Thumbs up!

ugh, okay siftbot, rub it in.

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by hpqp because hpqp is not privileged - sorry.

In the meantime, this is some *quality *femme (Kathy, not Michelle).

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by hpqp.

Adding video to channels (Femme) - requested by hpqp.

*promote

That's it, take that bitch down a few pegs.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, July 14th, 2011 1:38pm PDT - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

I heart her.

*controversy *gay

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Gay) - requested by MrFisk.

Wow, a Kathy Griffin clip where she's endearing instead of annoying! Cool!

On a semi-related ranting lunatic note, http://videosift.com/video/How-a-Christian-Wisconsian-pronounces-Chutzpah

i have a guilty confession to make: i think kathy griffin is HAWT!!!

I always find her endearing

>> ^MaxWilder:

Wow, a Kathy Griffin clip where she's endearing instead of annoying! Cool!

>> ^hpqp:

I always find her endearing
>> ^MaxWilder:
Wow, a Kathy Griffin clip where she's endearing instead of annoying! Cool!



When she first showed up I liked her. But the last few years she's been a bit too shrill, or something. I dunno.

How long has this skank been bigoted towards Christians?

Percentage of Christians in American population: 85%

Gays: 4% tops

>> ^quantumushroom:

How long has this skank been bigoted towards Christians?
Percentage of Christians in American population: 85%
Gays: 4% tops


Calling her a skank: completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Whether or not she is a skank has nothing to do with the validity of her opinion.

Who said she is bigoted towards Christians? I'll have to watch it again, but I believe she accused Bachman of bigotry, not all Christians.

Percentages of Christians and gays: totally irrelevant. Why does this matter in the slightest? It has nothing to do with whether Bachman is right, or even whether Christians or gays are right.

In sum, your comment is completely worthless. Please refrain from making further comments if they aren't going to have some minimal value.

You, my friend, are quite necessary and relevant.

>> ^srue:

>> ^

Calling her a name: completely unnecessary and irrelevant. ...In sum, your comment is completely worthless. Please refrain from making further comments if they aren't going to have some minimal value.

I don't understand your deal with numbers, QM. If only 4% of folks are gay does that mean they get reduced rights and privileges? Only 15% of the country is black but it was eventually decided blacks could participate in society any way. 1% Jews, 1% Muslim, etc. doesn't mean 1% citizenship. It's bizarre. What shall we do with the 8% who are left handed? Tie their left arms down when they learn writing in the first grade like we used to? Sheesh...

>> ^quantumushroom:

How long has this skank been bigoted towards Christians?
Percentage of Christians in American population: 85%
Gays: 4% tops


Also, I think your data on xian population is a little out of date. According to the last census it's more like 76% not that it matters.

I'm mad because she's funny and I can never have sex with her.

Calling her a skank: completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Whether or not she is a skank has nothing to do with the validity of her opinion.

I think she would completely understand her well-deserved abasement. She's a professional a-hole and is probably used to being called out.

Who said she is bigoted towards Christians? I'll have to watch it again, but I believe she accused Bachman of bigotry, not all Christians.

The bukyak said, "Suck it, Jesus," demonstrating her bigotry.

Percentages of Christians and gays: totally irrelevant. Why does this matter in the slightest? It has nothing to do with whether Bachman is right, or even whether Christians or gays are right.

It matters to anyone refusing to accept tyranny from a minority. Notice how people in our "free" society may reject Christianity, but not homosexuality? If being gay is a "choice" then it's the choice of very few people. Homosexuality is likely a matter of genetics; if a "homosexual gene" is discovered, how many prospective parents would switch it "off" in their unborn baby? My guess would be 99.99%.

In sum, your comment is completely worthless. Please refrain from making further comments if they aren't going to have some minimal value.

You're free to upvote or downvote these comments. I understand the shock, lefties aren't used to hearing other points of view. If it's too much, you're free to refrain from internets.

I don't understand your deal with numbers, QM. If only 4% of folks are gay does that mean they get reduced rights and privileges?

It depends on what homosexuality is. If being gay is a "choice" then it's behavioral, and behavior of all kinds is regulated. If homosexuality is purely genetic, the question remains whether or not it's a defect. As a clue, if a "homosexual gene" is discovered, how many prospective parents would switch it "off" in their unborn baby? My guess would be 99.99%.

Only 15% of the country is black but it was eventually decided blacks could participate in society any way. 1% Jews, 1% Muslim, etc. doesn't mean 1% citizenship. It's bizarre. What shall we do with the 8% who are left handed? Tie their left arms down when they learn writing in the first grade like we used to? Sheesh...

Or perhaps we should make all right-handed people conform to a left-handed world? Isn't that what politigays are demanding now? Don't the blind have a right to drive cars? They're equal citizens, aren't they?

Also, I think your data on xian population is a little out of date. According to the last census it's more like 76% not that it matters.


If it doesn't matter, then it should make no difference to you whether it's 85% or 76%.

BTW, is there any video evidence of the actual Griffin/Bachmann encounter? I'm calling BS until it materializes.

@quantumushroom

http://videosift.com/video/QM-here-is-an-example-of-true-love-for-you

Here you go, Q-Baby.

(@calmlyintoit, I would add -- Q's obsession with numbers? the logical extension is that gays' and lesbians' humanity is on a percentage basis, also.)

>> ^quantumushroom:

How long has this skank been bigoted towards Christians?
Percentage of Christians in American population: 85%
Gays: 4% tops


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religion

You may wish to catch up with the times... Secularism is rising, Christianity is dying. In the US. This is from our (horribly flawed as Backman puts it) census in 2010 referring backwards to other censuses...

If your bigoted towards a group, wouldn't that mean you think they're better than other people, without reason?

Meanwhile, the hardest thing about seeing that 'sarcasm' box, is not clicking it every time.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Wow, a Kathy Griffin clip where she's endearing instead of annoying! Cool!


Weeeell... a little from column A, but a lot from column B. I still find listening to her to be like listening to fingernails on a black board. But I'd take that over seeing Michelle Bachmann's evil, cold, souless, dead stare... *shudder*

"Gays: 4% tops"
"It matters to anyone refusing to accept tyranny from a minority"

QM, I have a bad news for you. Your views represent a tiny minority of The Sift. Like, 4% tops. So you will of course understand that we'll have to protect ourselves from your tyranny.

Kind Regards,
- The Other Tyranny

"Yeah, what's with the obsession with numbers, qm? Are you trying to use facts or data or something? You know that don't work on us feelings."

Who doubts a blind person's "humanity?" Do you still want them driving city buses?


>> ^bareboards2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom
http://videosift.com/video/QM-here-is-an-example-of-true-love-for-you

Here you go, Q-Baby.
(@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/calmlyintoit" title="member since July 29th, 2009" class="profilelink">calmlyintoit, I would add -- Q's obsession with numbers? the logical extension is that gays' and lesbians' humanity is on a percentage basis, also.)

QM, I have a bad news for you. Your views represent a tiny minority of The Sift.

This isn't news to me, nor is it bad.

So you will of course understand that we'll have to protect ourselves from your tyranny.
Kind Regards,
- The Other Tyranny


It depends on what liberalism is. If being liberal is a "choice" then it's behavioral, and behavior of all kinds is regulated. If being a liberal is purely genetic*, the question remains whether or not it's a defect. As a clue, if a "liberal gene" is discovered, how many prospective parents would switch it "off" in their unborn baby? My guess would be 99.99%.


* Around age 25 liberalism goes away by itself in most people who see the bite out of their paychecks to fund the indolent non-working class, how much governments waste, and how in real life there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

“Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior Cingulate Cortex – a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger Amygdala, an almond shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.”

So @quantumushroom, next time you feel a strongly conservative stance coming on, you might consider teasing out what is irrational fear versus a well-founded fear. And maybe, just maybe, try some critical and thoughtful analysis of the situation.

You know, like, considering science.

Why ARE you so afraid of gays and lesbians? And please don't say you aren't -- every time you trot out that 4% number, you are broadcasting "fear of the other."

Ah yes, the "unbiased" brain story. http://rockinconservative.com/2011/04/12/a-tale-of-two-brains/

I"m too lazy to formulate my own words at this time, so I found someone with words that match my sentiments:

I believe people have rights to legally designate in contract law who can visit them in hospitals, who can be named as insurance beneficiaries and the raft of other considerations sought for gay and lesbian couples. Call the arrangement civil unions if you wish.

But that's not the same as defining any union a marriage.

My fear — based on secular, more than religious precepts — is that watering down marriage could eventually rob society of the stabilizing and other beneficial effects of an institution now relentlessly under attack. Perhaps this argument is too ethereal to be grasped or accepted in an age of radical individualism. But it's an argument that is understood by plenty of Americans willing to state it, although it puts them in danger of being painted as haters.

--Dennis Byrne


Where I disagree with Byrne is that this nightmare world is wrought by "radical individualism". It's the herd, the mob, the petty tyrants, behind these farcical ideas.


>> ^bareboards2:

“Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior Cingulate Cortex – a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger Amygdala, an almond shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.”
So @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom, next time you feel a strongly conservative stance coming on, you might consider teasing out what is irrational fear versus a well-founded fear. And maybe, just maybe, try some critical and thoughtful analysis of the situation.
You know, like, considering science.
Why ARE you so afraid of gays and lesbians? And please don't say you aren't -- every time you trot out that 4% number, you are broadcasting "fear of the other."

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't understand your deal with numbers, QM. If only 4% of folks are gay does that mean they get reduced rights and privileges?
It depends on what homosexuality is. If being gay is a "choice" then it's behavioral, and behavior of all kinds is regulated. If homosexuality is purely genetic, the question remains whether or not it's a defect. As a clue, if a "homosexual gene" is discovered, how many prospective parents would switch it "off" in their unborn baby? My guess would be 99.99%.


You sir disturb me on a quiet Sunday morning.

Liberty and Justice for ALL--not just for the people you like, or agree with.
The majority is not allowed to subjugate a minority.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Notice how people in our "free" society may reject Christianity, but not homosexuality?


You've said a lot of incredibly stupid things on the sift, but this has to be in the top five.

You have every right to reject homosexuality. Nobody is trying to make you or your children into homosexuals.

On the other hand, Christians are definitely trying to make me and my children into Christians. But I wouldn't dream of passing a law saying two Christians couldn't marry.

It is the legal treatment of homosexuals as second-class citizens that we seek to end. We seek the freedom for everybody to pursue their own happiness where it does not infringe on the rights of others.

sweet 'Bachmann for President' add on top right of the page (for me)
... it gleams with the shine of constitutionality whenever you mouse over it