Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I have to go back to work I'm on an early lunch break. Barring a major fuck-up, I'm predicting this will be cast as a draw, which means that Palin will be given "winner" status as she was the major underdog.

I'd love to read her index cards, probably a hell of a study system.

Fund's right that attacking Palin directly - even if rationally it seems warranted - might lose the election.

She's seen as a charismatic underdog who's outside of dishonest Washington politics. My prediction is that that will be enough to give her a victory over Biden's experience but lack of charisma or uniqueness in the upcoming VP debates.

Democrats need to keep their attacks focused on McCain (Obama has been very good about this in everything I've seen), and give Biden a compelling story or thesis that makes him emotionally interesting to the public.

I find it frustrating that the main thrust of the arguments here seem to be based on how one feels about an actor which may or may not be based on ones opinions of the movies he’s done. The real argument that should be playing out is weather or not Palin would be ready to LEAD this country let alone if she’s sane or not.
His (Damon’s) opinions should not held on any pedestal nor should it be driven into the ground. He has a platform and hes using it. OUR platform is Videosift and we are using IT, what's the difference? Don't we all in some small way have pretentious feelings about the comments we leave?
In regards to Palin my not so humble opinion and not an incredibly educated one at that is that she isn’t fit to govern the second smallest state in the United States let alone the most powerful country on the planet. Her pick as a running mate is a disgusting insult and an utterly reckless and irresponsible choice. It not only puts this country at risk but the entire world. A soccer mom is going prevent the second cold war from happening let alone negotiate a nuclear standoff? A soccer mom is going to negotiate with Iran, North Korea, clean up the Iraq mess, continue the fight in Afganistan, help solve the energy crisis, the housing crisis, the health care problem? A religious zealot who has demonstrated that she hates and or is terrified of anyone or thing existing outside of her tiny little box of existance is going to help the poor of this country, the sick, the minority, the gays and lesbians, the non Christians?
This isn’t a joke. This isn’t a movie where the unlikeliest of underdogs pulls off a victory and saves the day. This is the real world where an old man with failing health and a clueless woman with little to zero experience have the potential to govern the lives of millions of people.
I hope I’m not alone when I say that I am terrified.

The guitarist, don't know his name, is really solid. Underdogs is one of the best albums of the 90s.

The go to argument for chicken littles. You don't know much about the start of our country, do you? We almost didn't win our independence. We almost lost the Revolutionary War. The colonists and loyalists were divided. Our government almost dismantled itself before it begain. Jefferson wanted to add language into the Constitution declaring slaves to be self-actualized and free humans (paraphrasing), but the southern states with slave interests threatened succession if any language went into a document demanding slavery be abolished. Knowing solidarity was the only option to keep the colonies unified in this fight against England, they changed the language to hint that all men are created equal. Jefferson was a walking contradiction. He wanted slaves to be free, but he, too, was a servant owner. Nothing is ever perfect. Even people.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sooooo, you're saying you want to return to a time when only white male property owners could vote and slavery was legal?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The Constitution isn't in the hypothesis stage. This has always been about restoring our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence to the Jeffersonian principles. It's the chicken littles who confuse our process of restoring Jeffersonian principles with trying to restore Hamiltonian principles, which is very much the opposite.

As Ron Paul would say, "Tyranny is an old idea; freedom is very new." We're trying to go back to the original ideas of this country and give freedom another chance before it was hijacked by the cock-a-doodle-doos.

I always knew we were at a political impasse, if by impasse you mean we've not reached an original intention of arriving at some sort of consensus. I don't debate you and and NR to change you or to prove I'm right. I really do it because it's the underdog perspective on the site, and the political meme is currently in a bad place with this two party system and Obama vs. McCain. Whoever wins, America loses.

And, yes, cat farts.


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My problem with Libertarianism is that it is still in the hypothesis phase. Why should I have any faith in this untried, untested, political philosophy? If there were some empirical evidence that suggested its effectiveness, I might be more receptive, but at this point it is a philosophy built entirely on faith and (sorry to say it) hype. If being skeptical of hypothetical politics makes me a chicken little, then I've got 4 words for you: Cock. A. Doodle. Do.

I think we are at a political impasse here, but it's important to remember that while differences may come between us, we still share a very deep and spiritual love for cat fart jokes. Truce.

Sooooo, you're saying you want to return to a time when only white male property owners could vote and slavery was legal?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The Constitution isn't in the hypothesis stage. This has always been about restoring our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence to the Jeffersonian principles. It's the chicken littles who confuse our process of restoring Jeffersonian principles with trying to restore Hamiltonian principles, which is very much the opposite.

As Ron Paul would say, "Tyranny is an old idea; freedom is very new." We're trying to go back to the original ideas of this country and give freedom another chance before it was hijacked by the cock-a-doodle-doos.

I always knew we were at a political impasse, if by impasse you mean we've not reached an original intention of arriving at some sort of consensus. I don't debate you and and NR to change you or to prove I'm right. I really do it because it's the underdog perspective on the site, and the political meme is currently in a bad place with this two party system and Obama vs. McCain. Whoever wins, America loses.

And, yes, cat farts.


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My problem with Libertarianism is that it is still in the hypothesis phase. Why should I have any faith in this untried, untested, political philosophy? If there were some empirical evidence that suggested its effectiveness, I might be more receptive, but at this point it is a philosophy built entirely on faith and (sorry to say it) hype. If being skeptical of hypothetical politics makes me a chicken little, then I've got 4 words for you: Cock. A. Doodle. Do.

I think we are at a political impasse here, but it's important to remember that while differences may come between us, we still share a very deep and spiritual love for cat fart jokes. Truce.

The Constitution isn't in the hypothesis stage. This has always been about restoring our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence to the Jeffersonian principles. It's the chicken littles who confuse our process of restoring Jeffersonian principles with trying to restore Hamiltonian principles, which is very much the opposite.

As Ron Paul would say, "Tyranny is an old idea; freedom is very new." We're trying to go back to the original ideas of this country and give freedom another chance before it was hijacked by the cock-a-doodle-doos.

I always knew we were at a political impasse, if by impasse you mean we've not reached an original intention of arriving at some sort of consensus. I don't debate you and and NR to change you or to prove I'm right. I really do it because it's the underdog perspective on the site, and the political meme is currently in a bad place with this two party system and Obama vs. McCain. Whoever wins, America loses.

And, yes, cat farts.


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My problem with Libertarianism is that it is still in the hypothesis phase. Why should I have any faith in this untried, untested, political philosophy? If there were some empirical evidence that suggested its effectiveness, I might be more receptive, but at this point it is a philosophy built entirely on faith and (sorry to say it) hype. If being skeptical of hypothetical politics makes me a chicken little, then I've got 4 words for you: Cock. A. Doodle. Do.

I think we are at a political impasse here, but it's important to remember that while differences may come between us, we still share a very deep and spiritual love for cat fart jokes. Truce.

Because the "most skilled" could mean many different things. If you knew who the most skilled was before a contest began, and that was the only way to judge merit, then why compete? Hand the medal to the most skilled (mathematically and scientifically verified of course) and then move on to the next award ceremony. Dealing with chance, and changing circumstances is something that cannot be predicted and measured. To suggest a 'lesser skilled' competitor has no chance of winning ignores all evidence to the contrary.

As far as why would I bother supporting a 'lesser skilled' competitor, well, honestly, I don't mind losing. The one who wants it the most and works the hardest for it, the one who does not quit despite the odds or what those who live and die by them say, the one who continues, perseveres, and finishes regardless of his place is the one that deserves my admiration.

The one who had been told he was going to win, knew he was going to win, and felt there was no chance of losing has risked nothing, and thereby gained very very little with his accomplishment.

That is why I would root for the underdog, or less skilled, in a test of skill. I don't cheer the sun when it rises every day because it is a foregone conclusion and therefore, it is an event of little (though not empty of) excitement.

Now if a guy were to say that through force of will he could keep the sun from rising for a few seconds. Well, despite my better judgment, I'd have to root for him just a little.

I would hope that explains my point of view. And I would hope you'd be less likely to label those who's experience differs from yours as 'insane' in the future. But again, to each his own.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
I don't know why you would want a test of skill to be won by anyone but the most skilled. Insanity, presumably.

In reply to this comment by Lolthien:
To only support the most 'competent' contender is to only root for the favored athlete in any competition.

And that my friend, is decidedly un-American ;-)

Rooting for the underdog, ESPECIALLY from your own country, is a well practiced tradition than pays off so much more rarely than pulling for the dominant player, but when it pays off, it pays off big.

Talent gets you to the Olympics, but in a close race, heart wins it everytime.

I don't know why you would want a test of skill to be won by anyone but the most skilled. Insanity, presumably.

In reply to this comment by Lolthien:
To only support the most 'competent' contender is to only root for the favored athlete in any competition.

And that my friend, is decidedly un-American ;-)

Rooting for the underdog, ESPECIALLY from your own country, is a well practiced tradition than pays off so much more rarely than pulling for the dominant player, but when it pays off, it pays off big.

Talent gets you to the Olympics, but in a close race, heart wins it everytime.

To only support the most 'competent' contender is to only root for the favored athlete in any competition.

And that my friend, is decidedly un-American ;-)

Rooting for the underdog, ESPECIALLY from your own country, is a well practiced tradition than pays off so much more rarely than pulling for the dominant player, but when it pays off, it pays off big.

Talent gets you to the Olympics, but in a close race, heart wins it everytime.

Sorry QM, but you get a downvote on that comment purely because of your ridiculous labeling of 'mainstream media' being liberal.

Don't apologize for being wrong, it's unliberal. I don't mind that 90% of the drive-by media are card-carrying members of the taxocrat party, it just annoys me when they deny it. Altho they're certainly capable of that level of delusion.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Next you're going to claim all of Hollywood is conservative because of lone Chuck Norris.

Because Fox is so pro Obama.

FOX FOX FOX! Before FOX there was ONLY libmedia. The former Big 3 networks are all liberal and STILL ARE.

yeash, love playing the underdog don't you, poor misunderstood right wingers, never get any airtime... Sorry, but the media is strongly right wing in general, don't try and convince people otherwise.

FOX kicking your sorry butts in the ratings is not a "monopoly".

Sorry QM, but you get a downvote on that comment purely because of your ridiculous labeling of 'mainstream media' being liberal.

Because Fox is so pro Obama.

yeash, love playing the underdog don't you, poor misunderstood right wingers, never get any airtime... Sorry, but the media is strongly right wing in general, don't try and convince people otherwise.

A nice example are the related vids below... like this one

No problemo, Swampy. I enjoyed the exchange.

Although...the word agnostic comes from "gnōsis" which is Greek for knowledge. So if we're to ignore the contemporary parlance for agnosticism (as an interim position between atheist and believer) and use the correct definition, agnosticism relates to knowledge where atheism relates to belief in god.

In short, an agnostic believes that the existence of god cannot be known. It says nothing about the belief (itself) in god.

The two terms are mutually exclusive. So a person can be one of the following: a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist.

Related to your comment about "belief system," one would be tempted to call the above codification as exactly that: a belief system. But "belief" is the wrong word, I think. It certainly shares a similarity to the scientific method: where things are categorized & codified all the time. So it's probably a system, all right, but it's more of a knowledge system, less of a belief system.

To a scientist, knowledge or fact is the seed of belief. More and more, lately, belief is the seed of knowledge and we think that's a very dangerous path to be on.

I'm reminded of the Royal Library of Alexandria, Egypt, which was founded in the 3rd century BC by Ptolemy II. It has been said that it contained as many as one million books (or scrolls) before it was burned to the ground by those in power (political, military, etc). Efforts to rebuild the library were ultimately for naught because by the 8th century AD, it was no longer a significant institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity.

So it took an entire 1100 years for mankind to go from an all-encompassing thirst for knowledge to complete apathy. That's a long, slow change in attitude. What value will we assign to knowledge one thousand years from now?

Anyway, forgive me for this tangent. See you on the sift!

regards,
-Shuac

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
I was a bit defensive for the underdog here because I am a former Christian. I suppose I would call myself agnostic now. Thanks for the polite and sincere replies.

I was a bit defensive for the underdog here because I am a former Christian. I suppose I would call myself agnostic now. Thanks for the polite and sincere replies.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
>> ^swampgirl:
The "Atheists' Experience"? oh please.
Atheism shouldn't be an "experience" at all, but the absence of "Experiences" I thought. You live, you observe, you learn, you appreciate, you age, you die... the end.

We have all the same experiences as reverent people. We live, we observe, we feel awe, we love, we have children. We just don't attribute any of it to an entity in which we do not believe.

A show?? ... for atheists? Guys like these are as annoying as right wing fundies. Why do they feel the need to evangelize? Cause that's what this looks like to me.
Here are some guys that feel the need to make atheism into some form of lifestyle that needs promotion.... a belief system. The way they are promoting this absence of belief that brings purpose and meaning in their lives....how is this different from what religion is doing for others? ... practically speaking here...

You can call it a belief system if you like, but that's not what it is. Atheists do not believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Period. Is this show different than religion prosthelatizing (sp)? Probably not.

That they care so much to go to these lengths to debunk Christianity says there's some baggage in their pasts

Atheists only feel the need to debunk Christianity when a Christian quotes the bible at us. And then it's pretty easy debunking because the bible is not well thought out (IMO). However, by-and-large, we don't go around shoving our views in your face. If you do not wish to hear such things, don't watch the show. For example, I've never seen the 700 Club. Not once.

bitter about something? Why the chip on the shoulder? Why showcase some poor fella that may not be bright, but is sincere?

They cannot control who calls in. And yes, the delight the hosts take in showing this guy up is a little over the top. That wouldn't necessarily be my style. But then, not all reverent people are exactly the same as each other.

You aren't providing a service other than showcasing your over educated, over privileged and yes at times... arrogance.

Well, I think they're providing a great service and will likely continue to do so. They're currently on their 550th show, or there-abouts? Not a bad run.

Enjoy your lack of belief fellas. Celebrate that intellect of yours. BUT Let the other people have their beliefs while you use those big smart brains of yours on something more productive.

I'd be glad to close my mouth forever so long as my country (USA) does not go too far: sanctioning prayer in school, creationism in science, and...oh yeah...war in the name of god. Stopping such activity is fairly important to us.

Guys, let it go. Go cure cancer, write music, invent the flux capacitor... just enjoy your life before its over.

We will.

I'm so gonna get flamed now aren't I?

I don't flame. I'm too old for that shit. But overall, I feel I'm being pretty civil.

Atheists get angry when atheism is categorized as a religion. Understandable. You do see why don't you?

Yes, which is why we don't see it as a religion.

IMO the reason is because so many atheists feel the need to organize and promote it as a belief system.

No, we don't.

So much seeking of validation..needing it.... is NOT believing in anything enough?

Don't confuse atheism with nihilism. The reverent's favorite claim is that "atheists believe in nothing." Uhh, no. We believe in all the things you believe in: just not god. We do not feel we need religion to be moral people.

What a sad world it would be if the ONLY reason people didn't go around killing each other and stealing is out of a fear of god. We're already good. We don't need a book for that.

Why all this attention seeking behavior and needing to be 'right' about it?

That's a good question. Probably because we feel threatened. See above for the thing about prayer, creationism in science, and holy wars.

Their behavior follows a similar pattern of those in organized religions.

I'll agree with you there. It is similar. We're OK with that.

Thanks for your deading work, Eric.
Here’s what I’ve fixed so far:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Classic-hockey-Blades-of-Steel
http://www.videosift.com/video/Elvira-Mistress-of-the-Dark-1988
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Lone-Ranger-tv-intro
http://www.videosift.com/video/Young-Indiana-Jones-and-the-Cross-of-Coronado
http://www.videosift.com/video/Josie-and-the-Pussycats-tv-intro
http://www.videosift.com/video/Lovin-Spoonful-Summer-in-the-City
http://www.videosift.com/video/Theres-no-need-to-fear-Underdog-is-here-1
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-Seuss-The-Cat-in-the-Hat-1
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hogans-Heroes-TV-theme
http://www.videosift.com/video/US-Air-Force-60th-Anniversary-Video