@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

Um...you know Dan Savage is a HUGE Clinton supporter, right?
You were able to read how one sided and assumptive his article is, right?
Read -"Another way to look at this is that these results is that they should be deeply worrisome to you if you're expecting that Hillary Clinton is going to win in a blow out in November." "HILLARY CLINTON", not "The Democratic Nominee".
THIS kind of one sided, dismissivness is what I'm talking about, and why independents won't vote for her, knowing that she and her zealots will toss them aside the instant they have their votes.

EDIT: Rereading him, I can also see how he's unintentionally pushing for Sanders without saying his name, by explaining why you should be extremely worried if you think Clinton can win in November. I wonder, will Clinton supporters all fall behind Sanders if HE is the nominee, or would they let the world burn? No one EVER asks THAT question.

Anyone else just hoping Ann would say something so offensive and outrageous that Dan Savage would just elbow her in the face?

Your video, canadian doctor savages american senator on healthcare, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Daesh...not ISIS. They are not Islamic, are not a state, and deserve absolutely zero respect. Stop using ISIS, they are nothing more than Daeshbags. ;-)

I NEVER bought that line, that they are all uneducated savages. I have said from day one that this group is doing things with thousands of people that we can't do with hundreds of thousands, are incredibly technically savvy, and know how to speak to disenfranchised people to get them on board. That's what makes them so incredibly dangerous.

Propaganda works. It works even better when there's no competing facts available to contradict the propaganda with, and I think they have effectively erased all non-propaganda media in the areas they control.

It is because they so effectively use religiosity to convince people to follow them, using it against them seems not only proper, but smart. I'm sure it wouldn't be a perfect solution, and would not solve the problem, but it might just help stop it from growing (or not). If the followers are truly devout Muslims, being denied entry to heaven should be a successful anti-recruitment plan.

Since you brought up unusual punishments, let's take stoning people for adultery (which exists in both the Koran and the Bible). When was the last time someone was stoned to death by a group in the U.S., U.K., Australia, or even Malaysia for adultery? Hundreds of millions of Muslims and Christians around the world seem perfectly fine ignoring that part of their holy texts. Just because something that we find distasteful today is written in the holy text doesn't automatically make the religion evil nor does it suddenly force the practioners to behave like savages.

You need to look at the specifics. Take a look at the countries where stoning actually does still occasionally happen and who actually carries it out: Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Invariably when it does occur it happens in rural areas where there are people who still actually live like it is the middle ages, with extreme poverty and little education to speak of (other than religious). Sure, the book gave them the idea but it wasn't the only factor in play and to ignore these other factors or the fact that honor killings are in fact common across a wide number of cultures with varying religious backgrounds (even the Romans did it) is what would be truly intellectually dishonest.

As for extremists--they exist in all religions including Christianity. It wasn't a mob of Muslims who attacked Charlie Hedbo--it was two deranged individuals. And while some Muslims might have applauded the attack others denounced it, such as the hunderds of thousands of Chechen protestors who who were upset with the cartoons but didn't think violence was the right response (see article here).

Again, it's a complex issue that can't be boiled down to "Islam = Good/Bad." Islam as practiced by ISIS or Boko Haram? Yeah, there's some dark shit going on there. Islam as practiced by average citizens in Kuala Lumpur or Boston? Not so much.

But again, moderate statements based on reason and facts are not what sell books, generate online clicks, or fill lecture halls to capacity.

Congratulations! Your video, Adam Savage's duck army, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 8 Badge!

Adam Savage's duck army has been added as a related post - related requested by OverLord on that post.

I'm glad that Adam Savage is just as drunk as I am.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Adam-Savages-duck-army

Adam Savage's duck army has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

Your video, Adam Savage's duck army, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 9 Badge!

Thanks all!

My nick is a silly one - a name I made for a character in a role playing game, to show that it was a "savage" character. It has stuck with me as a gaming nick from time to time.

But hey - doesn't this being imply that I could make a channel of my own?

*nordic/scandinavia, *sorrow/sadness, *waitforit, *doublewtf, *somethingelse?

Lmao. You're so ignorant it hurts.

"All was cool".. BECAUSE YOU'RE WHITE! Duh.

@_@ omg it's not that difficult a concept to understand.

Let's play a game. Spot the difference:

Sandra Bland - a black women - was violently detained.

Her head smashed into the ground & held down with a knee in her back by two officers. She was held in jail for 3 days before her mysterious death.

Her crime? Failure to signal while changing lanes.

The Charleston shooter - a white male - was detained & arrested without incident.

He - a wanted, armed & dangerous criminal - was handled gingerly.

Approached calmly by officers who almost immediately holster their weapons.
He's politely removed from the vehicle & arrested.
He's even brought fast food as to not violate his rights.

His crime? The hate-based mass-murder of 9 people.


Tell me, Bob.
Can you spot the difference?

Do you really think the media or 5-8% of blacks & their behavior "influenced" the cops in Sandra Bland's arrest?

If so, why didn't the 5-8% of lazy stupid savage whites influence the arrest of racist roof?

Do you really think that white people have absolutely NO advantage in: getting a job, a loan, or not being immediately brutalized by cops?


It's okay. Your stupid, racist, circular-logic answer doesn't matter.
Just want you to think about that for while.