X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Recent Comments by Winstonfield_Pennypacker
 | comment listing type: Top Sift for Dec 2nd, 2009Friends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Raaagh
(113 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         |
Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails
Well - we all know the answers. $$$$ This is all about grants and cash. These guys hitched thier wagon to a political star and they got caught red-handed. Just proves what I've always known. They're a bunch of faux-scientists who are after political payola and don't mind sacrificing everyone on the planet in the process. Now we know they have a history of this. Again - no surprise to me - but nice to finally be able to prove it to all the AWG zombies.
Frasier: Hot and Foamy Niles
Sarah Palin Book Signing - Meet The Fans
I VERY much agree with Palin's 'small government' talking point. We need more politicians discussing reductions as opposed to increases. The USA is in a 'government bubble' just as dangerous as the dot.com or housing bubbles. Like it or not, Palin is about the only person in the GOP today that is pushing the 'scale back government' talking point. McCain sure wasn't. I'm a 'fan' of any politician who has a record of cutting, and who considers government scaleback as a major issue.
I also VERY much like it when when Congress is held by the opposing political party to the President. That check & balance works fantastically. When one party is running the whole show it is always a bad thing (Bush & Obama's agendas are prime examples). I'm not a GOP party member. I tend to vote 3rd party. But in off-year elections as a matter of principle I will always vote for the Congressman/Senator who is of the major opposing party to the sitting President. So I'm in favor of anything that gooses the GOP into the House & Senate in 2010 if only to throw the whole system into complete gridlock. If Palin motivates Independants and the GOP base (and it seems that she does) then I support it.
fundamentalist-neo-con camp
The true 'neo-cons' are left-wing politicians who support the military. Joe Liberman is a neo-con. You are using the lazy, propoganda definition of neo-con, which is to use it as an epithet similar to denigratory racial or sexual terms. To a left-wing liberal, 'neo-con' is a word you can slap on anyone who tilts right on any issue. Less spending? Neo-con. Limits on late-term abortion? Neo-con. Tax cuts? Neo-con. This stems from the practice in the 1990s when Bill Clinton's War Room posse would run out and call all political opponents 'neo-cons' in order to conjure of images of Timothy McVeigh or other people that live on compounds. It isn't your fault perhaps to have fallen into this trap. However, now that I've revealed the truth it will be your fault if you choose to remain in the lie. Palin supporters are not 'neo cons'. They are plain folk who agree with her on issues which disagree with radical left-wing politics.
So you too are in the iron grip of Big Fast Food?
I enjoy the occasional indulgence, but as a user of the P90-X system I am not an abuser. At 6 foot 1 and 170 pounds with a 32" waist at age 40, I consider myself in reasonable shape and therefore able to partake of a pizza now and then without shame.
Natural Morality
Sarah Palin Book Signing - Meet The Fans
Well, as I said before - that isn't hard to do when you're a biased 'interviewer' who is cherry picking who does and doesn't make the cut of your video. That's what propogandists do though. Ignore the 99 normal, sensible folks and pick the one or two people who say things you can take out of context and massage into a message you like. That's why I disdain videos of this ilk - be they left or right. People who think stuff like this represents anything but an outlier fringe are self deluded and are only two hairs and some air away from being in a similar video themselves.
Sarah Palin Book Signing - Meet The Fans
Precisely. I commend you for your concise and accurate summation.
I hate to break it to you, but the "bulk of Americans" can't afford to donate any part of their salary to charities
I think you'd be surprised just how many American donate to charitable causes every year. Partly because of the tax break, but also because Americans in general are pretty generous.
Sarah Palin Book Signing - Meet The Fans
No - you don't because I'm not. Haven't voted 'Republican' in the last 5 elections.
You're most likely well off, middle to upperclass, and want to keep it that way.
Partly. I don't want to 'keep it that way'. I'd like to move to the upper-upper class some day.
Working class problems don't concern you.
As a working professional I beg to differ. I'm not 'blue collar' if that's what you mean by 'working class', but I am a salaried employee and thus subject to the same issues that effect the bulk of Americans.
The healthcare reform was redundant in your eyes
Redundant? The Obama version of health care reform, yes. Reform of the health care system should take place at a regulatory level - not a 'government involvement' level. In that sense, yes, 'Democrat defined' health care reform very much is redundant (and a whole lot of other negative adjectives).
Given her local and national mishaps, the burden of proof is on people like you to prove she is not stupid.
Given that she had a rather successful gubernatorial term, I'd propose that as evidence that she is not 'stupid' as the neolib left wants to define her. Her roster of actual accomplishments is more robust than Barak Obama's was when he began his presidential run. I'm not saying she's a Rhode scholar, but there is no evidence that she's the brain-dead idiot the hard left wing likes to portray her as. As far as 'papers'? She's not in academia that I know of. She's had a think piece she published on health care in the NY Times. She's written a book. I know that liberals will just pooh-pooh and say that someone wrote them for her - so why even bother talking about them?
Again - I'm not a Palin booster or anything. I just find that the radical left wing is exhibiting a rather large degree of 'Derangement Syndrome' regarding her and those who like her. I also find that such hyperbolic claims are devoid of any substantive evidence and oozing with opinion and misinformation.
Sarah Palin Book Signing - Meet The Fans
Yawn. I think Palin has a way to go before she's a serious candidate. I'm not sure if she'll ever get there really because she just may be one of those people who can't bridge the gap between local and national politics. But the left's propoganda? Pht - idiotic bilge for idiotic people.
Penn & Teller's show proves that if you've got a camera and some time that you can find the lunatic fringe of any group. I dismiss this vid as an an example of focusing on the outliers and trying to portray them as the majority.
Cancer Breakthrough. Believe It.
This. If I had a nickel for every cancer 'breakthrough' that's been talked up... Yawn.
Australian Magazine Features 7ft Tall Model On Cover
She's definitely not 'supermodel' level, but she's a solid 7 on a 10 point scale. In a lot of ways I prefer the 'average human' look as opposed to the silicon injected, airbrushed, tucked, pinched, taped, and botoxed look you get from a lot of models.
TDS: Jon Stewart explains why he doesnt like Sarah Palin
Hm - what you're describing as 'nothing there' I describe as uneasiness and inexperience. There are some people that are better at on-camera interviews than others. Everyone has a ramping up period. Clearly Palin gets a tightness in her voice, and does fall back fairly often of what can only be described as patter. To me, this is a person who isn't ready for the big time. But to say 'nothing there'? Nah. That's hyperbole. Palin may NEVER 'get there'. She just might be one of those persons who sucks at on the spot interviews. I don't hold that against her necessarily. We live in a unique day and age. I don't cotton to the idea that a politician has to be good on camera to be an effective leader. In fact, I put that characteristic pretty far down on the list. To me, Palin has the right idea about government (LESS) and that's what matters most. We need a politician who will butcher the government like a hog. It is long overdue.
Boy Won't Say Pledge of Allegiance Until Gays Can Marry
rebuilder (Member Profile)
They are neither clear nor ironclad enough. There is already evidence that there are both individuals and groups who are just waiting for a law to pass so that they can use it to start litigation. You may think that the constitution is self evident in this respect. I agree that to NORMAL people with common sense and fairness, it probably is enough. But we're not talking about anything normal, sensible or fair. We're talking about fringe activists who will use any loophole of any kind to instigate legislation. That's the kind of world we live in, alas. Unless the law in itself CONTAINS those clearly spelt out protections, then there will be those who will use it for purposes and causes which it was never intended for. That's reality, and 'traditional marriage' defenders are not stupid enough to just cross their fingers. That's just how it is.
Boy Won't Say Pledge of Allegiance Until Gays Can Marry
That's the kind of thing traditional marriage groups want very clearly and plainly ironed out before they support any gay marriage law. The bulk of gay couples couldn't care less, but there are some very strident activists who would use a gay marriage law as a prybar to try and go after other far less 'justice' oriented objective. Without clear, ironclad protections to their own rights there is just no way the 'traditional marriage' crowd is going to go along with these laws.
TDS: Jon Stewart explains why he doesnt like Sarah Palin
To say she's nothing but talking points requires putting bias-blinders on regarding her record. As far as I can see, Palin has not been just talk in regards to cutting budgets. Not saying she's the person to vote for, but to say that "there's nothing there" is both inaccurate and disingenous. She has a record of doing the stuff she's recommending. Could she do that for the entire Republican PARTY? Pht - not bloodly likely. The GOP is so full of RINOs right now that no real fiscal conservative could do anything with it.
Lower taxes isn't always better, but holding the government to an extremely high standard of making sure that our tax dollars are used responsibly is.
That's a fair way to put it. There are SOME taxes that are useful, but the pendulum has definitely swung in the wrong direction and we're long overdue for a massive correction in our "government bubble" (as I call it).
To me, Palin was a poorly planned gimmick response to Hillary being a force in the primaries before the election.
Hmm - I'd say Palin was a desperate attempt by McCain to appeal to his base. When Obama ousted Hillary, McCain ended up looking like a doddering old liberal RINO coot who couldn't sell himself out of a paper bag. He needed a big jolt to his base. Enter Palin, who was both socially and fiscally more conservative than McCain. Too little too late though because (as you note) the Republican party no longer has any real interest or loyalty to fiscally conservative principles.
She created that visage herself by saying things like that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house.
Uh - no - you are repeating a long debunked lie perpetuated by neolibs. Her actual quote is "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." What you are quoting - to your everlasting shame - is a SNL skit. You know - a parody. At no point did Palin ever say she could see Russia from her house or backyard. And yet neolibs with Liberal Derangement Syndrome actually beleive that's what she said and meant. But that's what ideologues do. They take quotes out of context, they massage them into grotesque parodies, and then pretend they're truth. Every person in the public eye does & says stuff that is ripe for parodies & poking fun. Obama has made some HUMDINGERS. But only a brain-washed, biased, fool takes the parodies and pretends they're reality.
Now - the more I see Palin the less I think of her as a candidate. I just think she's not fully baked yet. She gets that tight sort of clench in her voice and just seems nervous. She's not easy & comfortable - probably because she hasn't had enough experience. She needs more time, and the book tour may help her get over it. She's got the right goals. She needs to get her sea legs before she's a serious contender though.
TDS: Jon Stewart explains why he doesnt like Sarah Palin
I could argue very persuasively that it is, but this is the internet and there is not the time.
Palin is no good for any political position because she is driven HARD by fundamentalist religion, lack of clear thought and an insight into issues that barely skims across them. She do so much harm to your country if you let her, she really would.
I would describe this as "Liberal Derangement Syndrome". I'm no Palin fan, but these kinds of hyperbolic claims are clearly based on opinion and have no substantive factual grounding in reality.
She's dumb as a post - get over it. Everyone knows it
I cannot help but be impressed with your persuasive argument.
TDS: Jon Stewart explains why he doesnt like Sarah Palin
And Liberal Derangement Syndrome? Yeah - it's very real.
Boy Won't Say Pledge of Allegiance Until Gays Can Marry
There is already bumping going on. There was a photographer sued by a gay couple to force them to photograph their ceremony. A church sued so they could refuse to rent property to a lesbian couple. This is not going to go away, and will become more frequent and strident if a national law passes. Church groups are going to oppose any law that fails to spell everything out. They don't want to deal with the legal ramifications of a vauge, generic law. This does not come across as unreasonable to me.
I'm not saying this is a 'zero sum justice' game where giving gay couples the right to marriage in and of itself damages the rights of traditional marriage proponents. I'm saying that current gay legislation is fuzzy about critical issues. These are sloppy laws that leave the barn door wide open. Churches aren't opposing 'gay civil unions' or 'giving gay couples rights' per se. They are opposing the passage of legislation that leaves them extremely vulnerable to massive sue-age.
Urban myths about climate change
Let's see - he criticizes others for not spending more time winnowing scientific journals... I guess in all the time that he spent in all those journals he just MISSED the truckloads of reports that solar activity has radically decreased over the past several years, and that 2009 alone has had the lowest amount of solar activity in the past 100 years. Yet he says "solar activity has been more or less constant for 30 years". Yeah, whatever.
And then he goes on and says "C02 levels have been constant for the past thousand years". Oh - REALLY? An AGW proponent says that C02 has been 'constant' for a thousand years? So - there's no problem with human generated C02 then, right? Because clearly all the C02 human have been generating hasn't effected the "constant" nature of our C02.
It reminds me of Saruman in Lord of the Rings. This guy is your Saruman, and you're his hillmen. "It was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire woke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves." Dance, mice. Dance for your piper.
Boy Won't Say Pledge of Allegiance Until Gays Can Marry
I agree. I'm all for equal legal, civil rights. The beef many religious groups have with the current batch of gay right efforts has been that it leaves too many holes. The movement is doomed to circle around itself because religious groups are not going along with a law that doesn't also include strong safeguards for their own rights. This isn't an issue where the gay movement can just rush through a slapdash law with the blythe promise that it'll be 'fixed later'. The law giving equal civil rights to gay couples has to at the same time clearly address the issue of the rights of people morally opposed to homosexuality. Until it does that, it's stuck. No law to date that I'm aware of has undertaken that journeyman effort.
And you did miss the point in your original retort that I was pointing out that you too are a product of your environment.
No - you missed the point where I brilliantly discussed the subjective absolute standard "liberty & justice for all" represents. Anyone who feels any degree of slight can legitimately complain about "liberty & justice" in the U.S. being an unmet standard. If the personally subjective standard of perceived slights to liberty & justice are the standard by which we recite the PoA or not, then NO ONE would be saying it. The kid has made an arbitrary, illogical choice slap a pre-requisite on his recitation of the pledge. That's his business - but it is no more 'logical' than if some kook on a right-wing compound does it for the same reason.
Are you arguing with this boy's opinions...those critiques don't change the validity of the boys opposition
No - I'm dismissing his stated conditions. If he wants to advocate gay rights then that's cool. But his chosen method is misguided, illogical, and fallacious. If he'd leave the pledge out of it then it's all good. But to piggy-back his cause on the pledge more than smacks of being a deliberate stunt egged on by whatever social group is in his background. If his argument has validity, then he doesn't NEED to be doing this crud with the pledge.
Religion does not have a stranglehold on the meaning of Marriage, and the government should recognize a meaning that applies to all citizens, not just those part of an exclusive ideology.
I agree. See my above paragraph about the real 'issue' with gay rights legislation. If they are really serious about getting this done then they NEED to stop doing a half-assed job of it. I understand the desire to obtain the rights is way overdue, and they've got legitimate gripes. But it is neither wise nor an advancement of 'justice' if legislation passes that does not protect all citizens equally. To advance 'thier' justice at the expense of harming the justice of others is no solution. All it does is set up even bigger clashes in the future. If we're going to do this, then let's do it properly and craft a law for the ages.
The hardest part of reading your posts isn't that you say things that are wrong, but snide.
I'd suggest that isn't me being 'snide'. It is your bias coloring how you choose to interpret what I say. Case in point...
To have a lot of adult friends, "let alone gay ones," isn't nearly as disconcerting a thought as your clear assumption that having "gay ones" is somehow dangerous.
At what point did I either state or imply that having gay friends is dangerous? Short answer: I never did that. That is YOU projecting your bias. In fact I don't have a beef with a 10 year old kid having an adult gay friend. Unless that adult gay friend is manipulating the kid to make a stink about the Pledge... But even then my opposition is not to the 'gayness', but to the person being a manipulative jackass.