Gay Marriage: There are people out there who just don't want to shake things up; people who like the status quo and want to see marriage remain M/F only. Exactly what's going on in their heads, I can't say. I'd be interested to find out and I know that won't happen if I scream obscenities at them before they have the chance to explain it.

Illegal Immigration: First, the omission of "illegal" in my first post was just an oversight on my part. I really don't see why anyone would support illegal immigration, honestly. I think the claim that some people do is more likely a distortion. People, generally liberals, argue for better treatment of illegals and against the assload of money we spend trying, and failing, to stop them at the border. Wingnuts then point at those people and claim that they're in favor of illegal immigration. That one feels like runaway douchebaggery to me.

The Holocaust: This guy is labeled an antisemite for his beliefs about the Holocaust. If you're looking for "the point" to denying the Holocaust, then you're way off the mark. It's not as if there is a "point" to believing in the Holocaust, either. That's what you and I, presumably, believe because that is what the evidence presented to us suggests. Some people have interpreted the evidence differently or have been exposed to different evidence. I think most of those people are probably nuts but it's a complete logical fallacy to jump to antisemitism from there.

War on Terror: You've made my point for me here. Everyone I know who is against the war fully supports the troops. We want them home and safe rather than risking their lives to protect us from absolutely nothing. However, anyone who was against the war during the Bush administration was labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic, an appeaser or accused of hating the troops. It's a bullshit accusation intended to shut you up or drown you out and that's it.
---
It seems like you may have mistaken my list of examples for my personal positions and that's not the case, so I can't really make any arguments for these things. The only argument I'm making is that you shouldn't assume your preconceived notions are true and shut out those opposing viewpoints as a result. Have your preconceptions if you must, but give the person the chance to prove you wrong.

>> ^Shepppard:
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?
I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it.
Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.
I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.
Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"
You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.
Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.
Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.

I'm not going to downvote you, you raise a point.

However, I do feel the need to ask a few things.
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?

I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it. They still pay to be wed, if they want children, they have to adopt..which means a child gets much better care then it ever would if it doesn't get adopted, and that way everybody's happy.

Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.

I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.

Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"

You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.

Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.

Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I hate to say it but, despite the hypocrisy, Beck has a point.
I know I'll be downvoted into oblivion for saying this, because I've been through it before, but maybe one or two of you will hear the message and understand it.
You can oppose immigration without being a racist.
You can oppose Obama or his policies without being a racist.
You can deny the Holocaust without being an anti-semite.
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.
You can oppose the US Government without being a terrorist.
You can oppose the War on Terror without hating our troops.
You can oppose hydrogen powered vehicles without supporting big oil.
You can oppose abortion without being a Bible-thumping misogynist.
You can oppose war without being an appeaser.
Do many people oppose gay marriage because of their hatred of gays? Certainly. Do many people oppose Obama because of racism? Clearly. Are some who deny the Holocaust anti-semites? Probably.
But some people are just mislead and some people are just nuts. Some even ( gasp ) have different and legitimate opinions. We've gotten to this place where any level of disagreement warrants the most extreme vocabulary that can be conjured and the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives.
You want to know why there's no progress in government? It's because of radical preconceived notions. Anything the left proposes is Nazism, Fascism, Marxism or Socialism. They hate good Christian people and the country. Anything the right proposes is Nazism, Fascism or Discrimination. Nobody even hears the other side because they've decided ahead of time what those people will say.
And the vast majority of you here on the sift are the same way. Open your eyes and ears. There are a lot of people with differing and/or opposing viewpoints to yours and not all of them are nutcases who want to destroy the country. You serve nobody's interests by shooting them down with extremist labels before they've even had the chance to make their case.

Jon is so much more polite than I could make myself be... Rand is one of those that has taken (or created) a position so extreme that in order for her philosophy to have any chance of working, the very nature of humanity would have to be changed. Exactly like Karl Marx, except that she apparently took that extremist position intentionally, even -after- seeing the results when such ideologies are applied to the real world.

She was, by any measure I can agree with, a loon (not to mention a twisted, nasty old biddy). That said, Francisco d'Anconia's money speech in "Atlas Shrugged" is an amazing piece of writing, and certainly a philosophical treatise worth thinking about. I've read "Atlas Shrugged" many times through my life (it's one of my favorite books), but I long ago realized that it just isn't an appropriate philosophy to use in defining how to live a life. I would rather live my life by "Lord of the Rings" or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...if I had to choose a book for that purpose.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I don't know why but something about that really tickled me. I'm still giggling like a loon.

Upvote for complete lack of self respect!

welcome back, loon of the wise.

Where was MSNBC covering these loons?

^Please, save your hyperbole for another discussion. You seem to agree with the G-20 summit and its potential outcome, so therefore any dissenting voice against it is marred in your eyes. Those who have dissenting opinions, it appears you'd like to categorize as loons or crackpots or violent anarchists.

I believe in a nonviolent approach to solving violations to our rights, however the ever increasing presence of militarized police has been a growing concern for most people in this country. These policemen are trampling on these people's right to freely assemble. You can try to paint them with any broad brush you wish, but you cannot deny them their rights.

I do disagree with the protesters' use of violence (if you can consider a handful of them pushing dumpsters at armed and protected SWAT cops violent), but who knows if it was provoked. Looking at the how the police are overreacting, it does seem that these protesters were possibly provoked. Also, did you see any police officers that were dragged to the ground or beaten with batons? Were any of them attacked so viciously they bled? Did the citizens shoot them with rubber bullets and canisters of tear gas? As someone who has tasted the sting of tear gas, it's no party and shouldn't be something used lightly.

This sort of police violence is becoming more and more common in the States. I hope they end this peacefully, but I also believe if they do not then U.S. citizens will be justified in taking measures to ensure their rights are guaranteed.

>> ^LordOderus:
>> ^StukaFox:
Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.

When, in any episode, has Penn ever said that their show is "neutral"? They almost always have a very obvious opinion about the subject matter of an episode, and they clearly point it out. The show isn't about debate and contrast between two sides. It's about them calling out things that they believe are Bullshit. So while I agree with you that they are very one sided (and usually very liberal) you can't hold it against them. That's what the show is. If they presented themselves as a fair and balanced debate show, or the news, and were still blatantly one sided coughFOXcough then that would be something to criticize.


hhehehe cause CNN and MSNBC are totally neutral! All network news is dead to true journalism. That is why I just listen to the voices in my head...MUAHAHAHAH

(I might of consumed far to much sugar today)

I don't think red herring means what you think it means, either that, or I have not explained my train of thought well enough...the latter is more likely.

Banter is not the issue, it is people. I think we both agree with this point from what I can tell. We also both would agree that people are violent. I think most people have no problem with violence. I walk into plenty of situation where people have no regard for other peoples well being, either through willingness or ignorance. I see people drive drunk and get into auto accidents, I see people get into bar fights, arguments at football games, the works. While people don't necessarily go "Hitler" and mass murder everyday, but this wasn't the point I was trying to make...like at all.

Violence is human nature...hell, it's more than that, it's the nature of most all life on this planet. "Banter" is hardly the cause, though I think what you were saying is that it can be used to heard that anger towards an end. But that was my point, or the point I was trying to make. The problem isn't banter, people banter all the time without riots breaking out and civilization collapsing around their heads. Fear and anger are what motivate people, and it is the lack of critical reasoning that prevent the rational side of their brain from examining those issues. This brings me back to were I stared, banter isn't the problem, it is the lack of critical reasoning skills and self awareness. Also, peoples fears and angers being exploited, but that is more of a side issue as much as the banter. The issues, as I see it, it a lack of personal examination and self reflection, that is what the conversation should of been about. Comparing chanting crowds to assassins is so far removed from any relevant dialog that it makes my head spin.

I was very hyped when I wrote before, so sorry if I sounded like a loon, I don't express myself well when agitated, by the lack of you voting for this video, I would wager the tone of the video struck your brain with an error message as well.

I was somewhat disturbed by the content of your above referenced link. While many of the references to past events are not a surprise to me (it's well documented that both Anglican and RC missionaries committed acts that can only be described as atrocities and/or cultural genocide) Annet's references starting in 1969 just did not ring true based on my personal interactions within First Nations groups from Alaska to Victoria and commencing around 1973/74. As a result I've spent the last couple of hours trying to verify any of his statements with negative results. What I have found is that first nations groups in Manitoba which have been hit particularly hard by H1N1 received body bags as part of normal medical resupply and are in fact demanding supplies of Tamiflu and to be prioritized when new vaccines become available. The opening reference to the Ahousaht reserve appears to be totally bogus as well. The Indian Act does not require on reserve Indians to submit to medical experimentation and bill C-6 has nothing to do with H1N1 vaccinations, but rather is " the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act". I have reviewed the entire Act and found no reference at all to H1N1 or vaccines compulsory or otherwise.

It appears to me that Kevin Annet is basically a loon with some personal axe to grind and is not averse to making up "facts" to support his position.

As someone that none of you know, but knows the full story here, I would like to tell gwiz665 that he is in total denial of the facts of the matter. Two women chased off the sift now by your stalking, baiting lunacy. I know that you will not agree with a thing I have said, for you are truly a deluded prick in need of some serious psychiatric help. It's only the mad that can't see it in themselves after all.

I do however suggest you stfu and get some profesional help.

Sorry AC, but I like Rasch could not sit here and watch this loon say shit like that with no response. Watch out ppl for the freaks are out!

I never though there WAS a question. I mean, the name itself, "WORLD TRADE Center". It's all about anti-globalization. They mind the fact that we remove crude oil from their homelands (which, given their delusions about an Eternal Caliphate, is a big swath of land), and give monstrously corrupt regimes all the cash and military might they want, as long as they keep the situation contained. The region was never stable to begin with, but with the way it was set up, it'll never get better. In their eyes, the WTC was where all those petrodollars were laundered and used to put a respectable business face on the dark deeds of the past. It's why Ward Churchill got into so much trouble by referring to those who worked in the WTC as 'little Eichmanns'-- hey, man, they were only following orders, pushing papers around an office. He wasn't calling them Nazis. Rather, Eichmann was found guilty not of killing anyone, but rather perfecting a system, the consequences of which was the slaughter of millions. This does not justify in any way the actions taken by the hijackers and their masters. The religion they so fervently follow forbids 'collateral damage'. They are hypocrites, and they are delusional. All this came out before, and I can imagine the MSM not really giving a damn about trucking out that bag of loons one more time.

As for 'It's Israel, stupid!" I'm not a fan of atrocities against unarmed civilians. I have no idea what it would take to make that part of the world get along. I do know that, were we to follow the whims of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the entire country AND race would be driven into the sea and drowned. There is no pretense to compromise. Israel is a convenient head to hang their hate. Simple as that. Could Israel chill the crap out a little more? Probably. 34 Americans died on the USS Liberty because Israel got sloppy.

The Palestinians need to realize what the people in Kansas seem incapable of understanding--there are people out there who will deceive you. They will make you believe that they are on your side, and protecting your interests. In truth, they only want to stir up the muck within yourselves, and will often make you act outside of your own self-interest. If we can't solve it among people at relative peace, how do we solve it when both sides have been going at it for decades?

This guy makes a good point. Why does it always seem to be the loons like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Charly (oops) I mean Joseph Mccarthy who are always telling everyone else what is or isn't unamerican? And why does Glen Beck look like my ex sister-in-law's lesbian lover?

>> ^StukaFox:
Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.


When, in any episode, has Penn ever said that their show is "neutral"? They almost always have a very obvious opinion about the subject matter of an episode, and they clearly point it out. The show isn't about debate and contrast between two sides. It's about them calling out things that they believe are Bullshit. So while I agree with you that they are very one sided (and usually very liberal) you can't hold it against them. That's what the show is. If they presented themselves as a fair and balanced debate show, or the news, and were still blatantly one sided *coughFOXcough* then that would be something to criticize.

Yes, I'm AMAZED as to how well he holds it together.

Even though she's a loon, the best way to combat that is with tactful logic. Getting in to a shouting match (as many talk show hosts like to do) helps bring the argument down to the credibility of the arguer rather than the credibility of the argument.

And Jon keeps his conversations from breaking down to that point better than anyone!