Tags for this video have been changed from 'Violent Femmes, Blister in the Sun, Cat' to 'Violent Femmes, Blister in the Sun, Cat, Grosse Point Blank, Cusack, Arkin' - edited by Trancecoach

@hpqp

Rational debate often isn't what happens here on the Sift, unfortunately, which is why I have indeed moved on to other sites--sites where the majority of discussion challenges people's assumptions without the need for cheap theatrics like sarcasm or insults or condescension.

I have no problem with upvoting or downvoting comments (you seem to have misunderstood my point there). I have a problem to the pandering for upvotes through insulting another poster without addressing the content of their post in any rational way (and thereby dismissing the original poster's argument--ad hominem in its purest form). That's a practice that is becoming a bit too frequent here in my opinion and the way this thread has developed is damning evidence for it (to your credit, you started out in this whole thing by actually addressing the point of Shiny's post rather than just harping on his evangelicalism--it's too bad things went downhill from there).

As I posted in @ChaosEngine's profile, whether Hitchens is or is not an alcoholic is a matter of opinion--and I happen to believe very much that he is. I posted my rationale for why I believe he is an alcoholic in that post, so check out Chaos's profile if you're interested in reading why.

As I also said in that post (on Chaos's profile), regardless of whether he is an alcoholic or not we can all agree (Hitchens would absolutely agree, I think) that he has been an excessive drinker. And this excessive drinking is likely one factor in the development of his cancer. Which brings me back to the original point which everyone seems so intent on missing--toasting an alcoholic excessive drinker is incredibly ironic, particularly when it is said alcoholism excessive drinking that's a contributing factor in his early death.

You disagree that he is an alcoholic? That's fine. Go ahead write your support for your point of view here. In fact, I can already guess what you'd provide as support: Hitchens "60 Minutes" interview in which he is asked point-blank whether he believes he is an alcoholic. And I would refute that interview and you could provide more support for your opinion and so on... But we'd just be arguing semantics at that point and missing out on Shiny's original point.

Now, we could have a fine and friendly disagreement about this whole issue without the name-calling, without the sarcasm, without egos getting in the way.

But this is the Sift and, as you have once again proven to me, this is not the place for that to happen.

By the way, while I did rather enjoy the condescending arrogance of your "FTFY" in your original reply to me, had you actually bothered to ask me why I wrote it we could have probably had an interesting discussion about a number of things, such as whether insulting someone's beliefs does or does not insult them personally and how some of Hitchens' comments are not actually directed against beliefs but specific people (Mother Teresa, for instance). But so convinced of your position were you that you chose to burn that bridge of dialogue before we could even cross it.

Also, I never answered your other post because I have a full-time job with unpaid overtime and a 6-month old at home, so I only get a limited amount of Net time. Given how this thread has gone, I now have zero inclination to continue talking with you. I said my peace in that thread. You replied. Let people who come later read the comments and decide for themselves what they want to believe or whether they even care. I simply don't anymore.

Thanks for reminding me about why I don't post comments on the Sift (at least, not anything that expresses much of an opinion).

Happy Sifting to you.

the girl turns around to get sprayed point blank in the face by a fat old white cop without any warning or cause... he just walks up and casually sprays them all and walks off, no verbal orders or warning.

the guy did it on purpose to hurt them. no more badge.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dub' to 'dub pistols, point blank, cyclone' - edited by xxovercastxx

LOL! So explain how the US became an economic Super Power the world had never seen to that point IMMEDIATELY after WWII? This was after the Great Depression. WWII generated US deficits of 24% of GDP in 1945, which has NEVER been surpassed since, not even today, with the current deficits of 13% of GDP. It is absolutely the case that without those deficits, the US wouldn't have been able to pay for the war effort, and it is absolutely the case WWII ended the Great Depression. Those "talking heads" you refer to are called "historians". They use things called "facts" to help form their conclusions.

Just how did it end the Depression? By reducing unemployment to basically 0%, raising demand for labor which increased wages, all the while retooling existing closed factories and building new ones to crank out all of what we needed to win the war. As a result, consumers had significantly increased income, which was pumped into the economy when spent. When the war ended, the government did a tremendous job transitioning back into a peacetime economy compared to total war mobilization, while building a massive military industrial complex to compete in the Cold War. Also, the average male American citizen was granted wide access to the first time to a college education through the GI Bill, resulting in a never seen before highly educated general population. It was the dawn of the US as one of the two global economic and military superpowers.

So what did we do after WWII? We ran surpluses in the 1950s by raising marginal tax rates on the rich to over 90%, and that was during those super economically disastrous times known as the 1950s, when the US GNP rose by 66% in that decade. Both running a deficit to end the recession and raising taxes on the rich are both things you vehemently oppose, yet it was without a doubt proven to be effective in our history. It's historical fact you can try to ignore, but it's staring you point blank in the face.

Try to dodge this all you want. I'd rather accept reality and try to figure out honestly how to fix our current economy instead of clinging to a rigid ideology which has been clearly proven to be wrong in our national history.

>> ^shuac:

Fuck that kid and his lawsuit should be filed up his ass.
Mistake #1: He immediately got out of the car with a hand in his pocket
If you do this, then you should not feign surprise that you're being yelled at. Cops are far less interested in talking to you than you might expect when you immediately get out of your car with a hand in your pocket. MUCH less interested than you think. They are more interested in getting control of a possibly hostile situation. There are far too many situations of cops being shot because they failed to gain control ( see below). If this is something you cannot understand, then stop reading this post and go out and get some more life experience. Armchair judging is fun and everything and it's shocking how little effort it takes, believe me...I understand the impulse.
Mistake #2: He failed to follow the cop's orders after being told dozens and dozens of fucking times.
Again, if this is something you feel is okie-dokie, then have at it, Hoss. Just don't get all litigious and expect any support from me (not that that's the gold standard or anything). The cop is under NO OBLIGATION to talk to the perp in such a situation. The kid forfeited the right to talk about why he was pulled over the instant he exited his vehicle with his hand in his pocket. And if you don't understand how hostile it is for someone to ignore a cop's repeated commands like this, then you are a fucking moron. I'm afraid it's that simple.

http://youtu.be/qoI4G1fWmEQ
http://youtu.be/rgXQK3NfRY4
http://youtu.be/2sxwvkVzhyA
http://youtu.be/MEpUtoUzE4U
So to sum up: this kid deserved to be tasered and I'm glad he was.


Those links of yours are so sad and very instructive of the kind of shit cops have to deal with and why they feel so threatened when someone comes out of the car aggressively with a baggy jacket and their hand in their pocket and ignoring lawful orders. I sifted all of them:
http://videosift.com/video/Two-cops-killed-during-traffic-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Texas-ranger-shot-at-point-blank-in-routine-speeding-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Police-officer-murdered-by-two-men-during-traffic-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Cop-shot-in-face-during-routine-traffic-stop-survives

And here's the list of the scenes;

Sir Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: The Next Generation - "Hide and Q" - 1987)
Jeff Daniels (Gettysburg - 1993)
Iain Glen (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - 1990)
Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French (Coraline - 2009)
Frank Grimes (Britannia Hospital - 1982)
Robin Atkin Downes (Babylon 5 - "The Paragon of Animals" - 1998)
Richard E. Grant (Withnail & I - 1986)
Mitchell Ryan (Grosse Pointe Blank)

I agree that it's thin glass and a heavy needle thrown at point blank range. It is trickery but just like street magic it still takes a kind of skill.

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.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.

I'm not so sure it's equal, but assigning blame isn't the most productive outcome here. Hopefully this event will moderate the rhetoric on all sides going forward.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

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
Completely disagree. The political left is the source of tremendous amounts of hate speech and angry rhetoric. I am not going to say that are the 'primary' source, because both sides are equally apoplectic. I consume media from a variety of sources. I don't just look at MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, AP, Rueters - I also look at a cross section of sites of varying political tilt. From Brietbart on the right all the way to the KOS on the left, I see a swatch of it all. And in all honesty and candor, it is NOT the political right that is "the primary" source of angry rhetoric, and certainly not Sarah Palin. There's plenty to go around all sides in this particular smorgasboard.
Do we forget - or do some choose to ignore - the bile and venom the left has been spewing, especially during the Bush years? My memory is not selective, and I remember very clearly the left was calling for Bush assassinations, burning him in effigy, making threats, calling for violence, and otherwise vomiting out hate speech against Bush & Bush supporters for well over 10 years now.
Pictures of Bush decapitated... Images of him in a guillotine... T-shirts wanting him executed... John Kerry saying he 'could Kill Bush, no problem'... Craig Kilborn saying, "Snipers wanted" by a pic of Bush. Alan Hevesi who said he 'would put a bullet between his eyes'. Charles Karel Bouley who wants Joe the Plumber 'dead'. Fiengold who said "Republicans aren't human beings and they should be exterminated before they cause more harm". Chris Matthews who said, "Someone's going to jam a C02 pellet into Limbaugh's head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp - that day may come and we'll be there to watch." DLC blogs that use the same sort of target map Palin did... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&sub
id=171 And I have not even begun to scratch the SURFACE of the left-wing hate that is pervasive in the media and political culture.
So please - no peddling of the liberally biased fantasy that it is "only" the right or "primarily" the right that is wallowing in this cesspool of hateful rhetoric. No. The left has been revelling in the same filth for decades. This isn't some sort of right-wing malady. It is a problem that pervades both sides in equal levels of commonality and severity.


I watch a lot of news especially during the Bush era. I've seen Bush compared to Hitler and Monkeys and stuff...I have never seen some of the shit you're talking about and you know why...because it wasn't trumpeted in the media. Hatred against Obama and racism is put on our TVs almost like it's a great thing...even defended and encouraged in some cases.

So yes the Left does have it's crazies and they do say stupid fucking things...but no, it's not Equal...not in coverage not in reaction. Any study of the media would tell you this but you're probably a bit busy.

>> ^kymbos:

America, you have lost your mind.
Side note: Yogi, didn't you go on a whole 'bad people should die' speil here on the Sift not long ago? How do you feel about that kind of sentiment now?


I was more saying that telling someone to kill themselves should be fine...or saying that they should die should be fine. Look I'm against the death penalty in almost all cases...except those who machete little children while they sit at their desks in Kenya. Or say Adolf Eichmann and the like who murder jews by the millions not thinking much of it.

I honestly believe that I can draw a very easy to understand line between those who kill and those who murder in such a barbaric fashion that they can no longer consider themselves a part of the human race. And yes I'm not the "judge" and I'm not the one who gets to decide these things but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people who are sick and disgusting to the point of murdering children in horrific ways completely unfeeling and unmoving in their resolve. I get to say to them "Kill yourself" or "Someone should fucking kill them" I'm taking that fucking right for myself.

>> ^RadHazG:

I am not calling for Palins head, nor anyone else's. The fact is though that while there are crazy people in this world, and crazy people will always do crazy things, public speeches encouraging revolution and violence (even if it is indirectly) create an environment in which these people have a much easier time rationalizing such things. Even non-crazy people who are just fed up and getting angrier and angrier at what they are being told repeatedly is the tyrannical takeover of their country will eventually reach the point where violent lashing out seems the only alternative.
This doesnt mean everything has to become all "PC" or whatever, thats just another swing in the extremist direction.

And I'm not saying words have zero effect, I'm saying "they're just words!"

A lot of people here seem dangerously close to arguing for large scale censorship, particularly when it comes to those other people who are always wrong.

I am not calling for Palins head, nor anyone else's. The fact is though that while there are crazy people in this world, and crazy people will always do crazy things, public speeches encouraging revolution and violence (even if it is indirectly) create an environment in which these people have a much easier time rationalizing such things. Even non-crazy people who are just fed up and getting angrier and angrier at what they are being told repeatedly is the tyrannical takeover of their country will eventually reach the point where violent lashing out seems the only alternative.

This doesnt mean everything has to become all "PC" or whatever, thats just another swing in the extremist direction.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'd expect a phrase like "society failed this man" would resonate with a bunch of liberals and, instead, you all go off hunting the arctic dodo.
Ultimately, I'm not so gung-ho on following the blame trail. Jared Lee Loughner did this and Palin is no more responsible for his actions than John Romero and Marilyn Manson are for the actions of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
Palin makes a lot of comments in poor taste (not to mention poor grammar, poor spelling, and poor intelligence) but it's not possible to speak in a way that's guaranteed not to set off someone who is completely detached from reality.
Calling for Palin's head is the same sort of fear-mongering the Republicans are making a living off of right now and all you hypocrites don't seem to agree a whole lot with them when they do it.

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.