You're confused about right wing vs. left wing politics. Those who oppose you aren't necessarily rightists. But that's the navel gazing reach-around fest I can expect from those who are holding out for that change they can believe in. Good luck.

... I still think 'Rational Gaze' by Meshuggah has the greatest metal video ever

... not easy to find a good quality upload of both the video and song; this ain't bad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHVje5rtcM8

Tags for this video have been changed from 'link, worst, facebook, profiles, pictures, pics' to 'link, worst, facebook, profiles, pictures, pics, peaked at age 9, gaze, too shriner' - edited by calvados

[redacted]

So yeah...I had this happen to me once.

It turned out to be a precursor to a devastating migraine that lasted a couple of days. Began with me feeling perfectly normal and clear headed but when I attempted to speak the words came out as garbled nonsense. It was like the words were being lost between my head and my mouth. Knew exactly what I was trying to say but my mouth just made no sense.

Within a half hour I sat and had a complete disconnect with time. I thought I gazed down at the floor for a moment but then someone roused me and said I'd been staring for almost 2 hours. When I tried to walk I'd copmletely lost control of one entire side of my body and had to be supported. Within another half hour the blinding pain started. I was taken to the doctor where I passed out for a couple hours. During the time I was unconscious I spoke continuously at a very fast rate. The doctor thought it was all nonsense but my mother recognized it was detailed engineering information about lasers as if I was speed reading it from technical data.

That Migraine was 2 days of agony. Migraines are a bitch.

Every time I hear someone claim they need to sit down because they "have such a migraine", I want to punch them in the face.

there is something about her gaze, she doesn't blink

>> ^RedSky:

Brilliant. If science took your attitude of being unwilling (or as I suspect, incapable) of even making a hypothesis we would have never made it past the stone age.
Just admit the fact that there is simply nothing idiosynchratic enough about the US besides its gun ownership rate compared to other developed countries, will ya?
Everyone outside of the US gun industry and NRA distortion field, outside the self-destructive American gun-obsessed culture has known this for decades.


Ad hominem attacks against my capacity for intelligence. Check.

And apparently I live in a country of gun-toting dullards and every other country in the world is brilliant beyond comparison.

Anything else you'd like to add before I end this tired banter? I don't want you to leave feeling like you had more to say, because it would be a tragedy if you were robbed of that sense of indignant supremacy you'll undoubtedly have as you go back to your remarkable life as a 22 year old, navel-gazing intellectual telling "Americans" on the internet how they're doing it wrong and secretly wishing those around you interpret your arrogance and elitism as intelligence.

I know we joke that every roast is lame, and we all have a good laugh pretending the roastee is someone not deserving of notice, and so on. We then take pot shots at the MC, make a good joke about him or her and how they fucked the proceedings up somehow, but... Sigh. Today I'm just feeling like this really, truly, honestly is NOT worth our time. No jokes. Completely serious now.

Would any of us care if @thinker247 or @MrFisk got banned tomorrow? Or left? Or died? Okay, if they died I'd probably at least feign a touch of sympathy, but it would be disingenuous if it was anything more than a sigh. I wouldn't trade @rottenseed's shit covered dick from @berticus' ass to save their lives. What two miserable subhuman beings. I mean they're really the crust of peggedbea's vagina. Speaking of @peggedbea's vagina, it's seen so many dicks the cum has clotted over and it's already started to heal shut.

Today I'd like to propose we kill this SiftTalk post right here and now. I'd ask permission from @dotdude first, seeing how he's kind of the unsaid facilitator of these shit shenanigans, but he's too busy posting mild, inoffensive oneliners under the alter-ego 'THE JESTER'. Newsflash, dotdude, jesters are typically amusing and at times hilarious. You're none of these.

The real reason I hate these two is because, first, thinker247's name is so telling of just how lame a person he must be in real life. It's like me calling myself movieDirector#1 or superDickSized. Or rottenseed calling himself notGay. And this third grader thinks he's edgy because he wrote "motherfucking" and "bitches" in the title. Hey, dickhead, this roast isn't about you.

Second, there's the roastee, MrFisk. A person so miserable and unlikable that only choggie could come to his defense during his Siftquisition. That's like having Jared Lee Loughner represent you in a murder trial. What a joke that whole Siftquistion was, huh? And I love how @dag and @kronosposeidon became the busybody Perry fucking Masons of the Sift as if calling those SiftTalk posts a "Siftquisition" made them anything more than a discussion thread on a website that plays videos. My favorite is when dag claimed he had "something else to enter into the docket" and "Department of HomeSift Security." The fuck? There's about as much credibility in a Siftquisition as there would be if @kulpims claimed he wasn't gobbling @dystopianfuturetoday's dick. Or was that @laura's dick? Either way, they're both effeminate dudes.

So who's with me? Who thinks we ought to kill this embarrassing navel-gazing jerkfest and pretend it never happened. While we're at it, let's finish what we started and *ban these two for trying so hard to be cool and outrageous. Sorry, thinker247 and MrFisk, did mommy not give you two enough of her tit to suck on when you were a baby? You still need approval and acceptance? I hear 4chan is looking for a few more whores for their ranks.

There is no doubt that both sides have used such points in the past, for many years the comments regarding fighting a war/battle and fighting a campaign have been somewhat interchangable, but there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it. The left has dabbled in it but the right has always glorified its use of guns and targeting opponents and use of violence related speech to wind up its base even if they don't actually condone the use of such in reality. THIS is what the problem is. That these people (even the lefties) need to take a hard look at what they are saying and consider the repercussions.

Should everyone who has ever said "We will defeat them!" or whatever get all PC and worry now? No, absolutely not. But when people like Bachman start talking about a revolution and 2nd amendment repairs to the country etc, something needs to be done. People are emotional, and anyone saying this kind of thing either needs to be dead serious about a genuine revolution or shut their freaking mouths.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It is too soon to try and point political fingers here. Really. We are getting conflicting data about the lunatic. There are a lot of people trying to say he was influenced by 'right wing rhetoric', and are using the most tenuous, distant links to justify it. On the other hand, his high-school associate said he was a 'leftie', and his favorite books are Mein Kamph and the Communist Manifesto (hardly right wing material).
Is "radical rhetoric" to blame? Who can say at this point in time. However, I find it very interesting that all the hand-wringing navel gazing about 'rhetoric' is only coming from the perspective of 'right wing rhetoric' while completely ignoring all the poisonous left wing rhetoric out there. President Obama himself said, "If they bring a knife - we bring a gun". How is it any less valid to blame OBAMA then for this guy's actions, than a stupid map with targets on it? Olberman, Maddow, Bahar, and a host of left wing folks routinely engage in "radical rhetoric" at least as vitriolic as anything the right does. Where is the condemnation?
I see this as a rather disgusting and blatant attempt to create a one-sided media story that blames only half of the players in the rhetoric game for the actions of a guy who was probably not directly influenced by either side. Compounding the evil of murder with the evil of propoganda. Pathetic - and those who play along with it are just as pathetic.

It is too soon to try and point political fingers here. Really. We are getting conflicting data about the lunatic. There are a lot of people trying to say he was influenced by 'right wing rhetoric', and are using the most tenuous, distant links to justify it. On the other hand, his high-school associate said he was a 'leftie', and his favorite books are Mein Kamph and the Communist Manifesto (hardly right wing material).

Is "radical rhetoric" to blame? Who can say at this point in time. However, I find it very interesting that all the hand-wringing navel gazing about 'rhetoric' is only coming from the perspective of 'right wing rhetoric' while completely ignoring all the poisonous left wing rhetoric out there. President Obama himself said, "If they bring a knife - we bring a gun". How is it any less valid to blame OBAMA then for this guy's actions, than a stupid map with targets on it? Olberman, Maddow, Bahar, and a host of left wing folks routinely engage in "radical rhetoric" at least as vitriolic as anything the right does. Where is the condemnation?

I see this as a rather disgusting and blatant attempt to create a one-sided media story that blames only half of the players in the rhetoric game for the actions of a guy who was probably not directly influenced by either side. Compounding the evil of murder with the evil of propoganda. Pathetic - and those who play along with it are just as pathetic.

His gaze is breaking my brains!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'HAWP, gears of war, turbogay' to 'HAWP, gears of war, turbogay, gay gaze' - edited by Throbbin

Here is a fascinating side-line to the story...

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/tea.party.naacp.2.1812710.html

Quite clearly this woman was a racist. Props to the NAACP for agreeing with the dismissal, and their claims that they will investigate the "disturbing" attitude of the audience which applauded the racism. But you know what? You're late to the party. For decades your organization has tacitly approved of this kind of attitude. Gone are the days when good men like King led a just movement based on the principle of true equality. The modern race industry is more about payola than principle.

The cancer of racism within your organization is persistent and prevailant - and it is going to take more than 2 seconds of navel-gazing. The words of your leaders (Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakahn, Shabazz, and many others) constantly drip with race-oriented attitude, and demands for unequal treatment under the law based on skin color. Until you start consistently hammering all racism across the board then your repentance is rhetoric and Sherrod nothing but a sacrificial lamb.

Within the african american community there is a disturbing trend of too many events, activites, speeches, attitudes, projects, and causes that are designed around an attitude of race. Within these events there are too many demagogues who are just as racist as the woman in this video. And within the crowds there are too many amens, cheers, claps, and nods of agreement.

If racism is really a bad thing, then it can't be given a pass when it shows up among groups with which you may be sympathetic. What happens when racism is ignored when it shows up among groups you like, and only gets a frown in groups you don't like? It becomes a 'card' to play and not a sin to correct.

I don't defend racism in the Tea Party. When it shows up, I hope they stomp on it. But their mission statements are clear, simple, and have NOTHING to do with race. The NAACP in its very title is a racist organization (Advancement of COLORED People). A group that is built around racism like they are gets a much more critical eye from me.

My point was that "Do what thou wilt" is the antithesis to the Christian ideology of loving your neighbor and so on. Also seen in most other religions, which all demand "faith" and submission of some sort.

The Lord is usually just that, a lord and master, gazing on his willing minions.

"Do what thou wilt" is a rebellion against that, throwing down the master and embracing the individual as their own master. I like that aspect of it. As an extreme it can obviously not work, anarchy is a fools dream, but more freedom is nearly always the better solution.

Ultimately Crowley was as hypocritical as the religions he disliked though, creating his own based on Magick and weirdness. As usual the small cults are based on hedonism and sex, and while everyone likes that, it doesn't make for intellectual honesty. Magick isn't real.

That said, I haven't read his works to any extent, only paraphrases, so I can't be too critical. I'd like to read it, like I would like to read some Ayn Rand at some point too. Lots of controversial stuff that can be interesting.

>> ^alizarin:

Regarding assassination:
( ) President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning political assassinations in 1976. However, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaida after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the US and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination.
I agree with John Stewart's main point at the end - Obama is leaving this stuff too open to abuse and needs to close possible loopholes right away.
You can make the case that Al-Qaida is a legit military target and as such it's not really an assassination, just warfare. But where do you formalize what groups are "terrorists" and which individuals get lumped in, and how do you decide if a situation is dire enough to assassinate a militant American citizen vs capture and put him on trial? I don't think Obama is likely to let anything nasty happen but that's way too big of a danger to leave out there.
This story got big when Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said this in congressional testimony:
“Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”
Again, not crazy reasoning...if an American is hiding in Yemen and plotting to blow up a plane maybe we can blow him up first, but way to wide open to avoid abuse. I'm a big Obama fan but I'm pissed that he's running this free and loose with this stuff. Hopefully it's on his to-do list and nothing nasty will become of it before he's done.


Not crazy reasoning? What is this? Israel? That's pretty fucking crazy reasoning. Apologist jingoism is unbecoming. What happened to due process? All because the Criminal suddenly became an enemy of the state?

I point you to a Movie, The Unthinkable. It's just a movie, of course, but it's the thought that it invokes. Just how far are you prepared to go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unthinkable

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

It's like legal precedence. You allow one case to become a trend setter and many more judgments will follow that case. It's not a slippery slope argument, its a matter of legal precedence. If the US starts assassinating *citizens*, even if they are *terrorists* where does that leave the rest of the citizens? It's a terrible and disgusting thing to think about.

I don't think that there's been a legally declared War since WWII.