There has to be a few old timers in here that can relate.

Also Grohl nails Gibbs vocals

Top Gear had the Gibbs ATV on it last night. It looked like it was a lot of fun, but I'm sure the thing is stupid expensive.

I think the big guns is droning Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Awlaki, the 16 year old son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Born in Denver in 1995, an American citizen was killed by a drone while he searched for his recently droned father in the desert in Yemen where we are not at war. The teenager could only be identified by a piece of his skull which had his hair on it.

Robert Gibbs, Obamas former Press Secretary justified it by saying the boy "should [have] had a more responsible father."

Fuck Obama.

Did Barry Gibb devour Dom DeLuise? I guess I have no class.
Pinkies out, Bitches!

2012 KT42 is an asteroid discovered by Alex R. Gibbs of the Mt. Lemmon Survey (part of the Catalina Sky Survey) with a 1.5-m reflector + CCD on May 28, 2012. The asteroid had a close approach to the Earth on May 29, 2012, approaching to only Distance: ~8950 miles / ~14,440 km above the planet's surface. This means 2012 KT42 came inside the Clarke Belt of geosynchronous satellites. As of May 28, 2012, the estimated 5 to 10 meter wide asteroid ranked #6 on the top 20 list of closest-approaches to Earth. There was no danger of a collision during the close approach. 2012 KT42 will pass roughly 0.01 AU (1,500,000 km; 930,000 mi) from Venus on 2012 July 8.[3]

It is estimated that an impact would produce an upper atmosphere air burst equivalent to 11 kt TNT,[4] roughly equal to Hiroshima's Little Boy. The asteroid would be vaporized as these small impacts occur approximately once per year. A comparable-sized object caused the Sutter's Mill meteorite in California on 2012 April 22. It was removed from the Sentry Risk Table on 2012 May 30.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_KT42

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.

Barry Gibb?

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Barry Gibb Rides a Rollercoaster. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

http://www.david.gibbs.co.uk/plastic/plastic_lyrics.htm

This video is beautiful on many levels. Andy Gibb with the feathered hair and sequin jacket. The interpretive dance the ladies do in the background. Awesome!!!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

and then..
she vomits her guts up, detaches her uterus and is left emotionally stunted because all of her peers fear her roid rage & tiny mustache.


Ya know women used to not be allowed to run marathons like back in the 60s or something because it was believed by doctors their uterus would detach. In fact there's a cool story about some woman breaking into the Boston Marathon and a cool video of it I'll try to find it because it's neat. You see a steward try to tackle her and everything.

EDIT: Ok her name is Bobbi Gibb...it's a cool story and it's told in "Spirit of the Marathon" fond here on Hulu.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/85354/spirit-of-the-marathon

So let's take each of those in turn.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech.
"Target demographics" isn't even remotely violent, since "target" can also mean "goal", and not just something you shoot at.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.
With the "We will keep a boot on the throat" quote, context matters. For one, Gibbs was quoting Ken Salazar, and for another it's clear from context it's a metaphor for "keep pressure on BP", and not meaning that Ken Salazar plans on literally putting a boot on someone's neck, especially since BP, as a corporation, doesn't actually have a neck.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech.
This one is in another category. It isn't really a metaphor; we're supposed to take it to literally mean he's never going to voluntarily surrender his guns under any circumstance short of, or even including, lethal force. But it's not coupled with statements that people will likely be coming to threaten to kill you if you don't give up your guns. He's not saying that only violence will stop gun control advocates. It's a colorful and bombastic expression of a deeply held belief, but he's also explicitly trying to have a conversation with the other side, not saying that talk will never work.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech.
Now, this one in isolation would be very similar to the above. But it's not in isolation. It's followed by this:

They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
...
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

That's the part that's equivalent to blood libel -- calling people like Van Jones violent revolutionaries who seek to destroy the country, people who can't be negotiated with and who can only be stopped by violence.

That's the thing that made blood libel so insidious. It wasn't an explicit call to violence, it was that it portrayed Jews as implacable murderers who couldn't be reasoned with. Just like Beck says his enemies are.

Oh, and they're both lies, which isn't true of your other examples.

It's a two way street Netrunner. I made my position very clear. Most political speech in the US - including Beck's - is non-violent and in no way relates to blood libel. I made no bones about my position in that regard.

My initial post made no comment about whether Beck used violent or non-violent speech. It was just a full-context description of the Beck quote. I referred back to that initial post because that's what I thought you were talking about. I was mistaken in my understanding of what you were referring too. No need to go all drama-queen about it.

But on to the subtance rather than the pointless. You said, "You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent."

Your whole position seems to be that Beck's whole "you're going to have to shoot me in the head" schtick is the equivalent of Nazi blood libel... You've asked several times 'what's the difference'? I explained the difference. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to accept the explanation. The only possible reason is that you reject the idea that what Beck said is 'not violent', but that you actually in fact and all reality believe that there is no difference.

I've said it afore in the Daily Show thread, and I'll say it again. I do not consider political bombast to be violent, nor is is a 'call' for violence, and it does not inspire or 'gin up' violence either. When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech. When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech. When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech. When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.

No right-minded person who hears these things construes them as actual calls for real-world violence. These are political phrases, passionate rhetoric, 'metaphors' (as you once said), or stupid exaggerations. Bachman does not actually expect people to go around armed and dangerous. Obama does not really expect people to bring guns. Beck does not expect people to get shot in the head (himself or others).

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

I didn't have Beck in mind specifically, but he is certainly included under the same rubrik. No one believes Beck was either calling for himself to be shot in the head, or for others to be actually shot in the head. Would I have used the phrase if I had a TV show? Highly unlikely. However, I defend the right of dummies to run off the mouth. It helps you see who they are. So when right wing bombasts like Beck flap their yaps, I applaud it. Much like when I applaud it when left wing bombasts like Maddow or Maher vomit out the true landscape of their minds.

I like how Olbermann included Barak Obama in his condemnation for when he said to "bring a gun" to a political fight, and how he called those who oppose him "enemies". Oh - no wait - he didn't do that. Obama, Pelosi, Ried, Fiengold, Gibbs, and the thousands of other left-wing guys who routinely engage in hate speech got a free pass. He picked one example from his side. Real 'balance' there Olbie. Name the names on your side besides yourself. Matthews, Maddow, Garafalo, Barr, Bahar, Moore, and a hundred others. Feh - physician heal thyself.

Your video, Robert Gibbs wears Team Canada Jersey, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.