Vodoo,

I think that Obama was born in Hawaii.

That being said why did Obama did put out a piss poor excuse of a birth certificate. no image has 13 layers. If you scan an image it is one layer.
Even if you OCR the document ( why would you even do it) it would not have look as bad as the document he put out.

What ever rock Obama crawled out of under, Americans will let him go back to it in November.

Buy the way Obama is anti American. He has done more to thwart America than to make it a leader among nations.

>> ^VoodooV:

Just to play devil's advocate, but let us suppose for a moment that the conservatives are right and Obama is the worst, most liberal President in all of American History.
The message STILL gets diminished because conservatives are associated with nutbag ideas like the birther loonies.
You want people to take conservatives seriously? ditch the birther loonies, ditch the racist tea-baggers. Tell Romney to make a statement without being proven a liar ten seconds later.
If Obama is so bad, you should be able to easily make a rational argument without the lunatics playing the racist card.
Problem is...they haven't. They don't have a leg to stand on, so they grasp desperately for anything, no matter how flimsy.
I've lost count of how many times my rational republican friends get pissed off at their own party because they do actually try to offer up some legit complaints against Obama, stuff I would actually agree with since no one has ever made the argument that he's perfect, but the rational discourse gets drowned out by the racists and the conspiracy theories that don't hold any water or the nonsense Romney spews.
Believe it or not, there are actually Republicans out there who want to collaborate and work together and put their good ideas forth, they just get drowned out amongst all the people screaming Kenyan, Communist, Muslim, or un-American.
Even McCain had to dial it back and defend Obama from the nutbags.

Just to play devil's advocate, but let us suppose for a moment that the conservatives are right and Obama is the worst, most liberal President in all of American History.

The message STILL gets diminished because conservatives are associated with nutbag ideas like the birther loonies.

You want people to take conservatives seriously? ditch the birther loonies, ditch the racist tea-baggers. Tell Romney to make a statement without being proven a liar ten seconds later.

If Obama is so bad, you should be able to easily make a rational argument without the lunatics playing the racist card.

Problem is...they haven't. They don't have a leg to stand on, so they grasp desperately for anything, no matter how flimsy.

I've lost count of how many times my rational republican friends get pissed off at their own party because they do actually try to offer up some legit complaints against Obama, stuff I would actually agree with since no one has ever made the argument that he's perfect, but the rational discourse gets drowned out by the racists and the conspiracy theories that don't hold any water or the nonsense Romney spews.

Believe it or not, there are actually Republicans out there who want to collaborate and work together and put their good ideas forth, they just get drowned out amongst all the people screaming Kenyan, Communist, Muslim, or un-American.

Even McCain had to dial it back and defend Obama from the nutbags.

I love Hitchcock. I have the Truffaut interview handy on my shelf.

Hmmm, favorite... probably Dial M for Murder (the remake).

>> ^messenger:

Did you try and drunk dial science?>> ^ant:
&scuebce



OMG! *science

Did you try and drunk dial *science?>> ^ant:

&scuebce

>> ^Jinx:

So what he is saying is that he takes gun safety seriously but you know, play with guns enough and this happens? Ok. Good thing it wasn't life threatening and he had his parents on speed dial. Anyway, thanks for the cautionary tale Tex, I've taken it to heart and decided not to own a gun.


Soumds t'me like your decision was made before Tex's embarrasing demonstration viddy of how-NOT-to draw a pistol here swayed yer judgement regarding the stated dilemma... If safety be your primary concern, there's more than a century of data on the subject that pretty much proves that guns are safer than store-bought apple juice or alfalfa sprouts!! Factor in the latest technology behind the manufacturing and you may as well play naked football on the expressway at rush hour as walk yer doggy!

So what he is saying is that he takes gun safety seriously but you know, play with guns enough and this happens? Ok. Good thing it wasn't life threatening and he had his parents on speed dial. Anyway, thanks for the cautionary tale Tex, I've taken it to heart and decided not to own a gun.

In 1995, I was in college! I used SLiRP and TIA with Windows 3.1's Trumpet for dial-up Internet (was still using local BBSes too). My university only had three POPs, and I was hogging one!

I was playing quake over dial-up by 1996, so I agree, not foresight. By 1995 it was just reporting on what currently existed.

<sigh>

I am officially old now, aren't I?

>> ^Gutspiller:

I thought that by 1995 these things were pretty easy to see. It doesn't seem like much foresight to me.

It was clear that it wasn't a fad, but it was dial-up at the time (or ISDN if you were fancy) unless you were at a university or a specially connected business so imagining streaming TV and phone would have seemed like wishful thinking. I doubt that those kids actually predicted it, but someone did. That person probably knew about emerging ADSL and cable internet.

I miss parts of the 90s but I certainly don't miss dial-up... although it's fun to think about a time when "being online" was special and took effort and sacrifice. Remember when you had to choose between using the phone and using the internet?

Ahh, I remember my first internet experience with Dial-up AOL. Those clicks, beepings, and static sounds while connecting was music to my ears.


Come to think of it. AOL created Dub-Step.

>> ^braschlosan:

A message like this sounds good on "paper" but I see it as a threat to those who would challenge the establishment. From my experience on this site the comments considered to be "awful" are fairly tame.
What you have done is put us passionate people under a constant state of fear that some random admin will take the "my poop doesn't smell" route and damage our account status.
Try dialing it back a notch. Allow users to express the natural anger and disagreement that exists in all humans. Apply the warning/suspension/ban when its actually needed. I feel that any user on the receiving end of this punishment should be allowed to explain himself to an UNBIASED moderator.
Don't let the whiny attention grabbers bait others into anger and then punish those who couldn't hold back! Too many times the real troll went unpunished (the sign of a master trololo)
I capitalized unbiased because I feel those in power do not fairly represent the community as a whole. The best governing party should have those who share a common goal but disagree on the method to obtain it.
If what we say really does "matter" then as a sociopath shouldn't I be able to express what is in my mind (within reason)? Or should I bottle it up and release these feelings on a scapegoat instead? By denying the outlet we end up more hurt.


Sorry, that's bollocks. I'm prone to passionate comments around here, i make a few of them, sometimes regret a few of them.

As a passionate person, i endorse the sentiments shown by dag in the original post. By and large you'll find this place polices itself. Genuinely rude people are chastised by long standing members long before any authority gets involved. The populace votes (in comments), and dag rarely goes against what the popular opinion is - usually because the popular opinion is the "right", or "best" one (as in the morally right choice to make). Everyone gets to vote, so what the community wants (on average), it basically gets. How is that bad?

Besides that - the community voted for a dictator, and dag reluctantly agreed (i assume that hasn't changed and i'm not late to the party). I doubt he'd fight an attempt by this mass of passionate people (that are now frightened) trying to drum up support for a new vote on "how to run things". I don't think these people exist. If you're outright nasty to someone else, you get a series of temp bans until eventually you have to go.

If you're edgy and borderline, then you generally get away with it. Until you go too far. But that's WHY it's edgy and borderline. Like choggie. If the boundaries were extended, they would need to be pushed further by anyone wanting to be edgy and borderline. What's edgy and borderline about being within the rules? Before you know it, it's a free for all (youtube comments?). It's not like anyone gets banned without the siftpolice thoroughly investigating it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for the counter-point, but we're definitely not going to dial it back a bit. We recognise that you have a choice where you spend your time - and there is a plethora of websites that don't have a dial at all.

Why does VideoSift have to (also) be a place where anything goes - and everyone gets to be as nasty as they want to be? Isn't that the status quo for most platforms on the Internet? I give you any Youtube video comment stream as exhibit A.



We have chosen to differentiate ourselves as a community by not being like that. For people that don't care for this - I give you the dial-less sites.

>> ^braschlosan:

A message like this sounds good on "paper" but I see it as a threat to those who would challenge the establishment. From my experience on this site the comments considered to be "awful" are fairly tame.
What you have done is put us passionate people under a constant state of fear that some random admin will take the "my poop doesn't smell" route and damage your account status.
Try dialing it back a notch. Allow users to express the natural anger and disagreement that exists in all humans. Apply the warning/suspension/ban when its actually warranted. I feel that any user on the receiving end of this punishment should be allowed to explain himself to an UNBIASED moderator.
I capitalized unbiased because I feel those in power do not fairly represent the community as a whole. The best governing party should have those who share a common goal but disagree on the method to obtain it.
If what we say really does "matter" then as a sociopath shouldn't I be able to express what is in my mind (within reason)? Or should I bottle it up and release these feelings on a scapegoat instead? By denying the outlet we end up more hurt.

A message like this sounds good on "paper" but I see it as a threat to those who would challenge the establishment. From my experience on this site the comments considered to be "awful" are fairly tame.

What you have done is put us passionate people under a constant state of fear that some random admin will take the "my poop doesn't smell" route and damage our account status.

Try dialing it back a notch. Allow users to express the natural anger and disagreement that exists in all humans. Apply the warning/suspension/ban when its actually needed. I feel that any user on the receiving end of this punishment should be allowed to explain himself to an UNBIASED moderator.

Don't let the whiny attention grabbers bait others into anger and then punish those who couldn't hold back! Too many times the real troll went unpunished (the sign of a master trololo)

I capitalized unbiased because I feel those in power do not fairly represent the community as a whole. The best governing party should have those who share a common goal but disagree on the method to obtain it.

If what we say really does "matter" then as a sociopath shouldn't I be able to express what is in my mind (within reason)? Or should I bottle it up and release these feelings on a scapegoat instead? By denying the outlet we end up more hurt.