Someone's not gone shrooming too often - it's oxidizing, that's why the color changes. Most shrooms do this.

Shrooms, yes. Don't you just love them?

Hmm, reminds me of that one time I partook in a few too many 'shrooms

Alcohol is among the *drugs, despite how many of us tend to think that drugs are only pot, coke, smack, shrooms, acid, certain funky pills and so on. Google "is alcohol a drug" and Bob's your uncle.

So's caffeine, if you get right down to it -- although I wouldn't claim that somebody drinking coffee is drugged unless it's his 100th cup and he's moving around a fiery room rescuing people in Matrix-y bullet time.

^'Shroom
So.... Barack, despite having an unmarried mother and an irresponsible father, won the democratic nomination for president and looks to be headed towards winning the presidency and becoming the most powerful man in the world. Incredible! That is truly the American dream that I know!

But wait, what is that you say, he lived in the same neighborhood as a former radical, and they served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Shit! Is it too late to change my vote!?

Estranged broke-ass 26-year-old Muslim half-brother!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Why, Obama, WHY!?! Why couldn't you have chosen a better father, WHY!!!????

Idiot.

I actually don't think QM is a troll. There's more than one way on thinking in the world and the statements the Shroom makes often have a logic to them. This way of thinking if fairly widespread in my experience, you just don't see it on internet forums much. Maybe because most that share this worldview don't know how to use computers.

>> ^quantumushroom:

..."The same" is better than communism.


Uhhh...the republicans just socialised over a trillion dollars worth of debt, and Obama is the communist ?

Wake the fuck up shroom, the US has turned into a corporate-fascist state, where the only interests washington gives a shit about are those who run the companies.

$8k a year since bush got in power, that's how much the average home owner is worse off under bush than the last administration. Taxes have been removed altogether from the top 2% of income earners if they follow some loopholes set up specifically for them, corporations are able to take immense risk without any care for the consequences, as the fed just bails them out.

Privatize the profits, socialise the losses...seems to be the motto of the day.

Obama's plan for universal health-care is no more a communistic ideal than it is in Australia, or Canada, or England, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Holland, or France....etc...etc...all of which the citizens receive a far higher standard of care than anyone with "average" cover in the US, and all for free.

His plan to raise taxes on income earners over 250k is returning them to their previous levels pre-bush.

Lets not forget his removing of tariffs altogether from import/export to south-american nations, decimating the work-force in mexico and causing the massive influx of immigrants to the country.

NAFTA is a piece of shit, its caused more economic harm in the America's than its worth.

The war in Iraq, doubled the national debt, gone from 200bn surplus to 300bn defeceit, the devaluation of the dollar, the illegal threats of aggression against Iran, North Korea, and now fucking Russia.

The man and his party are all fucking batshit insane, this is not how you participate in a global society.

Wow, you weren't lying. I loves me a good 'shroom.

>> ^phelixian:
Is this real? Did they camp out near the shrooms to catch that? Weird...


No it's not a documentary.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095800/

Is this real? Did they camp out near the shrooms to catch that? Weird...

Indeed there's a distinction between Use and Abuse (addiction).

Good pure Meth crystal is wonderful, as is Heroin (do a dime and crank up the Osibisa, awesome), or 'shrooms, or vodka, or any drug - but don't be an asshat and do them All The Time. (btw, one-hit addiction is media bullshyt.)

I guess i'm the only person in the world who doesn't care for coke, snorted many lines of pharm grade stuff and, meh, was underwhelmed.

Dead video replaced.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Sorry this video is *dead. You may have others that are dead on this play list.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/eric3579/dead

This is what happens when you visit the Netherlands for 'shrooms too often.

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

That blew my mind. The guy knows his shrooms.

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.

So am I! I like the new pic.

could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

I can't seriously believe you don't know the common definition of a liberal: fiscally reckless and socially liberal (aka nuts). No one knows what 'classical liberalism' is except you, me, and Ron Paul.

"Social liberal" is a dangerously vague term. Ending Drug Prohibition could be considered socially liberal, but so could something absolutely insane, like open borders, and there's all sorts of wiggle room for questionable things like affirmative action (as a libertarian, you'd oppose it). Wouldn't "conservatarian" explain what you're saying you represent, a la fiscally conservative and socially (more) liberal? Your conservative side? You don't have to "prove" anything, I'm jess sayin' I'm not seein' it, and that's fine.

srsly. i've mentioned i don't know how many times, to you, that this is why i'm a libertarian, not a democrat. and yet you persist in treating anyone either socially or fiscally the same, when they actually have nothing to do with each other.

Do you really expect me to go down the list and fine tune each post so that every sifter of the many, many who oppose my POV feels good about it? For that personal touch, anyone who wants to discuss things more in depth is free to visit, as you have.

I used to be a libertarian and I've kept what I liked about it. Don't know if you've noticed, but generally Americans don't care about large-L Libertarians (or much of what any 3rd party says) or many small-L libertarian ideas. While I was a card-carrying Libertarian, I figured if any LP idea suddenly sounded good to the American population (ending Drug Prohibition, getting rid of IRS) one of the two major parties would steal it and claim it as their own. If I had my druthers (whatever they are) the two major parties would be Libertarian and Republican, but that's another rant.

and you can just call ppl by their fuckin' names, dude.
we all know what obama's middle name is. can't think of any reason anyone should give a shit.

Well, obviously YOU care!

my middle name's paul. do you care?

A-Ha! Do you know what Ron Paul's LAST NAME is? That's right. PAUL! It's all so clear to me now!

Yeah, I'm joking.

we all know who the president of iran is. just grow up, use ppl's fuckin' names? only you and jay leno think that shit's funny, and namecalling is essentially an ad hom attack as well.

Well, if for some reason Bush 43's middle name resembled "Hitler", you don't think the looney lefties would use that against him? Newsflash: for 8 years they've called him Hitler anyway, and a whole slew of unprintables, and the so-called "unbiased" mainstream media (long may they die) fuels it.

yeah. even worse when it's about something they didn't even get to choose - their name. should i really have to explain shit this silly, to you?

No, but here's what you should explain to me, why as a libertarian, you give a damn about hurting the feelings of a Jewicidal iranian tyrant, or saddam or dildo chavez, now in the process of starving his country with price controls. I mean, is that really what keeps you up at night? Name games with B. Hussein Obama? (he can legally change his name, if he wishes). How about O-Bam's disastrous tax-raising schemes or his frightening level of naivety in dealing in world affairs? As a fiscally-conservative libertarian, you should be terrified of this guy, and the broad.

>> anytime you'd like to address your original false accusations,
>> instead of burying them in new ones, you let me know.

> I'm not sure what the "false" accusations are as they have yet to be challenged.

oh come on, man! i make direct challenges all the time.
start with my rebuttal on the obama clip, where i said:
"how about quoting us a line from this, shroom..."

You have to understand the subtle dynamic at work with the Obama speech. On the surface it sounds like he's appealing to reason; what he's really doing is slipping in digs at Whitey, (including his own grandmother) knowing Whitey has no equal time forum to respond. That's what I hate about liberals and "race talk", it's not really a "dialogue" they seek, just more chances to blame others for their problems. As you claim to be a libertarian, I don't know why you're quick to defend someone advocating the OPPOSITE of personal responsibility and more Big Government "solutions".

and on the freeway protest clip, i listed many direct challenges.
you ignored them, and went off on some jim crow horseshit.

Oh, that. Well, my point was, if the original charge was 'gerrymandering' then so what, both parties do it and is it really something to be upset about? If one were a bona fide member of a 3rd party I could see it being offensive, but otherwise... srsly, if two thieves take turns robbing your house why only get upset (outraged) at one of them?

The response I got moved beyond that to accusations of (surprise) racism, always with the racism. So my Final Answer in essence was, why bother? Every time a group of 3 or more Black folks get pissed because they can't have their way they cry "Slavery!" and pretend it's the Jim Crow South all over again, as if there'd been NO progress or things made right by Whites since the Civil War. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone White or Black to play these kinds of games; they trivialize the real Civil Rights movement, which acheived its goals decades ago.

You casually wrote off all of the great things Republicans have done for Black Americans because they happened before last week...if you won't acknowledge which party freed the slaves, then accept the other party is the one that tried to keep them slaves, and ironically, continues to do so today, only the chains are mental.

As per the gerrymandering post (which only has 19 votes) is it of great importance to you that the Dems are the ones running 'a Black Guy'? As the Dems like to claim, Black conservatives "aren't really Black." It's shameful that any party is so race and gender obsessed, even tho it helps my side.


and calling the site "liberalsift"? if it's too "liberal" for you, gtfo. srsly. i wouldn't dream of going to any site, that had a more conservative viewership, and then blame them for wanting to talk openly.

I'm the only conservative that pipes up around here, and from time to time I've expressed gratitude for being able to do so. When I was banned a few folks who don't like me also welcomed my return. And while I believe you wouldn't go to townhall.com and attack the columnists there, many liberals and libertarians do. I'm sure there are conservative hawks who post at Daily Kos. So really, who's blaming whom? I don't want people to not post because they disagree with me, and let's face it, most do. Bush is unpopular, the war is unpopular, but popularity is not what it's about.

I'M not blaming anyone for posting as they do, or for posting what they want, even if they're not creative enough to go past Olbyloon's latest Countdown To No Ratings rant.

When I like a sift, I upvote it on its merit, even if I disagree 100% with the submitter.

whoopdee-fuckin-doo.

I didn't explain these points to gain sympathy any more than you want your posts treated with kid gloves. I'm just letting you know that I know what's going on. I think the challenge is that "angry knee-jerk reactions" is where a lot of these sifters start with their cockamamie sifts, and then expect a full discourse on American History they never learned to justify any possible opposing point of view.

The old joke goes, "Liberals welcome all points of view, until to their horror they discover there are other points of view."

Do you think posting a video of "angry" Black people marching in one kollij in one state is supposed to make the world tremble and viewers believe anything they say just because they're "angry"? I'll bet 90% of those doofs marching had no idea what they were matching for, they were marching because their friends were marching, or to meet girls, or worse yet, because Professor Marx offered credit to anyone who went. I don't have to know every little detail, I know enough about human nature.

> the sifts I submit are apolitical 98% of the time.

i would upvote honest, socially- or fiscally-conservative sifts. shit, dude. i'd welcome fiscally conservative ones with open fuckin' arms. saw plenty of good ones while ron paul was setting fundraising records.

Apolitical.

but not o'reilly, dude. c'mon. he's an embarrassment. look at the work of conservative intellectuals like margolis, and tell me you can't see the difference.

O'Reilly is current. What liberal is going to read margolis (or download her picture)?

Actually, people bagging on O'Reilly have posted more of his clips than I have.

now, since you mentioned snacks, it just so happens i have some ben & jerry's in the freezer. so i'm going to update my bio pic now...

I was about to recommend Colbert's Americone Dream but I see you've found it. Happy snacking!

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

first thing, and i'm being sincere here, shroom.
could you go back through your post, and wherever you see the word liberal, could you state whether it's social liberal, or fiscal liberal, that you're referring to?

^ it's not his vocabulary, that anyone has taken issue with.
just the part where his opening assertion is that Obama is "promoting anti-free market class and race warfare", and treats his say-so like it's QED.

how about quoting us a line from this, shroom, that is 'anti-free market'?
or promoting 'class and race warfare'? promoting it? this speech promotes race warfare?

> "Let this handsome chimera take the place of Christ"??
we're not electing christ.
Obama has a much easier task - he's only taking the place of Bush.

btw, i have yet to see Obama kissing any toes.
i do see some others, however, holding hands with tyrants overseas, and dancing.

in other words, shroomie, a decent vocabulary is all you've got here, once again.
you can't back up any of your poorly-thought-out accusations.
when you get called on it, you just create more of them.

it's called cognitive dissonance, shroom.
new lies, to protect the comforting old ones, that you're already invested in.

unless you can actually back up any of those assertions?
instead of burying them, again, and ignoring everyone's repeated attempts,
to improve your reasoning?

you're just chasing your own tail, dude.