Guys, Al-Qaeda confirmed his death. What else could you possibly want - a long form death certificate?!

For the record, she's not saying that you're crazy if you don't believe the government. She's saying if it's to the point that no matter what evidence is presented to you you still won't believe it, then you're acting irrationally.

She's absolutely right.

Imagine being a primitive, superstitious person and finding such a bird in the wild, speaking with a person's voice. Now imagine what sort of crazy explanation you might come up with to explain it.

I got no specific story here, just thinking out loud. I wouldn't be surprised to find birds like these featured heavily in folklore.

>> ^blankfist:

So, if you're not an ardent defender of women's rights, then you must be... racist? Not sure where you're going with this. Won't you stop hijacking your own video post? Teahad!


I noticed you reversed my causation in your previous comment too. I'm saying racists like conservative policies, not that all people who like conservative policies are racist.

Is this an intentional misunderstanding? I hear this a lot from conservatives.

To use a less charged example, I'm saying "if you're a dog, you probably have four legs" and you're coming back and saying "You're crazy if you think anything with four legs is a dog!"

What I'm actually saying is sufficiently controversial and debatable enough without you misrepresenting it.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Yogi" title="member since May 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">Yogi
Asian Americans are around 4% of the US population, and Jewish Americans are around 2%, so we wouldn't expect to see a high proportion of CEOs belonging to those groups.
It is, though, not uncommon to see Asian Americans in high positions in Wall Street, in medicine, or as CEOs in Silicon Valley, where I live, and Jewish Americans are certainly overrepresented as CEOs relative to their proportion of the population. The majority of big Hollywood companies, for example, have CEOs who are Jewish.


Well that certainly show'd me. Oh hey Harlem...Oh hey Compton...Oh hey Black and Hispanic kids graduating at a phenomenally lower rate than white kids. Damn guess there's nothing in America that has to do with ethnicity, socio-economic status, access to employment ect. Must be the weather or something right?

Look you're just crazy if you don't think it matters it does. There's been hundreds of studies on the subject if you want to look it up and stop bothering to argue it over the internet.

Here we have the same gargle of atheists going out of their way to get pissed off at one man's opinion. It's fun to be offended...the religious equally enjoy being offended by what they deem blasphemous.

All right, you don't care for GB and wouldn't no matter what he said, but you would "respect" him more for saying what he "really" thinks? Read the quote. It implies something, but is so vague as to be meaningless.

Obama never says what he means and he's the President. For now.


>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Beck quote: "But I'll tell you this: whether you call it Gaia or whether you call it Jesus -- there's a message being sent. And that is, 'Hey, you know that stuff we're doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.' I'm just sayin'."
It was not a well-constructed thought, but it says nothing to the effect of God singled out Japan for its sins or that Japan 'deserved' it.
Tis a far cry from what Stenk and Friends are insinuating, but expect no less from "interpreters" who are anti-religion.

So supernatural force causing earthquakes to send a message that stuff people are doing is not good. It is still a moron trying to place human causation on a natural disaster. He's playing the same stupid game he always does, 'I'm not going to say (blank is a blank) but wink wink you gotta wonder.'
And thus why I suggest he's got shriveled raisins for testicles because he's too much of a pussy to say what he actually means. I'm sure his fans would eat it up and his buddies at FOX would just go, Oh Glen you so crazy, but you make us a lot of money so we love you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Beck quote: "But I'll tell you this: whether you call it Gaia or whether you call it Jesus -- there's a message being sent. And that is, 'Hey, you know that stuff we're doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.' I'm just sayin'."
It was not a well-constructed thought, but it says nothing to the effect of God singled out Japan for its sins or that Japan 'deserved' it.
Tis a far cry from what Stenk and Friends are insinuating, but expect no less from "interpreters" who are anti-religion.


So supernatural force causing earthquakes to send a message that stuff people are doing is not good. It is still a moron trying to place human causation on a natural disaster. He's playing the same stupid game he always does, 'I'm not going to say (blank is a blank) but wink wink you gotta wonder.'

And thus why I suggest he's got shriveled raisins for testicles because he's too much of a pussy to say what he actually means. I'm sure his fans would eat it up and his buddies at FOX would just go, Oh Glen you so crazy, but you make us a lot of money so we love you.

>> ^Morganth:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:

... Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot ... All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it ... People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness ... it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.

Projecting much? It is you who think you know it all. It is you who judge others. It is you who defines wickedness and sin to match what you wish to be true.
And most importantly, it is you who lack tolerance. I will keep my beliefs to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life and stop telling me that you are better than me because you know all the rules.
Faith. The belief in something without any evidence. No proof, no truth! Yet you people throw the word "truth" around like you own it. Go read that ancient, human-penned book you cherry pick quotes from. I did. And that's why I'm no longer a believer. Thank god.


What you're describing has nothing to do with faith. Faith is not "belief in something without any evidence." Faith is trust, the act of being true to something, loyalty. You have faith in a chair when you choose to sit on it - faith that it will hold you. You are faithful to your spouse when you remain true to your marriage vows. Furthermore, faith is built on experience, not blindness. You have faith in the stability of a chair because of your past experience with chairs - they have proven themselves to have the capability of holding you. You have faith in your spouse that he/she will remain true to you because of the history of your relationship together. You do not put your faith in a stranger.

And you think you have tolerance?? Tolerance applies to those who have beliefs different from your own, not the same(Here's a hint: how you treat people like shinyblurry shows how tolerant or intolerant you are).

"I will keep my believes to myself just as soon as all you nutjob faithers stop judging my life..." Do you see what you don't here? Judging someone as being a nutjob for believing in God and expressing an opposing opinion here on the sift, as opposed to all the sane, rational, non-nutjobs who are people that don't believe in God. Would you care to be the pot or the kettle this time?


Augh! It drives me crazy when you people do that. Stop conflating the different definitions of the word "faith"!

Look it up in the dictionary. The two primary definitions are something along these lines:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

These are two separate concepts! If I have sat on a chair in the past, I might have faith that it will hold me the next time I sit on it, or the next time I sit on something similar. If I have become close with a person, I might have faith that their behavior would remain consistent toward me.

But if I have faith in a religion, that is the SECOND definition. Religions, specifically the Judeo-Christian varieties, are based on texts. There is absolutely NO reason to accept those as proof of anything. I can write something down on paper, that does not make what I have written true. Therefor faith in this type of religion is a belief that is not based on proof!

You may stay "faithful" to your religion when pressed by others to convert. That is a use of the word based on the first definition. You may have faith that your church will be there to support you when you have life challenges. Again, that is related to the first definition. But when you say that you have faith that the Lord Jesus Christ will grant you eternal paradise, that is the second definition. There is no proof that you will go somewhere when you die, and there is no proof that Jesus even was a real person to begin with. All of that is belief without proof. If you were somehow able to witness a person living a virtuous and pious life being rewarded with paradise after death, then yes, you might be able to say you have a reasonable expectation of receiving the same treatment. But that is not available to us mortals.

And as far as tolerance goes, let me ask you a couple questions. Have you ever had someone show up at your door specifically to try to convince you that religion is a lie? No. But there are plenty of people who will come around and tell me that I am on the path to hell if I don't join their cult. Have you ever heard of someone passing legislation to teach school children that religions are lies? No. But plenty of religious organizations are trying to inject their religion into public schools, if it wasn't already there! The closest you get is the total absence of any religious discussion at all, which is NOT the same as teaching atheism. It is a neutral position, allowing for everybody to keep their beliefs to themselves.

I am only intolerant of religion insomuch as it is shoved in my face by faithers. Keep your ancient desert blood cult fantasies to yourself, and you will hear no more from me. THAT IS TOLERANCE. Do NOT expect me to hold my tongue as religion is forced upon me or anybody else. That is the entire point of the video above. The man is dying, and they feel perfectly justified in shoving their beliefs in his face again and again. You know what would happen if nobody did that to him? He would say "Actually everybody has been very respectful and held their opinions to themselves. It's been quite nice and I appreciate it." When religions *give* tolerance, they will *get* tolerance.

Did you speak to God yourself shiny? Or did you read the re-re-re-translation of a book written by agenda driven nutters like you 600 years after a bunch of backward uneducated nomads in the desert wrote it?
(No offense to early mid-east culture but the Chinese at least could read and write by then, shame God gave them a miss).

You don't sound like a bad person but you HAVE to understand that to those of us who are not indoctrinated into believing in ancient peasant stories of magic tricks you sound like a NUTTER. And a nutter who claims to know the inner thoughts of a supreme being! If I was God I'd kick your ass for presumtion.

Come on, you must know you're crazy. If you lament the state of civilization then understand that tribal superstitions and fearfulness are FAR from part of the solution. Let's face it if you'd been born in a different country you'd be just as fervent about a whole different story.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God..

God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that..

I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent.

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Moxy_Fr%C3%BCvous:Gulf_War_Song

We got a call to write a song about the war in the Gulf
But we shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings
So we tried, then gave up, 'cause there was no such song
But the trying was very revealing
What makes a person so poisonous righteous
That they'd think less of anyone who just disagreed?
She's just a pacifist, he's just a patriot
If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me?

Fighters for liberty, fighters for power
Fighters for longer turns in the shower
Don't tell me I can't fight, 'cause I'll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me

So we read and we watched all the specially selected news
And we learned so much more 'bout the good guys
Won't you stand by the flag? Was the question unasked
Won't you join in and fight with the allies?
What could we say...we're only 25 years old?
With 25 sweet summers, and hot fires in the cold
This kind of life makes that violence unthinkable
We'd like to play hockey, have kids and grow old

Fighters for Texaco, fighters for power
Fighters for longer turns in the shower
Don't tell me I can't fight 'cause I'll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me
That us would fight them for we

He's just a peacenik and she's just a warhawk
That's where the beach was, that's where the sea
What could we say...we're only 25 years old?
And history seems to agree
that I would fight you for me
That us would fight them for we

Is that how it always will be?

This just goes to show how shaky these people's faith is. They live in that world were nothing is ever questioned, and everything is absolutely certain. The bible is real, it was written by god himself, anyone that says anything else is absolutely crazy and you should never listen to them because they are going to hell and if you commingle with them you could jeopardize your position in heaven.

Then of course when they hear an actual opinion outside of their church group they have no answers because they have never even thought of anything besides what their church tells to think. Their positions and ideas of god are so untenable that just the seed of an idea can lead to those people leaving their church. I think it's one of the major reasons why so many atheists are former Christians.

Me, I'm agnostic. I believe in some pretty unusual things, but even those believes are ones I struggle with.

That's what started my journey was when I didn't wish harm unto anyone, yet my faith talks about it all the time.

I could never with any conscience level of understanding submit someone to hell; NO MATTER WHAT THEY'VE DONE. Ever.

So many variables create a human. So many variables interact and sometimes FORCE you to think the way you do. This is the modern understanding of the brain. True, free will has and will always be an utter joke. People claim they would not do something in someone else's shoes, but if you impose the same biology and conditions--YOU WILL do EXACTLY the same thing (except for random quantum mechanical variations). In fact when it is said and done your mind will be indistinguishable from theirs.

Throw your old self in your body afterwards and after the nausea and vomiting and the absolute horror of realizing you are nothing but the same thing is gone, you might begin to understand love and empathy. If you already can see this, you have an actual chance to be a moral person. If I sound crazy to you, then you have a lot to learn and live for.

That's it. Faith won't make a decision; reality does that.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

I'm not sure why people would fear death. Do any of you remember what it was like before you were born? No? Exactly. It would be much more useful fearing an accident that leaves you permanently injured, or slowly growing crazy as you age.


Hasn't it always been a more intellectual fear, not one of pain, but of being non-existent. Sure the bits of matter you were comprised of will be around, but everything that made you, you will be long gone. Even the memories people have of you will no do the real you no real justice. I don't have the view myself, but I understand it for what it is.

But back to the video, the WHOLE time he was being inflammatory(hilarious), I don't know why you would single out one event over another. I mean, just the phrase, "Thank God I am an atheist" is hilarious(inflammatory), he couldn't of been serious, it would defy the sentence (that is an awesome version of the lier's paradox actually).

[redacted]

I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

Both liberals and conservatives base their underpinning concepts on things that are 'facts'. The interpretation of those facts is where the distortion lies. For example - Bachman’s full quote clearly proves she is talking about the dissemination of information about Cap & Trade and not violent rebellion. Obama’s “I want people angry” quote is likewise clearly not a call for violence.

Both quotes are factual. It is the interpretation that is biased. I extend both sides the benefit of the doubt and do not just go around assuming the worst on ‘their side’ and the best on ‘my side’. So when I hear leftists calling only right-wing speech 'bad' and ignoring the same crap from the left-wing, I call BS.

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Joyce Kaufman is as irrelevant to this topic as Micheal Fiengold is - the guy who said Republicans “should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” Fringe crazies do not represent the majority. And I reject as poppycock any implication that the right has a greater number or percentage of these crazies compared to the left.

Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said. The other issue is, you're quoting him way out of context

It IS in the legislation, and it is not out of context. Obamacare establishes the H&HS secretary as the party who makes decisions regarding what is and isn’t covered in plans. And his law requires all Americans to buy into these approved plans or pay fines and face possible jail time. It establishes government panels as entities that make health care rationing decisions based on economics and not doctors or patients. Calling them death panels is grandiose, but no different in concept than what liberals do when they say Bachman actually WANTS armed rebellion.

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about?

I didn’t say “Republican Plan”. I said that a private system. The systems that work best do not come from Republicans or Democrats. They come from PEOPLE in a private system who creatively seek for profit by dealing in goods and services.


I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful.

Because you agree with him. To a conservative, it is despicable. When a conservative exaggerates about a liberal, do you not find it despicable and ‘inciteful’? Is it not hypocritical to excuse it from one side, while condemning it on the other?

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own

Yes they did. Many times. Obama and the democrats rejected it and instead of negotiating they just crammed Obamacare through a midnight vote using unconstitutional processes to bypass the law and stifle debate.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/alan-grayson-to-republica_n_652244.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/best-quotes-alan-grayson
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/28/grayson-taking-opponents-quotes-context-taliban-ad/

Grayson is a source for a lot of fun stuff because he’s a certifiable lunatic.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

No –it isn’t debatable. It deliberately mischaracterizes the issue. Obama’s government solution of panel-based rationing is the exact same thing in a different form. Would you say it would be an unfair statement to say Obama’s plan is “Don’t get old, and if you get old die quickly”?

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all.

Au contraire. I understand them on more levels than liberals do themselves.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

But litanies about conservatives are fine? That was a list of ACTUAL EVENTS. Real examples of real liberals doing real violence. Why is that a 'litany' that proves I’m not interested in examining things? Sounds to me like your response shows that you are not interested in examining liberal prejudices – whereas I have examined them far more thoroughly.

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

But your litanies do no such thing, I take it? You implied that the speech of the political right gins up right-wing crazies. I ask the perfectly fair question, “Did liberal speech gin up THESE left-wing crazies?” Goose for the gander. If you make the claim that right wing speech is done to gin up crazies, do you allow the same logic to apply to the left wing crazies – of which my evidence shows there is ample existence?

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made.

Your sense is wrong. You can continue to believe it if that pleases you, but that does not make it correct.

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

Certainly. My assertion is that both sides get plenty of leeway to make strong political arguments. Free speech is hardly ever a bad thing. Let people say what they want and let the chips fall where they may. This attempt to stifle political speech has been done before, and by better people than our current crop of political doofuses. Their conclusion was the 1st Ammendment. It still works.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

Ronald Reagan.


Reagan gets a bad rap when really he didn't know what was going on. He spent most of his later years simply saying what rich people told him to say...as GE spokesman and then as President. Everyone knew that if Reagan went off script you had to shut him up or he was going to say something crazy.

If you don't buy it think about this. Ronald Reagan was credited with starting a Revolution, for being the man who formed the modern republican party. Yet after he left office how many interviews did he do? How many experienced journalists went to talk to him about the future of his party and what they should be doing? Nobody of any significance because all the journalists knew he didn't know what was going on, that he wasn't in charge at all.

It was the PATRIOTS!!