Hey you,
have a cigar.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I've got some bad news for you sunshine,
KP isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent me along as a surrogate man
I'm gonna find out where you folks really stand.

I've got some bad news for you sunshine,
KP isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent me along as a surrogate man
I'm gonna find out where you folks really stand.

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
I don't know if I like the new angry KP.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:

How do YOU know they did nothing to stop Prop 8 prior to the election? Just because they didn't make this video before the election doesn't mean they ALL were doing nothing. Maybe some of them donated money and/or their time to Equality For All, the main group opposed to Prop 8. NoOnProp8 web site.

What did you two do? Did you donate anything to the No On Prop 8 campaign? I'll bet not. So easy to criticize while you're doing jackshit, isn't it?

^ That's why they're called "morons". There are educated people on both sides too.

There are some violent people on both sides as well, but Obama isn't saying "McCain will start a nuclear war with Russia", he isn't saying "he's going to rape the natural resources of the earth", he isn't saying "he will imprison and torture anyone who he feels like".

He isn't trying to incite our violent tendencies. If anything, he's trying to cool them, and get us to understand that disagreements about policies should not prevent us from getting along.

McCain is sending out Palin and his other surrogates to tell people that Obama is risky, unknown, dangerous, hates America, hates its values, and may be involved in violence against our government. That's not subtle. That's not a dog whistle, it's a fog horn.

These two parties are not being run by the same kinds of people. They're not equally evil -- they're not even remotely in the same category.

Why is she now being called the "C.E.O. of her state" when Carly Fiorina (McCain surrogate), herself said that Palin is not qualified to be a C.E.O. of a company?

I've watched this whole thing unfolding, and I'm actually in the middle of reading "Audacity of Hope"...Obama's no liberal/progressive ideologue, and certainly not a party partisan.

He's not kidding about wanting a "new kind of politics" and it's driving the Democratic partisans nuts (or it was, when Obama was down in the polls). In Democratic circles, there's been constant calls for Obama to go on massive offense against McCain, but what little he's done has been very restrained, and has actually stuck to relevant policy differences.

I know VS is awash in anti-McCain video, but have you noticed how little of it is from the Obama campaign? Even the clips of TV interviews of Obama surrogates are just surrogates giving a good response to a McCain attack -- not going on the attack themselves. The McCain being one of the Keating Five is not being mentioned, even though it's directly relevant to the events of the day, and the only reason for that is that Obama's told his people to keep clear of it.

He's not like John McCain, who's just flat out betrayed his party when he disagreed, had a whim, or saw political advantage in doing so. Obama has been trying to get Democrats to learn to pick their battles more carefully, and make sure that they only really get into fights when they have to. In his book, he says that he thinks that the greatest failings of the Democratic party over the last few decades has been a lack of appreciation and respect for the conservative viewpoint, and thinks Democrats could get more of their agenda passed if they just learned the right buttons to push to make it more palatable to conservatives.

In the primaries, Obama got beaten up for the left about his healthcare plan, because it didn't include a mandate. At the time, I didn't understand why he omitted it, but now that I've gotten a better understanding of conservative ideology, I get it -- mandates are a poison pill to conservatives. His healthcare plan is something Friedman would've appreciated; it makes government put up or shut up by directly competing with market alternatives.

You should read Audacity of Hope...or at least the prologue. It filled in a lot of blanks for me about how he approaches politics, and governance.

That's probably more than you were looking for, but I get that way with politics.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
Of course if I break everything thing down idea at a time...I do disagree with some of his ideology. BUT One can't have a shopping list when voting for president. We have two guys to choose from.

I don't want McSame.

My concerns about Obama is not about what he personally believes in but how reasonable a president he is. Can he see the big picture and make decisions that are right for the country and not just towing the party lines.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I don't know your politics, but I'd recommend voting third party, rather than not voting.

If your objections to Obama are truly about his competency, and not his ideology, watch the debates and some of his policy speeches. He's no dummy, and he'll be surrounded by the best and the brightest in every topic.

Call me sexist if you want, but I'm noticing a thread to all of McCain's female surrogates:

1. Generally attractive
2. Generally combative
3. Generally liars

I'm so glad Carly Fiorina finally got sidelined, because I hated her back when she was slowly (and then quickly) choking HP to death.

Her supporting McCain just cements my view that her sole purpose in life is to cause the world to suffer.

*politics

That is some serious, serious heat that Letterman laid on McCain. That's going to freaking hurt in middle America. I'm startled by this.

Of course this is a political stunt. Of course McCain can go to Washington without closing down his campaign office, sending his surrogates home, and canceling all his appointments (oh, what, none of that happened?). But I didn't expect anyone in the main stream media to call him on it.

Dupe: http://politics.videosift.com/video/Stewart-skewers-the-hypocrisy-of-PalinMcCain-Surrogates

(That one is first by an hour or so)

>> ^Aemaeth:
I don't get it. I don't find that a particularly relevant question for a presidental candidate, unless they make insurance company policy now.
If we could elect the president of insurance companies, I guarantee we'd get better turn out.


It has to do with something one of McCain's surrogates said, while trying to reach out to women voters. In short, she said he supported a bill that would force insurance companies to cover birth control, when in fact he voted against it. The reporter was just wanting to get an answer from McCain on his position, since there was that discrepancy.

This one's probably fair for him to come up empty on (it's pretty obscure), but the expressions here are priceless.

^It's just a parody on the some of the ridiculous spin Hillary and her surrogates have used to justify continuing her doomed campaign.

It's tempting to name the five buttons found on the control panel of the perfect female robot. But, if I did, I would forever be labeled as that sexist pig. Someone that's heard the joke, go ahead and be the surrogate for me.

Science can and must change as better evidence presents itself. That's why science is a better tool for fact finding: it utilizes observable, measurable evidence, the exact opposite of the definition of faith.

Religion only changes when...wait for it...science makes a fact ubiquitous, such as the Earth revolving around the sun. Did you know that the Vatican never officially conceded that the Earth is not stationary until 1992, when Pope John Paul II "expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

What's happening now is religion is making an attempt to change science using only religious data, however ill-equipped it may be to alter a field of study in which observable, measurable evidence is its mainstay. Faith is a poor surrogate for science. Science, on the other hand, was never interested in replacing faith, rather to establish fact. Science could give a toss about religion. But religion seems awfully concerned about science. Interesting.

I'm not alleging that most Christians are Westboro types , nor that they hold crazy views that are nearly as damaging as the crazy crap those people are up to (you jumped to that all by yourself)... I'm just saying, that the typically 'Christian' attitude regarding sex and everything surrounding it, is often at odds with the current attitudes and practices of modern society and has only served to fuel arguments such as this one, or in other cases, hinder proper responses to situations, am thinking of abstinence based sex education as an example.

In any case, in regards to overpopulation, I was not speaking of the here and the now, but the future. If we continue to reproduce at the rate we have in the last 100 years (highly inflated due to innovations in medicine and agriculture) we will undoubtedly begin to run out of resources, and I'm not talking about food, but other, less renewable ones, like oil, water, rainforests, and yes, even personal space. I also never said anything about stopping to reproduce altogether (quit inferring so damn much from my statements!) just help curb its seemingly run away growth and find some sort of balance as a species within our environment.

My argument though, that gays would be a boon to meeting this end, however, is based on the assumption that homosexuals do not breed or somehow lack the impetus to, and last night, when I was doing something completely non-Sift related, I realized that this assumption was false and in the end my dream of a population equilibrium was yet again dashed. You see, we are forgetting here that many gays and lesbians do in fact still have that desire to bear offspring and nurture children (lesbians perhaps more than gay men), and seek out alternative methods to attain this goal of procreation... granted, many do adopt (when they are allowed to), but a good many others use artificial insemination, surrogates, etc.

I still don't think, however, that one can effectively argue that homosexuality just should not be solely because the parts don't fit, or because they cannot reproduce in the 'natural' sense, or that it is immoral based on something written two millennia ago, which its followers only cherry pick passages to follow in the first place. We could go around and around about this forever, but I'm afraid none of us would budge on our viewpoints.

Gold, silver, paper, what does it matter? You can't eat it. You can't wear it. Currency is the surrogate for barter. It's too damn inconvenient to carry a pig in your pocket to trade someone for their 10 bushels of corn. It's much easier to give them $20. We switched to paper currency when someone figured out it was a lot cheaper to make a dollar bill than it was to mint $20 dollar gold pieces. Tying the amount of paper currency to some pile of shiny metal doesn't make sense to me. But, I'll be the first to admit....I only took one economics course in college.

I'm curious to know if there have been any studies as to the hormones in the pills messing up development. Girls on the pill is a fairly recent thing, reason being that girls are encountering puberty at a much younger age now, than they were 20 years ago. This doesn't leave a large window for these trends to develop, therefore a small amount of time for studies to be done. I would imagine that these hormones would have some sort of repercussions, such as damaging reproductive organs.

Are 11 year olds really responsible enough to take a pill every day? Doubt it. Are they responsible enough to be having sex? In my opinion, hells no. The responsibility does lie with the parents, but yes, as Raven has pointed out allot of kids don't have good home lives. This is why in recent years our public schools have almost become surrogate parents for these kids. I think that some of the responsibility is now being shifted to the school.

I can tell you who else is responsible: Fashion. Perverted fashion designers. And Cows. I'll get to that in a minute. My apologies i was looking for a link, but cant seems to find one. I was in the chow hall about a year ago when i saw this on the news. Theres plenty of links for articles,
( http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/22/news/companies/abercrombie/ ) but this being the sift that it is I was looking for a video. Abercrobie and Fitch released a line of thongs marketed towards children evidently as young as 7. So theres a culprit. I'm pretty sure that kids that young don't have the money nor the means to get to the mall and buy that shit at that age. So that leaves *drum roll* the PARENTS. The fact that those prep fuckers are making this shit is bad enough. The fact that there are these degenerates out there are buying it is worse.

Back to the cow thing. During this same news segment they also went into how girls are going through puberty and developing allot sooner. They were reporting that this might be caused by artificial growth hormones in milk. Yes i know its not the cows fault that kids are having sex, but its not helping that girls can physically make babies allot younger. If they couldn't they wouldn't need the pill. and now the pill is an excuse as to why its ok for them. some thing has to be done, but what? very touchy subject indeed.