To my first sift buddy I just want to say thanks for befriending me, and also for bringing your good nature to our little corner of the web. You've definitely left your mark on this place, and it wouldn't be the same without you. Congratulations, your worship!

^ I think we're on the same page, and ultimately I think you just said you agree with my overall point -- the statement "government can't create wealth" is false.

The question you raise is "can labor in the hands of the government create greater wealth than labor in the hands of individuals?" which is fair and valid, and I'd agree that most of the time, government cannot do it better. I just don't agree with people who assert that it never can spend money that results in benefit greater than the sum of dollars spent, whether that's wealth or something more abstract.

I'm always interested in other perspectives, and while I most certainly have an existing viewpoint, I'm open to changing my mind on things if someone gives me a good reason to do so. I figure it's good to invite people to make good-natured attempts to tear down what I believe, just to make sure it stands up to scrutiny.

However, I find that holding the average Republican talking point up to the light pretty much always makes them shrivel into worthless nonsense. There's a difference between "Government should not try to do X because we think Y would be better" and "Government is incapable of doing X". The former is the statement of a viewpoint, the second is a false declaration that, if true, would vindicate their unstated viewpoint.

Same goes with Michael Steele's asserting that government can't create jobs (and worse, says never in the history of mankind has it ever done so) -- what I think he wants to say is that government can't create permanent private sector demand for employment through temporary government spending. That would be the start of a valid debate, but it's not what he's actually saying.

My main concern is that there seem to be people who don't know any better who think these misleading statements are directly true; they think government can't create wealth, and government can't create jobs.

I don't think that's being honest, and I hope you would agree with me.

this is why henchmen are such jerks, the good natured ones get weeded out by unsportsmanlike "good guys".

>> ^Duckman33:
At least he was good natured about it.


She knows better than to keep the camera running during the beatings.

At least he was good natured about it.

I'm deathly afraid of that command. I've already bungled it once and had to throw myself at the feet of King Ant and beg for mercy. Fortunately he was very good-natured about it.

Be. Careful.

Don't go by the thumbnail, watch each video in entirety, double and triple check the submitted date and time, and double check to make sure you drop it in the right comment window. And for God's sake, don't drink and *dupeof.

Choggie, rather than just coming back with new screen names, saying the stuff you always say, why not sneak back into the site with a false identity.

You could pretend to be a kind, rational, funny, good-natured guy, with excellent grammar and spelling. Keep this up for a year or so until you get all of your sift powers back, and then you can bust out a sift talk: "Hey evarbuddy, imma Choggie inna sift, you asshole-bastards. 911 was an inside job. (or whatever you want to say)".....

.....or even better, don't ever reveal your true identity. After all, he who laughs last, laughs longest.

Choggie, rather than just coming back with new screen names, saying the stuff you always say, why not sneak back into the site with a false identity.

You could pretend to be a kind, rational, funny, good-natured guy, with excellent grammar and spelling. Keep this up for a year or so until you get all of your sift powers back, and then you can bust out a sift talk: "Hey evarbuddy, imma Choggie inna sift, you asshole-bastards. 911 was an inside job. (or whatever you want to say)".....

.....or even better, don't ever reveal your true identity. After all, he who laughs last, laughs longest.

That's proper kind of you Ed, thanks a lot! I'll be sure to send stuff your way if i think it will interest ya, no worries at all

In reply to this comment by EDD:
Thanks for suggesting fun stuff, it's what I like most, and I'm open to any other suggestions you may ever have for me! And thanks for the kind words and support, too - you're one of the few that have voiced those in my direction here (not that I've had _much_ hate or that I'm super-extra-sensitive) and I appreciate them greatly.

Also, I just inducted you into my "Absolute best of likable folks" playlist a.k.a. my Hall of Sift fame. Having lurked here as much as I have, I feel comfortable saying you're a likable, good-natured person and your recent sarcastic anti-homophobia video was a nice addition to my playlist

Cheers, Ed

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Haha, ok. That's certainly not the best of him by a long way, you should check some of the other stuff out. He's incredibly dry, so it only suits certain types for sure I like your style btw, was reading some of the stuff in your profile btween you and littlered, your points are pretty well conceived and it's nice that you're backing others up as you see fit. Take it easy then

Thanks for suggesting fun stuff, it's what I like most, and I'm open to any other suggestions you may ever have for me! And thanks for the kind words and support, too - you're one of the few that have voiced those in my direction here (not that I've had _much_ hate or that I'm super-extra-sensitive) and I appreciate them greatly.

Also, I just inducted you into my "Absolute best of likable folks" playlist a.k.a. my Hall of Sift fame. Having lurked here as much as I have, I feel comfortable saying you're a likable, good-natured person and your recent sarcastic anti-homophobia video was a nice addition to my playlist

Cheers, Ed

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Haha, ok. That's certainly not the best of him by a long way, you should check some of the other stuff out. He's incredibly dry, so it only suits certain types for sure I like your style btw, was reading some of the stuff in your profile btween you and littlered, your points are pretty well conceived and it's nice that you're backing others up as you see fit. Take it easy then

Well, I appreciate your good nature, and apologize for questioning your coolitude. I look forward to seeing you turn bronze within the hour!

In reply to this comment by Pushkill:
thank you, I just want to be clear on how certain things go around here, I try to avoid submitting dupes as much as I can, and I don't want to call out other dupes if they are in fact not dupes. Like I said, I've been trying to get that video sifted for a couple weeks and then you promoted that one and I saw the submit date on it as being only a day or two old, and got pretty confused, hehe. All is good though, happy sifting, and thanks for the replies!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
That's exactly right, videos that didn't get enough votes would roll to 'discard', and could only be resurrected with the 'save' invocation. I'm gonna let this whole thing drop, since you're only one point from being bronzed, and you are cool.

In reply to this comment by Pushkill:
yeah I know what you mean, there seems to be a redundancy between PQ and discarded videos. From my understanding of how it goes now, discard is meant to remove the video from submission and any possibility of it being resurected by another member, kind of like a private PQ, (which is why I would suspect they don't show up in searches or the dupe checks) and the PQ is like the holding area for videos that couldn't get votes fast enough, but still are attempting to be sifted. I'm wondering if there should be a siftbot command that a submitter can use to transfer their discarded videos to their PQ (is there one?).

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
I have no doubt that you are, for submitting Fintroll in the first place. I'm pretty confused about the whole business, because the "discard" pile used to be what the "pq" is now, so some people have some really cool stuff in there that I like to promote. Gets me in trouble more often than not.

In reply to this comment by Pushkill:
Discards don't show up in the search or the dupe check from what I have seen, so what is there to prevent those videos from being submitted over and over? I try to thoroughly search before I submit and nothing Finntroll related came up. I don't care which post is discarded I just wanted that video sifted because it deserves it and I've been putting it through beggar's canyon a few times.

(P.S. i'm pretty cool, too)

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
This one was submitted first, and is sifted. Protocol would be that yours is to be discarded.

In reply to this comment by Pushkill:
*dupe http://www.videosift.com/video/Finntroll-Trollhammaren

sorry I meant to say, "Succubus!"

and knew you'd be the first to find a linear example of the apparent dichotomy....
besides, bitch can also be an endearing expression, when parties involved, their intimacy having reached that level of understanding......and a good-natured slap on that sweet ass does wonders for those so singularly entwined as well....

and to remind, that Obama tripe deserves much more than a gentle, "FYB"....nothing short was that, of pandering to emotionally-driven newsspeak dogma, which bringeth up the bile from the duct, and maketh the swallow acidic and difficult.......Fuck feel good political adds whose appeal is to the vapid and weak-willed!!!!

Better??

Kudos for McCain speaking his honest thoughts in what is CLEARLY a hostile environment, and having the good nature to laugh with Ellen as she cracks a joke at his expense (something he didn't do to her).

Consider this about homosexuality (from a completely non-religious point of view):

If genetics, chemistry, and/or biology has mandated that you be born with (for example) male genetalia, then it's for a very good damn reason. It's for the purpose of procreating the species. It's Darwinism, survival of the fittest. It's science. So if biology gives you a desire to bond with another male "romantically" (i.e. sexually) then it seems to be a clear indication that something biologically/chemically is broken in that specific organism, since it fails to do its part in perpetuation.

How a society goes about dealing with that organism (its place in the social order) is another matter altogether.

>> ^lertad:
Bah, why'd he have to go and actually pay attention to what people are saying and also be good-natured about it...


Because to do otherwise would be redundant?

Bah, why'd he have to go and actually pay attention to what people are saying and also be good-natured about it...