it is generally worth it to go ahead and take a bite.

I'm long-winded when I defend myself. Sorry.

^You just as good as said that I'll stop being a troll as soon as I "come around" and share your opinions. You think that I need to start seeing things from other points of view, and then I will no longer be a troll? Being religious and conservative does not automatically make me less open-minded than you, and it doesn't make me a troll. I have learned many, many things from being a member and I hope I will continue to do so.

Are you saying that I go with my gut on issues unrelated to religion...because I am religious and that's what we do? What?

I promise that those are not conscious attempts to illicit negative response. I promise that my responses to videos and comments are sincere. I get annoyed when I see a video that I find offensive (I'm sorry you don't share my view!) being enthusiastically upvoted. I get frustrated when you are all patting each other's backs and congratulating yourselves for opinions that I consider to be incorrect. Honestly, put yourself in my shoes for a second. I love the Sift and I love the people. But sometimes...it just plain sucks for the minority.

I've shown that I can be angered by people expressing opinions that are not my own? How do you feel when you read my comments? Angered? That does not mean that I am trying to make you mad. Usually it is not simply differing opinions but attacks that get my blood up, such as when there is a thread about religion and "stupid" and "ignorant" are the words of the day.

So, when you say I'm a name-caller, you are referring to my saying "liberals"? I didn't realize that this was trolling or that it offended anyone. My sincerest apologies.

I have never, ever "preached" about creation or afterlife. This misunderstanding is something that some sifters tend to do. If you're religious, suddenly you are lumped into a group and the opinions of people you've never agreed with are suddenly your own. It is an interesting phenomenon.

And why does my time and why do my comments have to be "worthwhile?" Do I have to defend eveything I say? Do I have to be trying to convince or convert anyone? Can't I just make one comment and then move on without being accused of not supporting my claims? You do it all of the time. I think I can, too.

>> ^quantumushroom:
"The liberal pretends to accept all points-of-view, then is horrified to discover there are other points-of-view."
Ha ha ha ha ha.


And the guys calling Obama a baby murderer because he's pro-choice don't bother you? This is all you took from the clip? A very strange thing to take satisfaction from.

And for the love of fucking god, "points of view" as you call them, are not automatically valid.

"The liberal pretends to accept all points-of-view, then is horrified to discover there are other points-of-view."

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Halo 3 auto records all the online matches. But it doesn't record the video, it records the events and object locations so you can go back and play through the match, changing camera angles, watch from other points of view, etc.

"Left-wing media" is a term of abuse used by movement conservatives to refer to just about any published or broadcast matter that isn't funded by Roger Ailes and/or Rupert Murdoch.

It's a term of "abuse" only because excepting overt failures like Al Franken, liberals always hide who they really are, especially when trying to get elected. Just about every media source outside of talk radio, FOX cable and a handful of newspapers is liberally-biased. The average liberal has PLENTY of choices for their own brand of bias, and that's not even counting the morons in Hollywood and knuckleheads being spat out the government school system.

As for the substance of QM's comment, why is it incumbent on CBS or anyone else to be a "fan" of Israel or of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Figure of speech. You would have to live in a vacuum not to understand that media choose sides, if only to sell, sell, sell. Big Media is a business, therefore lazy reporting that makes money leads the way. The drive-by media has a total "good news blackout" on Iraq and pretends the surge failed. Fk 'em. They deserve to lose ratings to Fox.

The answer, I surmise, is that the U.S. media aren't supposed to exercise independent judgement; they're not supposed to investigate stories and report them on the merits; rather, they're supposed to be a cheering section for whatever the U.S. government (as long as it's a Republican government, at that) and its allies want.

If you really believe that, can you explain why 99% of the "Republican cheering squad" drive-by media is pushing the Obamessiah, the biggest nothing and empty suit ever to make headway towards the Presidency?

As the liberal says, "WHAT liberal media?" the fish says, "WHAT water?"

You have a right to your own opinions--even you no-star n00bs--but not your own facts, and the fact is Ammadinnawackjob is a corrupt "leader," terrorist and Holocaust denier. You libs can go on amusing yourselves trying to pick up this turd by the clean end.

Wing seat? Aisle seat? The liberal pretends to accept all points-of-view, then is horrified to discover there are other points-of-view. hahahaha.

That's a really good article NetRunner. I particularly like this part...

"Someone calling the wall by the wrong color would make me willing to declare war." With practice one can learn to experience these feelings and impulses without translating them into action. By experiencing without reacting, a person can begin to see clearly that the unexamined impulse to react is an habitual and compulsive forward drive--arising variously from emotions of fear, anger, insecurity, or even existential panic--rather than from the carefully considered thought we imagined. And one begins to see the likelihood that the impulsive reaction would create only more battling for reality and further polarization. When one labors under the illusion that their very existence is determined by thoughts and words, the survival instinct can propel forceful and desperate action based on the silliest of disagreements.

I've felt this. Usually I try to lose my convictions in an 'argument', and pretend that I don't know anything, to try and have a child's ear. This takes a lot of bravery, since you're turning your back on what you're so sure you "know". The panic someone feels when they begin to doubt their own convictions immediately hardens them against seeing any other point of view, causing them to become increasingly recalcitrant and even less likely to see your point of view.

*quality, for sure.

What's amazing about this sift is simply the existence of the FOX reporter.

Before the FOX reporter and the net existed, Moyers and Friends' lives were easy. They never had to admit their liberal bias since they were the only game in town.

Additionally, blowhard Moyers used taxpayer money (PBS) to promote his left-wing drivel unopposed for decades. He's had plenty of time to prepare for arguments from the other side, hasn't he?

Never again will liberals dominate the media. Media libs always pretended to welcome all points-of-view. Now they are horrified to discover there are other points-of-view.

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.

So am I! I like the new pic.

could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

I can't seriously believe you don't know the common definition of a liberal: fiscally reckless and socially liberal (aka nuts). No one knows what 'classical liberalism' is except you, me, and Ron Paul.

"Social liberal" is a dangerously vague term. Ending Drug Prohibition could be considered socially liberal, but so could something absolutely insane, like open borders, and there's all sorts of wiggle room for questionable things like affirmative action (as a libertarian, you'd oppose it). Wouldn't "conservatarian" explain what you're saying you represent, a la fiscally conservative and socially (more) liberal? Your conservative side? You don't have to "prove" anything, I'm jess sayin' I'm not seein' it, and that's fine.

srsly. i've mentioned i don't know how many times, to you, that this is why i'm a libertarian, not a democrat. and yet you persist in treating anyone either socially or fiscally the same, when they actually have nothing to do with each other.

Do you really expect me to go down the list and fine tune each post so that every sifter of the many, many who oppose my POV feels good about it? For that personal touch, anyone who wants to discuss things more in depth is free to visit, as you have.

I used to be a libertarian and I've kept what I liked about it. Don't know if you've noticed, but generally Americans don't care about large-L Libertarians (or much of what any 3rd party says) or many small-L libertarian ideas. While I was a card-carrying Libertarian, I figured if any LP idea suddenly sounded good to the American population (ending Drug Prohibition, getting rid of IRS) one of the two major parties would steal it and claim it as their own. If I had my druthers (whatever they are) the two major parties would be Libertarian and Republican, but that's another rant.

and you can just call ppl by their fuckin' names, dude.
we all know what obama's middle name is. can't think of any reason anyone should give a shit.

Well, obviously YOU care!

my middle name's paul. do you care?

A-Ha! Do you know what Ron Paul's LAST NAME is? That's right. PAUL! It's all so clear to me now!

Yeah, I'm joking.

we all know who the president of iran is. just grow up, use ppl's fuckin' names? only you and jay leno think that shit's funny, and namecalling is essentially an ad hom attack as well.

Well, if for some reason Bush 43's middle name resembled "Hitler", you don't think the looney lefties would use that against him? Newsflash: for 8 years they've called him Hitler anyway, and a whole slew of unprintables, and the so-called "unbiased" mainstream media (long may they die) fuels it.

yeah. even worse when it's about something they didn't even get to choose - their name. should i really have to explain shit this silly, to you?

No, but here's what you should explain to me, why as a libertarian, you give a damn about hurting the feelings of a Jewicidal iranian tyrant, or saddam or dildo chavez, now in the process of starving his country with price controls. I mean, is that really what keeps you up at night? Name games with B. Hussein Obama? (he can legally change his name, if he wishes). How about O-Bam's disastrous tax-raising schemes or his frightening level of naivety in dealing in world affairs? As a fiscally-conservative libertarian, you should be terrified of this guy, and the broad.

>> anytime you'd like to address your original false accusations,
>> instead of burying them in new ones, you let me know.

> I'm not sure what the "false" accusations are as they have yet to be challenged.

oh come on, man! i make direct challenges all the time.
start with my rebuttal on the obama clip, where i said:
"how about quoting us a line from this, shroom..."

You have to understand the subtle dynamic at work with the Obama speech. On the surface it sounds like he's appealing to reason; what he's really doing is slipping in digs at Whitey, (including his own grandmother) knowing Whitey has no equal time forum to respond. That's what I hate about liberals and "race talk", it's not really a "dialogue" they seek, just more chances to blame others for their problems. As you claim to be a libertarian, I don't know why you're quick to defend someone advocating the OPPOSITE of personal responsibility and more Big Government "solutions".

and on the freeway protest clip, i listed many direct challenges.
you ignored them, and went off on some jim crow horseshit.

Oh, that. Well, my point was, if the original charge was 'gerrymandering' then so what, both parties do it and is it really something to be upset about? If one were a bona fide member of a 3rd party I could see it being offensive, but otherwise... srsly, if two thieves take turns robbing your house why only get upset (outraged) at one of them?

The response I got moved beyond that to accusations of (surprise) racism, always with the racism. So my Final Answer in essence was, why bother? Every time a group of 3 or more Black folks get pissed because they can't have their way they cry "Slavery!" and pretend it's the Jim Crow South all over again, as if there'd been NO progress or things made right by Whites since the Civil War. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone White or Black to play these kinds of games; they trivialize the real Civil Rights movement, which acheived its goals decades ago.

You casually wrote off all of the great things Republicans have done for Black Americans because they happened before last week...if you won't acknowledge which party freed the slaves, then accept the other party is the one that tried to keep them slaves, and ironically, continues to do so today, only the chains are mental.

As per the gerrymandering post (which only has 19 votes) is it of great importance to you that the Dems are the ones running 'a Black Guy'? As the Dems like to claim, Black conservatives "aren't really Black." It's shameful that any party is so race and gender obsessed, even tho it helps my side.


and calling the site "liberalsift"? if it's too "liberal" for you, gtfo. srsly. i wouldn't dream of going to any site, that had a more conservative viewership, and then blame them for wanting to talk openly.

I'm the only conservative that pipes up around here, and from time to time I've expressed gratitude for being able to do so. When I was banned a few folks who don't like me also welcomed my return. And while I believe you wouldn't go to townhall.com and attack the columnists there, many liberals and libertarians do. I'm sure there are conservative hawks who post at Daily Kos. So really, who's blaming whom? I don't want people to not post because they disagree with me, and let's face it, most do. Bush is unpopular, the war is unpopular, but popularity is not what it's about.

I'M not blaming anyone for posting as they do, or for posting what they want, even if they're not creative enough to go past Olbyloon's latest Countdown To No Ratings rant.

When I like a sift, I upvote it on its merit, even if I disagree 100% with the submitter.

whoopdee-fuckin-doo.

I didn't explain these points to gain sympathy any more than you want your posts treated with kid gloves. I'm just letting you know that I know what's going on. I think the challenge is that "angry knee-jerk reactions" is where a lot of these sifters start with their cockamamie sifts, and then expect a full discourse on American History they never learned to justify any possible opposing point of view.

The old joke goes, "Liberals welcome all points of view, until to their horror they discover there are other points of view."

Do you think posting a video of "angry" Black people marching in one kollij in one state is supposed to make the world tremble and viewers believe anything they say just because they're "angry"? I'll bet 90% of those doofs marching had no idea what they were matching for, they were marching because their friends were marching, or to meet girls, or worse yet, because Professor Marx offered credit to anyone who went. I don't have to know every little detail, I know enough about human nature.

> the sifts I submit are apolitical 98% of the time.

i would upvote honest, socially- or fiscally-conservative sifts. shit, dude. i'd welcome fiscally conservative ones with open fuckin' arms. saw plenty of good ones while ron paul was setting fundraising records.

Apolitical.

but not o'reilly, dude. c'mon. he's an embarrassment. look at the work of conservative intellectuals like margolis, and tell me you can't see the difference.

O'Reilly is current. What liberal is going to read margolis (or download her picture)?

Actually, people bagging on O'Reilly have posted more of his clips than I have.

now, since you mentioned snacks, it just so happens i have some ben & jerry's in the freezer. so i'm going to update my bio pic now...

I was about to recommend Colbert's Americone Dream but I see you've found it. Happy snacking!

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.
could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

jonny, you got two downvotes with no comment as to why. So I mentioned it and didn't downvote it, and that's a bad thing?

I honestly think you're a good guy somewhere under it but you judge damned quickly, harshly, and based on your standards as if they are the only legitimate ones. Step back a second and think about it.

If she already has cats she can't keep adopting them forever, there's a limit to how much any person can do. By adopting one more she saves just one. Most people who adopt an animal don't have the skills or the time to work with a difficult one and difficult they are likely to be if not around people between weening and old enough to spay. If it's adopted and returned months older because it's difficult its chances of seeing a needle to end its life is that much greater, it's the young who get adopted fast and the older ones often die.

By doing what she's doing she offers not one animal but many of them a better chance to find permanent homes as well as offering them a home for that time instead of a cage alone in a shelter. If you honestly understood the situation and still think that's worth "I'd rip their fucking throat out" as you put it I don't know what to tell you other than you might want to examine some priorities. You've got a lot of potential to do good things and are often enough on the right track in intent at least, but the good isn't really going to come if you can't see others points of view as well as your own. You've put yourself in their shoes if you can and explain things from a point of view they can understand to convince them, not judge them based on your point of view.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
spoco,

99.9% of the protesters are peaceful, 00.1% are scary. The media does nothing but talk about the scary 00.1%. Spoco regurgitates the company line about the scary 00.1%, thus perpetuating the lie.

In what way have you not succumbed?

Sorry, I know these may seem like harsh and even arrogant words, and I really don't mean to offend you, but this is very important for the country and you personally.

I used to think like you do, and I know that it was very difficult to admit I was wrong back then. Let's continue this discussion - I'm not trying to beat you down, just trying to open your eyes.

Absolutely that the media focuses on the scary. BUT the woman presenting the video hides her face with a bandanna. Joe public just isn't going to listen to what someone with a bandanna over their face has to say, and they are going to be turned off by the words 'Fuck the corporate media'. Until the media ISN'T given those people to focus on, until the entire protest, in whatever form it may be, and let me reiterate that something humorous, intelligent and interesting is going to have FAR more impact than this harsh, face covering tactic.

And your methods of saying that you're trying to 'open my eyes' is excedingly condescending of you, to assume that what you think is the TRUTH and all other points of view are dullard, misinformed plebs.

How about you look at what you're saying yourself and perhaps see that even with the bandanna covered, black wearing, swearing groups being in the minority, they are STILL part of the protest, and until you don't give the media them to focus on, I'm afraid they will continue to do so.

Quick disclaimer, I did wander in here through the TAYTV group and I figure people deserve to know who is saying what, but I'm also an activist in the drug war and media consolidation which means I have to be non-partisan and practiced at seeing things from others points of view so I can deal with their concerns on the issues. I'd like to think I can do that here as well. I hadn't posted before this mess because I figured the people posting the videos deserved to run their own site without comments from the peanut gallery, but since I already commented last night I'll toss one more in before I sink back into the woodwork

When the Internet was younger and a smaller community it was more Usenet based and much more democratic, we voted on an RFC and shaped our own world to a large extent. From what I see here you people are extremely lucky to exist in a similar environment, most of the web didn't develop the same way. You're going to have to fight two things to keep that, one is obvious but the other not so much. Both were evident in the last couple of days. Sticking to rules without being forced to, and cliquishness.

As any site grows it's going to change, you can't stop that short of being a less worthy site. If you're good you'll grow. Newcomers will change the feel of the place and a lot of people won't like that but the speed at which judgments were made also point to the other problem, seeing the "outsider" with suspicion and letting tempers get out of hand.

Joedirt is 100% right in what he posted and it's backed up by a recent post from one of the admins, they warned a user that them pushing against the rules wouldn't result in them being relaxed but in them being tightened instead. Nothing stays the same, every place I've spent a great deal of time on has gone through this same issue. You either get caught up in fighting amongst yourselves or you adopt the changes into the system and figure out how to live with it.

I like this site so I'd rather you learned to live with it. It's been a great deal of use to me so far and I don't want to see that change. Peace, and I'm back into the woodwork for a bit.