Tags for this video have been changed from 'eva markvoort, cystic, fibrosis, vlog, last, words' to 'eva markvoort, cystic fibrosis, vlog, last words' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'eva, markvoort, cystic, fibrosis, vlog, last, words' to 'eva markvoort, cystic, fibrosis, vlog, last, words' - edited by xxovercastxx

Just stop the sexist bullshit. The rest I couldn't care less about.

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Alright Fletch. This misogynist harassment needs to stop. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://dag.videosift.com" title="member since February 16th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">dag @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://lucky760.videosift.com" title="member since May 2nd, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0044ff">lucky760
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
DFT & IK, it's so cute how you upvote each other's comments and videos. It sorta reminds me of the Terri Schiavo case, where her husband, Michael, supported her and efforts to bring her back to consciousness for years, even though it was obvious she was vegetative.

@sugartits.

And Berticus... oh, nm.

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^Issykitty:
It's a KITTEN, dipshit. Wow, you took the time to look at when it was uploaded. That's precious.

@Sugartits
What a strange reply to a compliment. Checking the age of a video that I knew I had seen before is no more difficult or time-consuming than viewing your ignored comments. Click. Done.



Wow. You edited your comment after submitting it. How strange. The original was reasonable and to the point ("Alright Fletch. That's enough"). When I got the email, I was just going to respond with something like "no problem, but I don't take kindly to name-calling", or something along those lines, but the new version with "misogynist harassment" sounds like a typical IK comment. You know, buzzwords intended to support a desperate, gutless fabrication. I'm sorry, but there is no way you wrote "misogynist harassment". I've just read way too much of what you've written in the past. You just aren't prone to shrill exaggeration. Buzzwords... that's IK. If I'm wrong... I'm wrong. Sorry about that.

I don't use the sarcasm box. Never will. I think it's stupid. Unfortunately, not doing so gives those who need a windmill to slay an opportunuty to be offended by something, and may give those who wish to offend a free ticket to do so. (I recently saw a comment by Lucky ((?) I think; maybe dag) tell someone that if they didn't check the sarcasm box, they would be banned for a time. Or something. Insane.) If you choose to take what I say literally, and resolve it into "misogynist harassment", then the joke is on you. I'm sorry, but it started with "dipshit". Everything after that was a REPLY. She asked for it. But that's her MO... name-calling, condescension, that strange you-must-really-want-my-attention act that is just so tired/weird, all followed by threats and the circling of wagons when none of those tactics result in the last word. That's my perception/experience with her, anyway. Call me names, it's on. I won't allow anyone to talk to me like that without responding. If she is going to be so thin-skinned about it, she should really consider carefully what she types before hitting "submit new comment".

I am an equal-opportunity stale and stupid cat video down-voter. I have no idea why she thinks she's so special. Maybe she just lives for badges, or something sad like that.

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://dag.videosift.com" title="member since February 16th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">dag @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://lucky760.videosift.com" title="member since May 2nd, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0044ff">lucky760

DFT didn't quote everything. Here's the whole "conversation".

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Alright Fletch. This misogynist harassment needs to stop. @dag @lucky760
In reply to this comment by Fletch:
DFT & IK, it's so cute how you upvote each other's comments and videos. It sorta reminds me of the Terri Schiavo case, where her husband, Michael, supported her and efforts to bring her back to consciousness for years, even though it was obvious she was vegetative.

@sugartits.

And Berticus... oh, nm.

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^Issykitty:
It's a KITTEN, dipshit. Wow, you took the time to look at when it was uploaded. That's precious.

@Sugartits
What a strange reply to a compliment. Checking the age of a video that I knew I had seen before is no more difficult or time-consuming than viewing your ignored comments. Click. Done.



Wow. You edited your comment after submitting it. How strange. The original was reasonable and to the point ("Alright Fletch. That's enough"). When I got the email, I was just going to respond with something like "no problem, but I don't take kindly to name-calling", or something along those lines, but the new version with "misogynist harassment" sounds like a typical IK comment. You know, buzzwords intended to support a desperate, gutless fabrication. I'm sorry, but there is no way you wrote "misogynist harassment". I've just read way too much of what you've written in the past. You just aren't prone to shrill exaggeration. Buzzwords... that's IK. If I'm wrong... I'm wrong. Sorry about that.

I don't use the sarcasm box. Never will. I think it's stupid. Unfortunately, not doing so gives those who need a windmill to slay an opportunuty to be offended by something, and may give those who wish to offend a free ticket to do so. (I recently saw a comment by Lucky ((?) I think; maybe dag) tell someone that if they didn't check the sarcasm box, they would be banned for a time. Or something. Insane.) If you choose to take what I say literally, and resolve it into "misogynist harassment", then the joke is on you. I'm sorry, but it started with "dipshit". Everything after that was a REPLY. She asked for it. But that's her MO... name-calling, condescension, that strange you-must-really-want-my-attention act that is just so tired/weird, all followed by threats and the circling of wagons when none of those tactics result in the last word. That's my perception/experience with her, anyway. Call me names, it's on. I won't allow anyone to talk to me like that without responding. If she is going to be so thin-skinned about it, she should really consider carefully what she types before hitting "submit new comment".

I am an equal-opportunity stale and stupid cat video down-voter. I have no idea why she thinks she's so special. Maybe she just lives for badges, or something sad like that.

@dag @lucky760

DFT didn't quote everything. Here's the whole "conversation".

Anyone have any idea what his last words truly were? That kind of thing isn't normally reported so soon after but I'd like to know.

I always like to recall the last words of Oscar Wilde or at least, his alleged last words:

Bedridden with cerebral meningitis in Paris, he took note of the unsatisfactory decor of the room and said, "Either this wallpaper goes or I do."

>> ^longde:

I think it's insane that when confronted with the gun, the girl calls the bluff and doesn't shrink at all.

I'm trying to remember where, but I recall hearing it said that the classic movie\tv line of "Go ahead and shoot me, then" and variants are commonly reported to be someone's last words. It seems in the real world aggressors are much more likely to comply with the request.

I can predict his last words....

"Watch this!"

I just hope you're not as cynical and miserable as you may or may not sound. Last word.

I'm not going to address the rest of your long post, because really -- it does just get down to this: if abortion is murder, then the death penalty is murder.

The death penalty is not murder, it is punishment, if you even want to call it that.

Three squares a day, activities, mail, internet, tv for decades on Death Row, followed by a chosen last meal and a chance to say last words, not dying alone is far better then what the vermins' victims got.

I'd be for abolishing the death penalty if life in prison really meant life in prison, and time was served on a frozen rock gulag in Alaska with only the barest of necessities.

It's well known amongst demon worshipers?

See, you were just complaining about apostasy in another post today. And yet it sounds like you're sort of buying into some sort of weird, middle ages Malleus Maleficarum stuff here. Nowhere in the bible does it say that marijuana use is a sin. Am I wrong about that? Or is this something that god told you personally? To me, it sounds like you're just buying into the antiquated perception of mainstream society that says that marijuana use is "evil". So you're going to base your gospel (remember, you're the one who's preaching) on the words of Aleister Crowley now? All of a sudden Aleister Crowley is the last word on what's holy or unholy? Seems to me like he's the last person whose word you would want to take on the subject.

Oh, but you used the word "abuse" right? Drug "abuse" is sinful and Satanic? Well, isn't the abuse of anything sinful and satanic? So it's kind of a moot point right? Can't you just as easily abuse butter, or adrenaline or the bible?

Well what about the legitimate use of a drug? Is using aspirin sinful and satanic? It sounds to me like you're pretty much writing off the use of any marijuana ever. Well what about someone dying of leukemia who hasn't eaten in a week because they're so sick? I'd like to see you say to that person that they were worshiping demons for taking marijuana to help them eat. That the sick or the dying should not receive comfort because of something Aleister Crowley said.

It sounds to me like you're guilty of letting the devil convince you of something that God has yet to let us know about.

I won't even get into the whole "burning bush" thing since I know you prefer to take any bible verse that suits your purpose literally.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What you think about me has no bearing on my witness here. Even if no one believes me, at least they will have the information if they ever wake up. Satan is real, and anyone who doesn't know God has been utterly deceived by him. It's been well known amongst demon worshippers that marijuana opens you to spiritual realms controlled by Satan. Aliester crowley stated that very clearly in his book of the law. Drug abuse of any kind is sinful and satanic, and invites possession.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny, it's comments like that that truly help illustrate the level of your ignorance.

I don't disagree with Sanders, and, despite such, Paul raises a good enough question--which Franken acts like an ass in response.

Sanders and Paul win here for their civility. Normally I respect Franken for his devoted work towards the common good, but this reminds me of "Dracula; Dead and Loving It" where the vampire has to have the last word.

In the private sector, you have to spend to make. Simple. In government, you have to spend to make. However, there is a limit.

Drinking the koolaid, my friend, drinking the koolaid.

I presume you are not wealthy? But you want the wealthy to get wealthier while the country drowns in debt.

I'll let you have the last word. If cold hard facts don't move you, nothing will.

In reply to this comment by maestro156:
That's what I call appropriately aligned incentives. They've already paid taxes on the wages that went to buy the investments. If you raise taxes on capital gains you incentivize them to spend it arbitrarily, while if you keep capital gains low, you incentivize them to invest it.

I think it's clear that investments are a better expenditure than arbitrary spending, but you can feel free to disagree.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
The struggle to have the government be the "right" size is a conversation that will go on for as long as we have a viable country. There is no right answer.

However.

I do taxes. Let me tell you something...

Married filing joint. Dividend income from US corporations of $80,000. You know how much tax this couple pays?

$200. I swear to God.

If that same couple had wage income? Then they would pay $8,400 in income taxes, plus as additional $6,100 in payroll taxes.

I did a return for a married couple who had taxable income of $70,000, after standard deduction and exemptions of $16,000, who paid $3,000 in tax. In other words, income of $89,000 paying $3,000 in tax. Had a big capital gain, all of which was taxes at ZERO TAX RATE. Zero. ZERO.

Don't talk to me about the debt. DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT THE DEBT without talking about putting tax rates back.

It is a crime what has gone on in this country for the capital-heavy people. Wages and pensions get taxed full bore, but capital?

Drives me crazy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.
So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.
(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)


I think we both have the same basic idea about how this should ultimately be handled. But since the devil is in the detail, I'll still nitpick a bit. I still say that the state needs to have some control over how they define marriage, and that it can't be a private matter because of the benefits afforded to married couples. I do think the government should recognize "non-standard" family units, and should allow you to assign visitation rights / tax benefits / property sharing / etc. as you see fit for the most part.

However, there are limits. Marrying your mousepad, for example, is right out. Even if you have an undying love for your mousepad, it can't consent (being inanimate), so that's a problem right there. A mousepad doesn't pay taxes, so there's no reason to give it tax benefits. And if you divorce it later on, does it get half of your possessions? Who would represent it in divorce court? No, I would say someone marrying their mousepad is trying to game the system by getting married tax benefits while still single.

You seem to imply that the state shouldn't recognize the marriage between yourself and your mousepad, but that they shouldn't define what marraige is... I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

(You are correct regarding the personal / private thing -- I misspoke. It is personal, but isn't private.)

>> ^davidraine:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Nahhh, it does miss the point. He ends up supporting the course of action you and I would support, but he never addresses the 500 pound gorilla in the room, what business just government have to decide what marriage even is? Isn't that completely personal and private. The only reason we really have it is to stop Mormons from practicing their religion, and for money...always the money.

I don't think this is the 500-pound gorilla in the room, because the answer is clear. Marriage is not personal and not private by any means. Marriage is written into tax laws, health laws, death laws, etc. Government creates and maintains the law, so government is intimately tied to marriage.
Put another way, if you want to have a personal and private connection with another human being and live with them, love them, and cherish them forever, no-one is stopping you. You don't need a ceremony or a contract or even recognition to have a deep bond to another human being. Ironically, homosexuals probably know this best, as they have been denied that recognition for so long. As a result, some do share personal and private connections with others, regardless of the state's position. Yet, many of them want their state to recognize those bonds.
If marriage were personal and private, the state's recognition wouldn't matter. However, marriage isn't personal -- It's a contract between two people and the state. With it comes a host of new benefits, mostly in the form of tax breaks. As a result, the government's view of marriage suddenly becomes very relevant.


Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.

So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.


(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)