glad to have you aboard. we need more posters around here who aren't socialists.

wow.

2 words... civilian. deaths.

another two:

foreign. entanglement.


i can do this all day.


In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Iraq is irrelevant. Presidents can use the military as they see fit and you don't have to agree with them on how they choose to wield it. A lot of leftists hated the Iraq war (or were TAUGHT to hate it would be more accurate) but that's got nothing to do with why America is having problems right now. If Obama had done the same thing then you'd be praising how great he was - but since you hate Bush it is your only ammunition. But ultimately Iraq was very successful at its short term goals. Saddam - check. Terrorist focus NOT on the U.S. mainland - check. Long term its effect is still in doubt. That will depend on whether guys like Obama screw it up.

And Reagan did topple the USSR. You may lack historical perspective, but I being alive and aware at the time observed how Reagan's defense spending forced an already strained Russian economy to come apart at the seams trying to keep up. Russia couldn't make a socialist central economy work and it blew up. Without Reagan's brinkmanship and arms race the Russian economy could possibly have staggered on indefinitely. As it was, it tried to keep up and couldn't. Reagan 1. Russia 0.

Sort of like America's economy today is being strained to the breaking point by socialism. Morons like Obama and his crew just never learn from history - sadly. They labor under the fool's hope that Kenseyian economics just hasn't been given ENOUGH of a chance. Faux-economist poppycock. Like Russia in the late 80s, the US will collapse if it tries to go all socialist. No country can afford it because human beings are greedy, stupid morons and all governments are corrupt cesspits of waste and mis-management. Wise were the founding fathers to design the Bill of Rights to limit GOVERNMENT and not the people. It is then no surprise that Obama thinks that the Bill of Rights doesn't empower government enough. To Obama the Constitution is an obstacle to shoot in the head and dump off a bridge rolled up in a carpet.

Pennypacker, I like the cut of your jib.

(You're right. Its a global conspiracy perpetrated by the Discovery Channel and National Geographic magazine to boost revenue. Just like the microbial theory of disease, there's no possible way for you to prove that we're lying about global warming! Muahahah!!!... well, except you could actually fairly easily test the assumption of either of those in your backyard... but I'm not telling how! Muahaha!)

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The problem being that newspapers (or 'the media' nowadays) has abdicated its objectivity - much like the scientific community abdicated its objectivity in regards to the whole global warming debate. In so doing it has become unworthy of trust and severely damaged its credibility. In time past the media was able to keep its mask of objectivity even if it really wasn't objective. Now the mask has not just slipped, it is completely off and what has been carefully hidden for years has become an in-your-face bias. When the media acts in such a manner it cannot be viewed as 'news' any longer. It has to be seen for what it is...

Propoganda.

Great screenname.

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I've seen plenty of videos with titles slanted the other way. If they're is a bias in what is upvoted on to the top 15 its obviously a reflection of the users of the site. If you want to change things, a good start would be to collect the user names of likeminded users, and, when you submit things you think they'll like, drop them a line to drive something that might otherwise not make it to 10 votes right onto the sift. This is not frowned upon in the slightest.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Lol - I love you guys... On the same page we have "Christopher Hitchens slams Palin" and also "Biden Spanks Right Wing Media Hack". No bias here though, right? You people are such a bunch of mindless tools. It's really kind of amazing. When did you guys learn to metabolize feces? You must have, because you always have your heads stuck right up Obama's ass... So pathetic.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
"Where is your criticism of the Bush administration?"

Are you kidding? The sift and many other places are literal hotbeds of 24/7/365 distilled anti-Bush venom. The Bush bashers don't need me to add my voice to the chorus. I'm no fan of Bush and his 'new tone' crud, or his pathetic big-government policies. But who is?
I understand your point Pennypacker, and youre right, the point probably is moot on a site like this. For what its worth I didnt mean to imply that I wanted you to simply step in line with most of the others on here and bash bush, join in the chorus, whatever. What I was trying to voice was that its seven and a half years later, its really easy to be angry about a lot of things these days. My frustration is that those that are supporting McCain and still supporting Bush seem incapable of seeing the EXACT same faults that they see in nonrepublicans, in their candidate of choice. The hyporocy is maddening. I'm not looking to make another democrate or republican I just with there accountability for actions and faults on both sides. It just came accross like you just another hardcore republican who would never budge on any subject. If you had come accros on the liberal side I would like to think that I would have given you a hard time just the same, that is I at least try to be an equal opportunity naysayer. I appologize for assuming and if I dumped unfair frustration on you I again appologize.
As for the video heres how I see it. Neither of the two candidates are "ready" or "qualified" to be president. No one ever is in my opinion. It does no good to slander a persons past on either side becasue that point is moot as well. McCain has been in the Senate for a while, so, that just means hes qualified to hold position in the senate. Same for Obama. In 2000 there was actually a chance that I would have voted for McCain had he won the nomination, but I don't trust him anymore. In my eyes he has completely sold out for votes, if he truly believes what hes saying now he needs to give a better explanation for why other than what we've already been hearing for the entirty of the Bush administration. On the other hand obama isnt ready either but I trust his sincerity. Frankly I dont know what else to go on these days. Theres obvioulsy more to it but this is already long.
hope that helps/clears things up. I look forward to butting heads again in the future.