I agree with him. Yes, Ron Paul is very consistent in his ideas and what he defends, but he also has some really stupid ideas. Tea-Party stupid.

edit: I mean... look at his son. The apple doesn't usually fall very far from the tree (with exceptions of course)

Ugh. Ok:



Population group A has a lower than replacement level reproduction rate.
Population group B has a higher than replacement level reproduction rate and benefits from an unlimited external source of replenishment.
The outcome is that over time, group A will cease to exist.
As it happens, some individuals in group A may be displeased about their upcoming extinction.


Human beings of whatever colour of skin can make babies with one another. Therefore: AB+A+B , not either A or B. This is not how it works. Also your group B cannot have unlimited external source of replenishment. Even with a huge outside source of replenishment, it will all work out as a nice intercultural mix, as it is right now: the letters we use are latin, the numerals arabic. Cultures are all already mixed.
It is not "us" versus "them", It is "us" with "them." What your ideological fear of a "civilisation going extinct" implies, is that you are a racist. Maybe just a cultural racist, but a racist nonetheless. Now to the really stupid stuff:

Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.

Very good, had nothing to do with why I called you a racist, and you are right, it would not be a reason to call you a racist. But it does not negate your racist comments of basically agreeing with a mass-murderer that Muslims, or group B as you like to call them, will end our "civilisation."


My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.

His reasoning is not sound, his concerns are bonkers and his motivation is worthy of study for psychiatrists. If you like, present one of his mad theories you agree with and watch it being ripped apart by every kind of reasonable person (non-fascists and non-racists) there is. Now for the best bit:

As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.


Let's reverse the roles ad absurdum and relish in the brilliant irony of your preface "logical pretzel": "I'm sure pprt is the type of person X, who would rather Z than Y! Shame on him!." So, you assume I am a specific type of person, assume how I would act in a certain situation, then assume how I would act in a different type of situation that goes against your ideology; and you follow with the (in your mind logical) conclusion that shame should be thrust upon me. Dude, you are shaming your own fiction.

But: Yes I would ask the nature conservatory of my government to protect an endangered species. The second part of your assumptional assault is of course: bonkers. I do not think it is ethnically wrong for anyone to remain alive. And I am not against museums, where one can look at relics of previous "civilisations." But: Cultures are in flux. Cultures are NOT static. Even North Korean culture cannot resist every western influence. In 200 years, no culture we know today will still exist. They will not have been killed by muslims like you want to believe in your racist mind. They will just evolve, move on, adapt and MIX. Every culture is mixed and NOT a homogenous entity.

First-person POV has become part of the modern human's visual vocabulary in a new way. Twenty years ago a large part of the audience would probably find such a shot overly disorienting. You'd have a lot of people complaining it gave them motion sickness or that they just couldn't tell what was happening. Or I imagine really stupid people would say "that's so CHEAP you can't even see Spider-Man!"

But these days with hundreds of millions of phone cameras, and people growing up playing first-person videogames, the first-person point-of-view has become instantly readable to a large part of the audience (and it's not like everyone needs training to "get" such shots... just the common miscreants). Blair Witch, Cloverfield etc. were an introduction but not true POV movies. I can't wait for the first all-POV movie.

This was really stupid. I was watching it live and a few MPs were really grilling the Murdochs, including the one who was interrupted by this pie attack. If you don't like Rupert Murdoch, let him be interrogated! All this did was give him sympathy because you just hit an 80-year old man in the face. Now, instead of the headlines being about some of the questions that were asked and their responses, they're about pie.

women can be really stupid

Ok, did something really REALLY stupid just now. I was trying to make just a comment and forgot to put a space in * isdupe so I really did *isdupe the video. For being a dumbass, I'm going to be throwing promotes at whoever sifted this video for a while.

Video I DESTROYED (there were 26 votes on it when this happened.)
http://videosift.com/video/Even-More-Problems-with-Jeggings?noredirect

Shall I be the one to say...that this looks really stupid? Yes, I shall.

lasted 0 seconds, had a really stupid ad before it

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It's because they have seen this guy's outlandish, anti-American behavior and just plain do not see Obama as "American".
Heck, even Obama doesn't see himself as an American really. He keeps going on and on about how great China is, and how great some other country is, and how wonderful Hugo Chavez is, and how great Islamic dictators like Amadinijad & Asad are, and how fantastic it is to bow to the Saudis, and I'm just getting warmed up. The guy can't open his mouth without saying how great everywhere ELSE is, while the same time whining about how Americans are stupid, gun-totin', bible thumpin', fuel burnin' jerks every time he goes anywhere. Not to mention his downright anti-constitutional behavior domestically with his czars, and ramming laws through, and ignoring court orders, and ignoring laws Congress passes, and NOT enforcing laws that already exist because he doesn't like them... And his constant arrogance and hypocrisy when he insults people (like Ryan) while in the next breath saying how everyone else has to stop being 'mean' (I could fill pages with lists of his double-speak jerky hypocritical arrogance). Add that to his crazy-@$$ pastors, his ties to terrorists like Ayres, his fanatical secrecy in hiding his past, his criminal tie (Rezko) and ON and ON and ON and ON and ON.

wow..


Ok lets see the transcript or video where Obama explains how great Amadinijad or Chaves is. and yeah, I remember seeing some photos of a US president sucking up to the saudis, holding hands, kissing etc, but it wasnt this one. Obama may have greeted someone with a ceremonial bow, but he didnt cuddle. And when exactly did Obama whine about how Americans are stupid, gun-totin', bible thumpin', fuel burnin' jerks?(shouldnt be hard to find evidence of this, since he does it EVERY time he goes anywhere, apparantly)

Yeah, and what about all that fanatical secrecy in hiding his past, does he really think he can get away with writing just 2 books about it? I heard he even went AWOL for the booze, hookers and coke, and his daddy had to pull some strings.. oh fuck.. wrong president... oh, well. And yeah whats up with those crazy ass Pastors, eh? I hear he even has weekly calls with Ted Haggard ... Oh, that wasnt him either? Oh, I see, some priest in a church he went to said something really stupid.. oh, theres a shocker from the people who thinks crackers turns into the flesh of 2000 year old dead jewish zombiegods when you mumble latin to them. Saying stupid, unbelievable shit is their job. unfortunately, every president lately seems to like them anyways.

*promote for fun!

Cleborp or Dipwish; whatever, IS a really stupid name.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"
Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.
>> ^blankfist:
I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.


They're throwing rocks. I just assumed they'd want something a bit more effective at their disposal. Pardon me.


Throwing rocks is still a way of showing you being angry, but not wanting to do serious damage.

As stated, all guns would do is provide a medium for someone to do something really stupid.

Essentially, think the cascading events of V for Vendetta, and take this exact video as our grounds.

People are angry, some are protesting non-violently, some are throwing rocks (To me that says they're still disgruntled and showing it, but not wanting to do serious harm).

Then you get one or two idiots, who do something really stupid. Weather that's shooting a cop, or shooting another protester. This leads to someone else doing something stupid, be it the rest of the protesters who grow more violent due to the first stupid act, or the corrupt cops.

Either way, the other side is just going to arm themselves and get involved (Police to take down rioters, rioters to take down police).

The entire situation would become all out chaos.

I really can't see how having guns in this fight would cause it to go any other way. What else are you going to do? Stand there and wave them about saying "Hey look, I have a gun!"?

The fact that there's a lack thereof is probably saving dozens of lives.

>> ^BoneRemake:

HOLY SHIT MAN ! do not discard or kill this !!! its gold !!! fuckin gold !!
it just needs the right marketing, and since I used my marketing on your other post, this one might be next. This guy is a flipping loonytoon.


Haha! It's awesome that you liked this - I was trying to get rid of it because my queue was full when I found the DMT doc, so I was trying to replace that with this. Anyway, I still think this is really stupidly funny too and more LA than LA if that makes any sense

[redacted]

>> ^dannym3141:

It is actually illegal to do that, shepppard, and i don't consider it silly at all. It's incredibly dangerous to go so fast through such a big puddle (ever aquaplaned in a car?) not to mention he was going beyond the speed limit by the looks of things, and passing school kids at a bus stop you should always be cautious.
That's aside from the fact that it's really, really stupid to do that and think it's funny. I've never seen the upside to intentionally ruining someone's clothes/schoolwork/businesswork/day. A friend did it to a bunch of people once, and i forced her to stop the car and gave them her details - nothing happened, but i would have been happy to see her get fined. Another time, long time ago, there was a large puddle at the bottom of a hill when i was walking home, and i knew someone would do it. So i picked up a small stone and as he went past me and drenched me, i put a big crack down his rear window, ho ho ho what a funny joke it is to ruin someone else's property eh! I am a card.
I believe that guy did get done, and rightly so.


Yeah, I know the story. You said the same thing on the original video that was sifted, and I'll repost my response to it:

"So..if I've got that right, the guy, who you have no idea why he was going fast, could have been sick, wife could've been having a baby, hell, maybe he just really had to poop, deserved to get a window broken over this?

Lighten up..it's water."

Never once have I condoned the dude for doing it, all I ever said was that they tried to charge him with something rediculous.

And I still stand by the "Getting Wet =/= property damage"

[redacted]