Most of the statements in the video are true, but the numbers are off a little for the black unemployment rate. they haven't changed in any remarkable way, relative to other groups' unemployment rates. Black unemployed is still 2x higher then the rate of their white counterparts.

The pace of economic growth in america is still far lower then other emerging markets. One thing is for certain the american middle class is shrinking. While elsewhere around the world millions are climbing out of poverty and settling into their own country's version of the american dream.

If the G7 becomes the G6 by this time next year due to tit for tat tariffs we will be looking back at a DOW when it use to be higher then 25K reminiscing of the good old days.

Well, bombing planes is not humanitarian, it's retaliatory. Humanitarian would be offering the citizens medical help, food, and protection, things we aren't doing in Syria. (Before you say this is protection, note the airport was operating the day after the missiles hit them).

It's only tit for tat if Assad actually gassed his people, which is still in question. Remember, there's a propaganda war happening there too, where both sides are liars and the 'truth' is hidden in a field of lies. Initial appearances are more often than not just propaganda.

It does send a message, that Trump is reactionary and inpatient and won't wait around for proof before acting unilaterally....and unconstitutionally. Attacking another sovereign nation clearly, unequivocally REQUIRES congressional approval by law, he didn't even seek it, much less get it. Don't ignore that, address it please.

EDIT: Another good question to ask, did this cost as much or more for us to bomb as it destroyed? Tomahawks are expensive, about $1.4 million each + the cost to deploy them (at least another $100 million +-), and 30 year old planes, a cafeteria, and above ground gas tanks, not so much....the Russians claim only $9 million in damage with fresh video evidence that they probably aren't far off with that estimate. That's a terrible return on investment coming from the deal maker in chief.

First of all I do not think America should have any involvement there except for humanitarian reasons.

This counter strike a tit for tat jab at Assad in Syria.

More importantly it sends a message to the world that there is a new sheriff in town. One that may not capitulate and falter if action is needed.

On the down side is that America still does not know how Trump will react to a real crisis.

This Assad strike was a measured response. I just hope all future responses will be as such.

It's not being anti-cop, it's being anti-bad-cop...

You probably won't remember the recent video of a great cop that booked a guy tailgating a cyclist. You know, because it doesn't feed in to the narrative that exists between your ears.

Oh yeah, and why should we go tit for tat posting up criminals doing criminal things? They are criminals... We kinda fucking expect them to be the "bad" guys, it's hardly a surprise when they are... It's when the people put in a position of power and trust, public service, abuse that position that it's noteworthy. Sadly, that happens so often now that the most noteworthy points are when an officer performs with distinction, honour and humility, exactly the way he or she should...

http://videosift.com/video/How-a-Good-Cop-Behaves

Or how about this, where one good cop get's crushed because the dept. prefers to support two bad ones? The risk of being an honourable person in the police force isn't just from criminals, it's from coworkers as well.

http://videosift.com/video/Bogota-Police-Officer-Regina-Tasca-Suspended

So climb off your fucking self righteous steed (it must be uncomfortable riding it with your head up your ass). If you served as a police officer as you claim, your postings here give a pretty good indication of the type you were. And if you were a "good cop" in the truest sense of the words, doesn't your stomach turn to see how the entire profession is being dragged down by the criminals in your own ranks?

That link looks like a YT channel of one of the riders in that pack o dicks.
Also, I would agree that 'real' bikers don't do this shit....ride in packs of mix-and-match crotch-rocks on the weekend and fuck with people in cars.

These riders fit a douchebag demographic of 18-30-something, single whitish males who watched Fast and Furious while fantasizing the of blowing cock, but instead went out and bought a rail. No Harley's in the pack, only tits with tats of Chinese, Celtic knots riding shit they can barely control, because of the douchebag.....ALL, because of the douchebag.

Most of these assholes' girlfriends are remote controls, game controllers, and streaming recordings of working girls in the San Fernando Valley who will never realize their dream of the big screen...

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^BoneRemake:
Damn, it aint that good.
I mean for a double promote and quality.

Pick something you like, man. I'll do the same for it.


<div id="widget_2105435841">

>> ^UsesProzac:

>> ^BoneRemake:
Damn, it aint that good.
I mean for a double promote and quality.

Pick something you like, man. I'll do the same for it.

Nope. Sorry. Being pussywhipped is not the same as violent sexual assault. And men making fun of men for being pussywhipped is REALLY not the same thing.

By the way, @Shepppard, you do know that we aren't talking about the same thing, don't you?

I completely understand your impatience with "humor police." I actually have a terrific dead baby joke. I'd love to share it with you.

The problem is that violence against women is so endemic to patriarchal society, it is so essentially accepted, that unless you have a pretty good level of empathy, unfortunately you can't understand what it is like to hear these "jokes."

I am trying to lead the discussion into a different area -- that of empathy.

You can laugh at some things as long as you are distanced from them.

I was trying to close the distance.

Besides, it really is true. If men were as afraid of women physically as women are afraid of men, AND WOMEN KNEW IT, the playing field would be more level.

The real truth is -- women have to empower themselves. Policing humor isn't empowerment. Playing tit for tat isn't empowerment either -- you make a rape joke? Ha ha, we can make a cut off your penis in your sleep joke. Not really funny, any way you slice it.

Ha.

I have thought for years that women need to emulate some aspects of male culture. Develop a thicker skin. Tease more. I have also thought that men need to emulate some aspects of female culture - develop some empathy and not be so fearful of their feelings.

Of course, I am talking bell curve here. Plenty of tough women, plenty of empathetic men.

Besides, all this sensitivity towards rape jokes will go away when women stop feeling physically threatened, and the majority of men no longer put up with the implied violence that women live with and call it out.

That's all this is going on here. Attempting to shift the paradigm and heal things. It's possible, says my inner optimist.

It's not my list, (though it tends to be accurate) But that's exactly why I'm calling for more active moderation on this site. I'm sick of the logical fallacies. When it goes unchecked, you get people who fed up and fire back. So it cuts both ways. It stops QM from making his ad homs and it stops people from making ad homs against him. Win win.

I'm also sick of EVERY GODDAMNED THING being turned into a left v right shitfest. I consider myself to be a left leaning centrist and I think both parties are full of shit (sure I think one party is more full of shit than the other, but that's not really the point) but I think the founding fathers were right to not like parties and this two party system is killing this country.

Quite frankly though, if someone makes some quality posts, you don't earn the right to make some ad homs and otherwise make some shitty posts. if someone ad homs you, you don't get to ad hom them. It's not a tit for tat system.
>> ^Payback:

Oh, believe me, I know his "Kenyawaiian" schitck by heart. As "The Obamanation" isn't here as a participant, I guess I am just drawing too fine a line, but I have yet, in recent memory, to see QM attack someone personally for their views.
However... HE gets attacked, ad hominem, CONSTANTLY.
Also, the others on your list barely contribute BEYOND their political rhetoric. QM comes up with some brilliant, actual-lol-worthy AND NON-POLITICAL comments quite often. I guess that's his saving grace with me, his sense of humour.
>> ^VoodooV:
I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

Well said, sir.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I'd say that rape and abortion are important topics in their own right, but there's certainly some truth to what you're saying.

The thing is, as a general rule, I get trolled by Paul supporters, not vice versa. I've been posting here for over 5 years now, and almost all of it has been political videos. I'm an unapologetic liberal. I campaigned for Obama in 2008, both online and offline, and will be doing so again this year.

Can you imagine how many people have come at me with the "Paul is the only choice" crap over the years? I think if I asked siftbot to count, his head would explode.

I'm glad you're starting to reconsider supporting him. I'm sorry if it took the connection with white supremacists thing to do it. I'd have rather just pointed out that his policies are bad, or that he can't deliver what he's promising, but most Paul supporters don't seem to even hear conventional arguments like that anymore.

Lately it seems I'm being trolled by Paul supporters who get hostile with me just because I refuse to accept that Ron Paul is our lord and savior as an article of faith. I've seen Paul and his followers go from being generally respectful towards liberals, to saying we're evil monsters, and repeating all the bullshit lies coming out of the general Republican wurlitzer.

I figure if Paulites are going to tell the worst lies they can about me, the least I can do is tell them the ugly truth about what it is they believe in.

I always try to steer the comment threads on the videos towards fruitful conversations, and away from some tit for tat trading of insults. These are inflammatory accusations, but they also happen to be true ones, and ones worth discussing in detail. Turns out, all this stuff is utterly consistent with Paul's core philosophy, which is really the issue I want to raise with people. It isn't that Paul is a flawed vessel for his philosophy, it's that the philosophy itself is poison.

In reply to this comment by artician:
At some point you must know you're just trolling to generate hate for a guy you don't believe in. I don't necessarily believe in him as much as I used to either, but this is silly, and is the exact same childish game that has brought political discourse to the level of the grade-school special-needs-mentality that's pandered around by the mainstream media.

I'd say that rape and abortion are important topics in their own right, but there's certainly some truth to what you're saying.

The thing is, as a general rule, I get trolled by Paul supporters, not vice versa. I've been posting here for over 5 years now, and almost all of it has been political videos. I'm an unapologetic liberal. I campaigned for Obama in 2008, both online and offline, and will be doing so again this year.

Can you imagine how many people have come at me with the "Paul is the only choice" crap over the years? I think if I asked siftbot to count, his head would explode.

I'm glad you're starting to reconsider supporting him. I'm sorry if it took the connection with white supremacists thing to do it. I'd have rather just pointed out that his policies are bad, or that he can't deliver what he's promising, but most Paul supporters don't seem to even hear conventional arguments like that anymore.

Lately it seems I'm being trolled by Paul supporters who get hostile with me just because I refuse to accept that Ron Paul is our lord and savior as an article of faith. I've seen Paul and his followers go from being generally respectful towards liberals, to saying we're evil monsters, and repeating all the bullshit lies coming out of the general Republican wurlitzer.

I figure if Paulites are going to tell the worst lies they can about me, the least I can do is tell them the ugly truth about what it is they believe in.

I always try to steer the comment threads on the videos towards fruitful conversations, and away from some tit for tat trading of insults. These are inflammatory accusations, but they also happen to be true ones, and ones worth discussing in detail. Turns out, all this stuff is utterly consistent with Paul's core philosophy, which is really the issue I want to raise with people. It isn't that Paul is a flawed vessel for his philosophy, it's that the philosophy itself is poison.

In reply to this comment by artician:
At some point you must know you're just trolling to generate hate for a guy you don't believe in. I don't necessarily believe in him as much as I used to either, but this is silly, and is the exact same childish game that has brought political discourse to the level of the grade-school special-needs-mentality that's pandered around by the mainstream media.

Thanks for the Congrats :-)

I have led an interesting life. I have travelled many places and met many great people. I have achieved many goals and sampled some of the best things life has to offer... But getting rid of that P next to my name... Now that, THAT felt truly good :-)

>> ^bareboards2:

I have been informed that Ozzie is just fine.
Always up to learn something new!
I vote for changing it back, to teach us less traveled souls something new.
Congrats on the published vid!

Thanks for the education!

I did notice that they sounded exactly the same. I just didn't know it could be spelled differently.

I am off to google ozzie land right now, to see what I can see!

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I'll let @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/kymbos" title="member since October 13th, 2008" class="profilelink">kymbos answer for himself, but... if I say "Aussie" and "Ozzie" I'm saying exactly the same thing twice, there is no difference in pronunciation. I put it to you in fact that if you say them differently, you're saying one of them wrong :

The top level internet domain for Australia used to be ".oz.au", but no-one outside our shores got it, so it was changed.

p.s. The google search to do for this would be "ozzie land" (no quotes). I tried it, and it worked a treat.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Isn't it Aussie?

I googled to see if Ozzie is an alternate spelling, but I couldn't find anything. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/kymbos" title="member since October 13th, 2008" class="profilelink">kymbos? A little help here?

It's a pretty common term in the UK, however I have changed it out to keep things clear :-)

>> ^bareboards2:

Isn't it Aussie?
I googled to see if Ozzie is an alternate spelling, but I couldn't find anything. @kymbos? A little help here?

heh heh

careful... your reference (2 corinthians 11:19) may be showing your christian credentials - that's a big no-no on the sift

and you don't even use the cliché correctly, sheesh!

so... what is it you disagree with?

1. that maddow isn't an attack dog for the left?
2. that the federalist society isn't evil?
3. that it's pure coincidence that the federalist society's annual dinner (planned many months in advance) just happened to take place on the same day as the scotus announcement that it would hear the legal challenge in question? how could any scotus justice have predicted that??
4. that maddow is misinterpreting canon 4c of the code of conduct, which only applies to lower level judges?
5. that virtually all our scotus justices 'violate' the above regularly? heck, ginsberg 'violated' it again just three days ago while being the speaker at an nwlc-sponsored event.
6. that supreme court justices can't have their votes 'bought' by just treating them to a nice dinner?
7. that this whole story isn't just a tit-for-tat over the right's squawking over justice kagan's apparent refusal to recuse herself? i don't necessarily think she should.

so... which is it?

share with us? throw your pearls before the swine...

or is your snarkiness simply a knee-jerk reaction to a true centrist's better erudition and analysis of yet more political polemics?