no it is the same talk, just a different cut of it. mine was longer than this...and when I posted my video, I found out that the was an even longer cut posted before mine..

which is why it understandable why so many people are posting the same talk, but not knowing it...it was the same for me those years ago.

for that matter, are a lot of Iranian scientists even muslim? After WW2, we scooped up as many German scientists that we could fine. They were simply better than our scientists at the time.

Would not Iran do the same thing? maybe not as successfully though since they don't have a bomb that we know of.

Sadly though, this is a dupe of one of my earlier sifts:

http://videosift.com/video/The-erosion-of-progress-by-religion

but don't feel bad, if you look at the comments, my sift was also contained in a larger sift and there are apparently many other clips of the same speech.

I cannot invoke dupe so I will leave it to others to decide what to do since my sift is also technically a dupe, and so on, and so on.

Welcome to the great chain!

At least they used the correct definition of troll and not the often used "You don't agree with me, therefore you are a troll"

is someone here...defending these terrorists??

That was the other thing that I thought was hilarious. This terrorist probably supports free market capitalism, but here he is...telling people what they should and shouldn't be spending their money on. Clearly he doesn't own any stock in the bag of dicks industry. Tsk tsk tsk. If he weren't so lazy, he could have been a bag of dicks CEO instead of a terrorist.

It's always amusing how people like that get pissed when they get regulated, but they have no problem regulating others. Funny how rules only apply to other people. Standard "freedom for me, but not for you" mentality we've seen from RWNJ's

Funny how they think people mocking them is "hateful"

words matter.

And because they whined about it instead of just ignoring it, they just guaranteed that people will send MORE bags of dicks...not less.

nerds!

To more directly respond to the video though, the answer, as they already talked about is the media's fault. Bernie, despite his open socialism, is not very controversial. He's nuanced, shown that he can give complex answers to complex problems and actually seems to be interested in governance.

THOSE THINGS ARE BORING! Doing your job well is often boring. Media doesn't like boring. The media has their profits to think about, so they're going to generate controversy.

This is not groundbreaking at all. I call it the Cartman effect. South Park episodes usually focus on what crazy thing Cartman is going to do next. The show revolves around it. He does completely insane, amoral, disgusting things that no one should ever do...but the audience laps it up. Similar thing occurs with Sheldon of The Big Bang Theory. As I've already compared it to, Reality shows do the exact same thing. The contestant who everyone hates is kept on as long as possible, who otherwise would have been eliminated long ago. People love to hate that person. They keep watching to see what they'll do next.

This perfectly describes Trump. People who will never vote for him in a million years still follow what he does just to see what happens next. This also describes Fox "News" It recently just got ranked the highest in viewership for 2015 again. The right loves to pretend that means that their views are popular. No, that just means everyone wants to watch the trainwreck.

This is also why the Republican debates got more press than the Democratic ones. All the Republican candidates were fighting each other tooth and nail. All were going after Trump. There were a lot of catfights and lots of drama. Meanwhile, in the Democrat debates, everyone gets along. Even when they disagree, they do so in a constructive manner and everyone gets along. No drama, therefore no press. Being serious is boring and that doesn't generate ad revenue for media.

Having an outrageous, controversial candidate is still not enough to get elected though, in fact it cuts both ways. When you put forth a "Cartman" candidate, sure it rallies lots of supporters. But it also rallies lots of opponents (or more) against the candidate. This is exactly what happened with Palin.

Elections have turned into being more about voting against the person you don't want than voting for the person that should be in office. "Anybody but X"

the problem is the primaries. Primaries are just simply a shitty system. End of story. The primaries are run by the RNC and the DNC and they don't give a fuck about your vote. The RNC wants anyone but Trump. Trump will not get the nod unless they make some behind the scenes deal that we never hear about. The DNC wants Hillary and it doesn't matter how popular Bernie is.

The RNC/DNC are private organizations and there is no law whatsoever that they are beholden to us.

As the founders warned...parties are bad. I'm not going to tell you that they're equally bad, because that's stupid...but they are both bad.

Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are the problem and both organizations need to be dissolved, but the Constitution does protect the right to assemble. The person is supposed to matter..not party..not money. Maybe an amendment could be created banning political parties somehow, but insanely difficult to enforce. A lot of shit would go away if we got rid of money in elections though and made them 100 percent publicly funded. It's so much bullshit that we spend so much money on elections in the Internet age.

Just give each candidate their own website...no fancy ads or graphics..just a fucking open source free wiki site where each candidate can put whatever they want on it so people can visit and judge for themselves. Elections are not fucking reality TV shows. This should be a no-brainer.

ahh the irony of spending so much time figuring out how to beat a game the quickest.

assuming one defines feminism as "the sexes should be equal"

...then the word is redundant. we already have words that describe one that supports equality.

It's become a completely meaningless word because everyone views the word differently.

some people view feminists as "man haters" Im sure there are some out there. That's the problem with any 'ism. There's always a group that takes it way too far. but I'm pretty sure they are a small small minority.

But we see this in other themes as well. Try to give women equality, and somehow that gets interpreted as being a man-hater.
-Try to promote equality for african americans, and that gets interpreted as hating whites.
-Try to promote LGBT rights and that gets interpreted into the idea that LGBT is something that can be "caught" like a cold.

It's rampant insecurity. promoting rights for others isn't going to take your rights away.

I completely agree that the guy is just playing a role. It's fox news after all. He may not actually believe the shit he spouts.

but a non-insignificant amount of the geriatric fox viewership undoubtedly believe what he says.

this is...something people want to see?

I don't get it. is this part of the not so secret delusion that some people seem to have that they will convert a lesbian if they're with the right guy or something?

Sadly, it really doesn't matter what they call them, because the term terrorist has become meaningless. I've said this all the way back when GWB "declared war on vague abstract concept"

The definition stated earlier is not wrong, but you can use that term for just about anything. Americans were terrorists against the British when we revolted. We also had the audacity to not march shoulder to shoulder against the Brits as was the standard for every "civilized" army back then.

The only difference is who wins and who loses. if you win, you're a revolutionary. if you lose, you're a terrorist. and if you're white, you're a militia group.

This was a calculated move by the terrorists though. I think they deliberately picked some piece of shit building of no value that no one cared about and was unused, made sure they didn't kill anyone but yet still forcibly occupied it with weapons. It's a dare...it's an attempt to goad. They want the feds or police to go in guns blazing. They want suicide by cop because it will ultimately benefit them and gain sympathy for them. They took something that is completely inconsequential other than it was owned by "the gub'mint"

The Fox pundit thinks they're peaceful? armed occupation is peaceful now? Just because they haven't physically hurt anyone doesn't make them peaceful. They stopped being peaceful the instant they picked up their weapons.

Love all the usual buzzwords and sound bites from the fox pundit without any actual specifics. Once again, who specifically is this "left wing media?" They never actually say who. more accusations of "big gov't" without any specifics. They keep talking about these intrusions into our lives, but yet, can't seem to name them.

All fear, no concrete issues. Standard geriatric (that means old, bob) Fox audience.

Of course it wouldn't be an issue if we didn't tie our employment to our ability to provide food, shelter, and healthcare.

If those things were independent of each other, then they can fire away.

But since this shit has a direct effect on someone(s) quality of life then I tend to err on the side of not throwing someone out into the street unless there was actual measurable harm done.

Thank you for proving my point. You appear to have missed that that the only difference is who is doing the judging.

Being racist is not a crime. Artificial insemination is not a crime.

So maybe we shouldn't fire people for doing things outside of work that have nothing to do with their jobs.