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

I was playing to the Americans. Like Paul Hogan - putting another shrimp on the barbie.

>> ^kymbos:

"Cantaloupe"? You do realise that in Queensland, if someone catches you saying that word they can legally bash you with a rockmelon? Oh, and happy birthday, you mincing pimp.

"Cantaloupe"? You do realise that in Queensland, if someone catches you saying that word they can legally bash you with a rockmelon? Oh, and happy birthday, you mincing pimp.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'is it something i said, virgins, bombers, flying mince, fire breathin hoors' to 'virgins, bombers, mince, Billy Connolly, suicide bombers, comedy, stand up, religion' - edited by BoneRemake

I would just like the sift to note that the popularity of this video, which is anti-religion, if not anti-christian, is indicative of a broader trend of anti-religious sentiment on the sift. This video, along with many other anti-God videos, are consistently promoted into the top 10, to the point where they are nigh unavoidable. As a Christian, I find the sentiment more offensive than the videos themselves.

I have been a regular of the sift for many years, but I never had joined the commentary before now. I don't intend to join it very often either..that I am generally unwelcome has been made clear. However, because of this anti-religious sentiment, I feel compelled to speak the truth, and why should I mince words? I consider it the work of the devil. Of course, he would desire to manipulate the sift to spread his lies. So he populated it with militant anti-theists, who have managed to change the tone of the sift from a previous and more light hearted openness and acceptance and funny cat videos, to intolerance against Christians. I have seen it happen, and its a sad sight to see.

So, if you consider Christians unwelcome on the sift, or members of other religions, you should state it in your FAQ. Like, btw, if you believe in God go fuck yourself and die. I think it's only a fair warning. I like Faith Healer Ultimate Fight as much as the next guy, believe me..but this bullshit is the number one video? Really? It just shows how the tone on the sift has changed to intolerance and anti-religion. All I have to say is get the fuck over yourselves. You're not as smart as you think you are. How about you be honest and stop playing the philosophical gotchya game and admit there isn't a shred of evidence in your corner, what so ever, and if we want to get real, morality is inconvenient for your sinning so of course it has to go, after all its all relative right, and God doesn't have anything to do with that, that is one thing you're right about.

In conclusion, the sift needs an attitude adjustment. Thank you. That is all.

How you can all be so cruel to shinyblurry is beyond me - it's the best use of the term 'braggart' I've seen in 40 years. I was hoping he'd damn Hitchens for a mincing pimp, the cad and the bounder.

Huzzah!

>> ^raverman:

hmmm sorry found it a bit dull really... lots of talking, little to look at...
e.g. hamburger in acid for 3 hours seems to dissolve... a bit any way. But if you did a control with a hamburger in water for 3 hours you'd probably find the bread and mince starting to dissolve and fall apart anyway...


You are not the only one with a problem with the burger aspect of the video. Good thing there is another twelve minutes or so to fill up the rest of the time around the burger.

hmmm sorry found it a bit dull really... lots of talking, little to look at...

e.g. hamburger in acid for 3 hours seems to dissolve... a bit any way. But if you did a control with a hamburger in water for 3 hours you'd probably find the bread and mince starting to dissolve and fall apart anyway...

Suppose I'd been a bit more clear that I was raising it as a topic to discuss, rather than stating it as fact (I thought I had, but re-reading it I realize it didn't come off that way).

Acknowledged. What I intended to do in my rather strident initial comment was to smack some sense into folks who seemed to be taking pleasure in pointing fingers at conservative rhetoric as culpable for an obviously unrelated tragedy. To me, such behavior is a loathsome intellectual scavenging of misery. It could not go unchallenged.

It's only false if you think that there's zero possibility that anyone who's out there using violent and apocalyptic rhetoric wants people to act on it.

Are there people out there who are using violent and apocalyptic rhetoric? Not as many as are typically implied. I cannot name a SINGLE person who I would hold up as “the example” of a person that routinely uses ‘violent and apocalyptic rhetoric’. When such rhetoric exists it is typically very isolated.

Isn't that the natural consequence for liberals in what you are saying? That in the face of our concerns that violence is being incited towards us, that anyone who says we're concerned should shut up or be forced to shut down, while the violent rhetoric itself gets a pass?

Not to put too fine a point on it – but exactly what are you talking about? What conservative is regularly saying, “Go out and wax a liberal today”? What liberal is regularly saying, “Beat up conservatives for fun”? I think the accusation of inciting violence is being used WAY too glibly, when in reality such language is greatly exaggerated.

I'd just be a bit happier if they'd return the favor, and admit that liberal philosophy has a legitimate place in American politics, rather than talking about it like it's a cancer that must be completely eliminated.

Conservatives feel the exact same way. It’d be nice if liberals treated conservatives like human beings instead of vermin to be eradicated. Classic example: like how liberal pundits & politicians treat the Tea Party.

So let us not mince words and now take a serious look at the favorite targets when this issue comes up. Is there really any difference in what Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck say (and how they say it) compared to Olbermann, Maddow, & Kurtz?

Both sides have staked out ideological positions, and entertain their respective audiences by chewing out their opposition. Fundamentally I see no difference between ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ pundits and their rhetoric. Neither of them are calling for violence, but they do treat opposing ideas disrespectfully and sarcastically and in doing so occasionally say something distasteful which opponents gleefully swoop on.

When we respect something, and some guy comes along and disrespects it – it is natural to believe that guy is being ‘hateful’. We WANT to believe they are hateful. In our head we believe that EVERYTHING that person says is hateful, and that the guy is ‘poisoning discourse’ and ‘inspiring anger & violence’ because they’re ‘lying’.

But most of the time the reality is that the guy we want to believe is such a jerk is nowhere near as bad as we imagine in our head. Anger at the message has magnified the rhetoric in our heads. We don’t want to believe that most of the time they (gasp!) actually have valid points put in terms we just dislike.

So when some politician says, “Hey – Limbaugh (or whoever) is poisoning our national discourse with their violent rhetoric”, all too many people are ready to lap up the demagoguery. Politicians who do so are manipulating us for votes. Pundits who do so are manipulating you for ratings.

Don’t be a dupe. We live in a free country, where speech – even speech you don’t like – is protected. ANYONE who comes along and even tentatively HINTS that “we should shut that guy down because he’s bad…” should be run out of town on a rail.

I don’t condone hate speech, but I strongly disagree with regulating the speech of others in the name of “improving civility”. To me that is unconstitutional and un-American. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea is a fool and desperately needs a civics lesson.

Roller blading in Lycra not enough? Need more opportunities to mince camply in public? Ahhh I think i have the answer for you...

Why is it always framed as being GAY that is or isn't genetic? The genetics of heterosexuality are never questioned. I'm sure what you meant was "I don't think sexuality is genetic." My point is that this topic is always framed in such a way that heterosexuality is the healthy default, and homosexuality the aberration. Instead of people saying "being gay is a choice", they should be saying "all sexuality is a choice." This will never happen, because most of the 'choice' crowd can't think this far ahead to realise their own argument makes all living people constant bisexuals in flux.

Let's not mince (HAH!) words here. I think your definition of "choice" isn't choice at all. It's a collection of environmental experiences that shape behaviour. There is no overarching conscious decision making process across those shaping experiences. The idea that such experiences can impact on sexuality might be controversial but it isn't unthinkable -- however, to call it "choice" is erroneous.

Finally, your own argument about handedness isn't reassuring. Left handers die younger on average, so some 'leftophobes' could argue that we should abolish left-handedness to improve quality of life. What would you say to them?
>> ^NetRunner:

Personally, I don't think being gay is genetic. I know that's not what lefties are supposed to say, but I think on some level it's a formative choice, something on par with how you "decide" to be right- or left-handed.
In theory you could "cure" people from being left-handed, but it seems like it would be a somewhat pointless and ultimately self-hating exercise.
Being left handed doesn't hurt anyone, so why should we care which hand they use to write with? It just adds to the color and variety of our society.

>> ^qualm:
Chomsky has self-identified as a libertarian socialist. (Not "social libertarian") But he makes it very clear that he's using the word 'libertarian' in the proper European sense, and not in the distorted USian fashion.
"Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history." -- Noam Chomsky


I have to agree with him on the rand part.

But let's not mince words here. Social Libertarian is exactly that, Libertarian Socialist. In fact, if you Google Social Libertarian it redirects to the Chomsky link. But that's semantics in its truest form, and we could argue what each of us meant for some time. There is really no need for the Tit for Tat that follows semantics arguments.

MacDonalds food is so shit even if you enjoyed the taste or had a craving for it, the food is just bland and makes you feal like you haven't eaten anything. burger king burgers are far more superior in quality and in my opinion taste far better. for the extra 25-30p you pay at burger king its well worth it .

in the end you can buy 500g of luxury beef mince and luxury cheese and hurbs , for under £6 and make 12 of the best burgers you could ever imagine at home. its for this reason I never really go to these fast food places as immediately I think about how I could make something 5x better for the same cost.

love the edit...considering-Thanks though, for following through-little reds' a straight-shooter and doesn't mince her words...a good quality in a human, "being"
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
thanks for the heads up

In reply to this comment by choggie:
Hey rottensack-You might wanna promote yer call for marinegunrock's whereabouts post-especially because his pal Little Red came in to update the world on his situation and made me feel all warm and tingly by mentioning my nombre, hombre.
http://www.videosift.com/talk/MachineGunrock-update-please

There are other causes of death out there than what a simple visit to an ER can cure.

Yes - which is precisely why it is propoganda for Mr. Doofus to say they 'died of not having coverage' or to imply anything of the sort. All the people he's listing lived in the US - and had access to health care. To say they died for any reason except the simple vicissitudes of life is preposterious on its face. People die. It happens. He's trying to say "Pass Obamacare, and these deaths won't happen." Bull feathers.

How did you get to a point that when someone states the fact that people die due to lack of medical care

Because they didn't. His claim they 'died of lack of medical care' is a complete falsehood. It is leftist bilge that is being used to sucker the simple and stupid into giving government obsence amounts of money and power.

but when a company denies health coverage due to absurd preexisting conditions, they're considered model businessmen?

Let's not mince about it. Insurance tries to control costs. Human need is a bottomless, gaping maw that by definition cannot be filled no matter how generous and munificent the resource pool. Someone somewhere at some point has to say "No". There isn't an infinite pool of money, and medical care is not free (nor should it be). People need to be paid. Research needs to take place. Drugs need to be manufactured. Supplies have to be shipped. Facilities have to be built, maintained, and updated. It costs $$$$.

Government is right now in the process of slinging a huge lie that it will somehow be able to control these costs more efficiently than the private sector. It's total crap. They've never succeeded in this goal once with ANYTHING - especially not medical programs. Why should we believe they can now?

Social medicine costs are not proportionally less then private. Nor is coverage more generally widespread. Government run health care controls costs by denying services, lowering quality, not 'covering' standard tests, completely denying specialized tests, and on and on and on. SOcial medicine controls costs by denying and delaying care just as much (or more) than private coverage. At its very best, social medicine is a wash compared to private in terms of 'care'.

But it comes as an immense price in freedom, and accrued power to government. Such a path is historically fraught with peril. It isn't worth it. We're better off with freedom in a private system (however flawed) than with a public one. No doubts. No question. It's just a fact. Government can play a regulatory role and be helpful. But that's not what they want to do, so I'm not going to pretend. They're trying to become a provider. Blech.

You know what, you almost make me want to stay. Just so I can produce relentless vomit inducing profile colours and PM you all the live long day, causing untold suffering!

Thanks man, you know I love ya. Always did. You are the dogs bollocks and the guinea pigs scrotum. And perhaps at some point i'll be back, just right now it isn't looking likely any time soon. But you know where I am love, and I know where you are. And when i'm bored i'll be sure to lurk and stalk and keep up on you weirdos, make sure you're all behaving yourselves...

Chin up me old china, no need to get in a two and eight about it, guv'nor



In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You know, sister? First and foremost, your page hurts my eyeballs. No offense, but it's so bright that it could awaken Plato's dead homosexual philosophical penis.

Okay, seriously now, PLEASE don't leave us. I, along with SO many others, will mourn your loss. I love your candor and earthy realism. It's like a shot of whiskey after being on the ice: Warm, biting, and invigorating. You don't mince words. You call a spade a spade. And you'd kick the Prime Minister in the balls if he pissed you off on a bad day.

So don't leave us. Now is not the time to be passive-aggressive. I'm not saying this is a call to arms. But please don't leave because of one member.

You're the cat's meow. The bee's knees. The boulder's shoulder. (Okay, that last one didn't work out so well.) Just don't head out on the ice without intentions of return. Right now I'm searching for a witty yet gripping way to end this ill-written missive, but all I can come up with is "Please?"