Jay Leno is more worthless than those 20 year olds.

so that dude looks like the dude who currently lives on my couch.

why does he live on my couch, you might ask?
because he was a non-violent cocaine user as a 20 year old and now, 7 years later, noone will let him lease an apartment or give him any of the decently paying tech jobs he is highly qualified for.

/fuck the penal system

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

@chilaxe. On the one-hand, ageing and death does seem to be something that we've come to terms with, accepted and even romanticized. But we've always been seeking immortality. Donald Trump would give all his wealth to be made a 20-year-old again. Just about anybody would.

I, like probably most people (in their heart-of-hearts), find the fact that the super-wealthy die, to be very comforting - natural justice dealt. When youth really is for sell - all hell's going to break loose.

>> ^Shepppard:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
It may vary from region to region, but I'm not talking anything drastic.
I believe the one explained to me was like one of those old tests we've all taken in gym.
Stand on one side, run over, touch the line, run back, run to touch the next line, run back, etc.
and the difference is it has to be done in like 2 minutes for a 20 year old, and 2:15-2:30 for someone 35+. It's not a huge difference.


Sheppard, with the budget crisis it is getting far worse. For example--the unions are under assault, and yet the Republicans need even more money to give out to their special interests (I mean, lower taxes.)

So where are they going to find it? Easy. Just kick out the highest paid, and as an added bonus, claim it is all in the public's best interest...

Requirements recently implemented nearby--A basic boot-camp-style 2 week period before joining. Second, run between cones, jump a window, scale a wall (I don't know how tall but I guess 4-5 feet, since it has to be "fair" to small built women,) grab a 180 pound dummy and drag it, grab some more shit, keep running, then get to the end and state a number of colors (Not sure how many there...) The time limit they say is 5 minutes or so.

Expect to see that cost-saving measure spread.

@Lawdeedaw

It may vary from region to region, but I'm not talking anything drastic.

I believe the one explained to me was like one of those old tests we've all taken in gym.

Stand on one side, run over, touch the line, run back, run to touch the next line, run back, etc.

and the difference is it has to be done in like 2 minutes for a 20 year old, and 2:15-2:30 for someone 35+. It's not a huge difference.

Cops actually do have to go through fitness tests, but if I remember right, it's only beat cops (not desk jockies) and it varies.

The test gets easier to do the older you get (Not to the point of ridiculousness, but you're not expected to do the same as a 20 year old when you're 35) but if you don't pass it, you're put on leave.

This does happen, although not quite as often as you'd think. This is also, for the record, by tazers are used. This guy is obviously out of range, but if it's someone you aren't able to catch then a taze is a non-lethal way to stop them.

I totally agree that it's not simple. That's why all of this bothers me so much. Congress members like to see it black and white, what they want (and their contributors want) should be kept or voted in. What they don't want (and their contributors don't want) is communist/socialist/anti-american/against God/whatever. There absolutely no sway with these people, and that's because they are paid to think the way they do. It's not the best interest of the country, it's the best interest of who paid them off.

It's pretty blatant when the people who are making out like bandits during a very bad economic recession if doesn't become a depression and still want more tax cuts and profits, while the food banks don't have enough food and people are literally losing their houses because they won't extend unemployment benefits.

And trust me, unemployment in the US does not pay enough to cover what you would have made with a job. Especially when healthcare is primarily provided by companies and not by a universal health plan, people simply can't afford coverage on unemployment and they are not provided coverage unless they meet stringent criteria.

And it has been shown that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, for every dollar put into unemployment compensation a 1.60 or some such is generated. Rich tax cuts don't even come close to generating that, not even in the same ballpark. And they are supposedly the people who make the world go round if you listen to the bought and paid for Congress members.


In reply to this comment by Smugglarn:
While I agree with som of waht you say there is a caveat to all those wonderful programs. In my country (Sweden) the model of governance was that the ruling party (Social Democrats) essentially paid their voters with unemployment programs and social security benefits. You could actually earn less working than going on benefits. Immigrants who by nature of their endeavours are quite industrius and hard working quickly became pacified and dependant on the system. The only thing asked of the poorer classes is to vote "correctly" every four years. Remember though - they are only loyal voters for as long as they are not suffering as much . As soon as they get successful they get the full force of the tax system and change alliances. It stifles entrepreneurship and innovation.

Thankfully the Social Democrats were voted out. Regrettably, there is a high unemployment rate, a nationalist party gained a lot of seats in the parliament and violence plagues the projects and large cities around the country.


The left seeing the voters abandon them cry out for expanded immigration and more refugees. At first glance this could be thought of as a compassionate move - but in reality they want more party members to feed the machine. On the other hand the right want to expand immigration as well - for specialists nad other high quality workers - but also for cheap labour obviously.

What I'm rambling about is that it is not that simple.

In reply to this comment by Porksandwich:
Really no one knows what will fix the economy, often times opinion of the economy means just as much as actual changes. If people think the economy is in the toilet, they play safe with their money....if they think it's great they invest in more risky things (to me the tech bubbles demonstrate this, they don't know WTF they were investing in half the time but it sounded good).

But it strikes me as odd when you see a sudden decline in the economy and opinion of it tank....that they don't undo what they changed a few years prior to the economic downturn. Yes there are outside influences and other hard to account for things. But if tax cuts on the rich stimulated the economy in a beneficial way, we would not be in the situation we are in. Yes bank deregulation and other stupid moves, plus a blind payout to people who abused the system really hurt us. But the people who made those decisions also tend to be rich people with rich friends, after all it takes millions upon millions to campaign for any federal level job and you're going to notice the guy giving you a couple hundred thousand versus the guy who gives you 10 bucks.

As for making up the taxes in other methods...sales, consumption, sin tax, whatever you want to refer to. 1% of the population can go day to day without buying as much or can go to lengths to offset or remove the tax burdens they would otherwise face if they have many resources at their disposal. They could simply live somewhere else where those taxes do not effect them. And the rest of the people making, I think it's 250k or less a year to be the non-rich, they simply do not have the resources to avoid living near their jobs and are going to have the basic necessity expenditures as any rich guy.

I mean we all have things we need in common.
Food

Shelter (electricity, gas)

Toiletries (unless we're gonna wipe our asses with tree bark and not wear deodorant or brush our teeth),

Methods of transport (which is usually going to be a car, most places have pathetic public transport and riding a bike in sweltering heat or freezing cold is not going to cut it)

Medical - which at this point in time you have to be pretty destitute or disabled to receive government help with. And everyone at some point in their life is going to need medical assistance whether it's through a fault of their own or not. It's a stupid system where if you can't afford your treatment "RIGHT NOW" you may end up crippled and a burden on everyone else for the rest of your life over a few thousand dollars.

Rich people don't need to eat any more than poor people, they might have richer tastes but they can survive on poor people food. Rich people don't need any more than the minimum shelter. Same with toiletries, fancy colognes and perfumes are frills. BMWs versus 20 year old clunkers, rich can drive beaters too. Medical, rich people are going to have the basic care they need when they need it at every stage of their life....because they are rich and of course luck in genetic lotteries count for a lot.

So unless every rich person lives extravagantly INSIDE the US at all times, taxing them on anything but income is only going to get what they spend money on inside the country...even though they make their money and protect their money and assets utilizing what everyone else helps subsidize - roads, utilities, police, firefighters, etc.

It's the "I got mine, so fuck you." attitude that seems to be popular now. You can see it in a lot of things, unemployment extensions (I got a job, so fuck you.), universal health care (I'm not sick, so fuck you.), public transportation (I own a car, so fuck you.), Visa workers/offshoring (I can get cheaper labor, so fuck you.), etc.

So we end up with absolutely no positive future growth besides what you can afford to do for yourself. And we have more and more people falling onto government welfare programs where they are going to find themselves stuck until the problems become so blatantly apparent that no one can deny that paying your share benefits you just as much as it benefits others.

Really no one knows what will fix the economy, often times opinion of the economy means just as much as actual changes. If people think the economy is in the toilet, they play safe with their money....if they think it's great they invest in more risky things (to me the tech bubbles demonstrate this, they don't know WTF they were investing in half the time but it sounded good).

But it strikes me as odd when you see a sudden decline in the economy and opinion of it tank....that they don't undo what they changed a few years prior to the economic downturn. Yes there are outside influences and other hard to account for things. But if tax cuts on the rich stimulated the economy in a beneficial way, we would not be in the situation we are in. Yes bank deregulation and other stupid moves, plus a blind payout to people who abused the system really hurt us. But the people who made those decisions also tend to be rich people with rich friends, after all it takes millions upon millions to campaign for any federal level job and you're going to notice the guy giving you a couple hundred thousand versus the guy who gives you 10 bucks.

As for making up the taxes in other methods...sales, consumption, sin tax, whatever you want to refer to. 1% of the population can go day to day without buying as much or can go to lengths to offset or remove the tax burdens they would otherwise face if they have many resources at their disposal. They could simply live somewhere else where those taxes do not effect them. And the rest of the people making, I think it's 250k or less a year to be the non-rich, they simply do not have the resources to avoid living near their jobs and are going to have the basic necessity expenditures as any rich guy.

I mean we all have things we need in common.
Food

Shelter (electricity, gas)

Toiletries (unless we're gonna wipe our asses with tree bark and not wear deodorant or brush our teeth),

Methods of transport (which is usually going to be a car, most places have pathetic public transport and riding a bike in sweltering heat or freezing cold is not going to cut it)

Medical - which at this point in time you have to be pretty destitute or disabled to receive government help with. And everyone at some point in their life is going to need medical assistance whether it's through a fault of their own or not. It's a stupid system where if you can't afford your treatment "RIGHT NOW" you may end up crippled and a burden on everyone else for the rest of your life over a few thousand dollars.

Rich people don't need to eat any more than poor people, they might have richer tastes but they can survive on poor people food. Rich people don't need any more than the minimum shelter. Same with toiletries, fancy colognes and perfumes are frills. BMWs versus 20 year old clunkers, rich can drive beaters too. Medical, rich people are going to have the basic care they need when they need it at every stage of their life....because they are rich and of course luck in genetic lotteries count for a lot.

So unless every rich person lives extravagantly INSIDE the US at all times, taxing them on anything but income is only going to get what they spend money on inside the country...even though they make their money and protect their money and assets utilizing what everyone else helps subsidize - roads, utilities, police, firefighters, etc.

It's the "I got mine, so fuck you." attitude that seems to be popular now. You can see it in a lot of things, unemployment extensions (I got a job, so fuck you.), universal health care (I'm not sick, so fuck you.), public transportation (I own a car, so fuck you.), Visa workers/offshoring (I can get cheaper labor, so fuck you.), etc.

So we end up with absolutely no positive future growth besides what you can afford to do for yourself. And we have more and more people falling onto government welfare programs where they are going to find themselves stuck until the problems become so blatantly apparent that no one can deny that paying your share benefits you just as much as it benefits others.

I had a brain flash... the opposite of a brain fart, Darren emerson Underwater cd 1 cd 2, is from my 18-20 year old period, I have memories to the songs on the disc but know fuck all about it, I am torrenting it trying to get it. Thought I would share H20 with ya. Fun fact, H20 is what my friend and I called Cannabis when we were at that age, call it a code word but it all boiled down to, nothing can live without H20.. its synonymous !

The cats never had a chance, with their Corvine puppet masters screaming to be entertained.
I love Crows, I wish it wasnt illegle for me to have one. After thanksgiving dinner, I dropped off the turkey carcass near the local crows (around 4-6 families). They loved it, these guys got one last year also, they are starting to be very friendly. I read they can live to be 17-20 years old, mate for life, raise their young for 4-5 years, and stay in the same neighborhood.

lol. is hi-fiving people for trying your hobby? 'cause if it is, that's kind of patronizing, letting people go through life thinking they're good at something when they're not.

i don't see how my slightly educated opinion is less valid than yours. i'm not "picking" on it for the sake of shitting on it. i'm calling a spade a spade. i'm not even fronting like i know everything about VFX. i'm a jr. and i don't do 3D work, but i do know this is well below average for any serious artist, unless it's 20 years old or done by a 15 year old.

@DerHasisttot
@TheGenk

- Phoenix (Arizona's capitol) requires a high school diploma or GED equivalent. Finishing high school means you have completed 13 years of school.
- You must pass a written exam related to reading comprehension, sentence structure, observational skills, and psychological issues.
- You must pass a physical agility exam.
- Those accepted then attend the police academy, 40 hours/week for 18 weeks.
- You must be 20 years old at the time of application, 21 prior to completion of academy.

Sources:
http://phoenix.gov/police/pdjob2.html
http://phoenix.gov/police/faqjob1.html

It seems that to be precise, the study says that any male over 20 years old has seen porn at least once.

I think there actually are a few very "tightly wound" guys who buy in to a religious or otherwise strict upbringing that convinces them that porn and/or sexual thoughts in general are wrong, and who therefore decide to avoid actively seeking out porn themselves.

However, I would say that it is increasingly difficult to completely avoid unintentional exposure to porn, even if you actually want to. Google image search for completely innocuous search strings, even with safe search on, and you'll occasionally bump into something.

Still, I think it would probably be more interesting to know the results of a study that tested what percentage of men actively seek out pornography. I guarantee it would be a very high percentage, but I bet that it would be (slightly) less than 100%, as Cenk seems to be suggesting.

you think that a video that dose nothing to clarify an issue and introduces its own false hoods through an over simplification of an issue is productive?


>> ^Tagichatn:

>> ^westy:
>> ^Tagichatn:
>> ^westy:
>> ^CrushBug:
Wow, Westy, you really missed the entire point, didn't you?

I did ?
maby you can tell my how and where I missed the point.

This whole video is a criticism of the view that women should let their career suffer to look after kids and you seem to think it's supporting it. You may think it's typical of the 50's but it's true today as well.
Also the character art is in the style of early 90's video games, not 1950's...

Right the woman character in this thing is in the style of 90s video game ?
also if you actually look into it deeper then you will come to the same conclusion as me.
this video only communicates the same message against sexism that's 20 years old and not really representative of the real issue or the reality of where we are at with sexism now.
it adds nothing to the discussion .
and as I said before its a complete over simplification of the issue.

Where do you think sexism is today? This video is talking about inequality in professional life, child care and housework. Do you think that the inequality doesn't exist?

>> ^westy:

>> ^Tagichatn:
>> ^westy:
>> ^CrushBug:
Wow, Westy, you really missed the entire point, didn't you?

I did ?
maby you can tell my how and where I missed the point.

This whole video is a criticism of the view that women should let their career suffer to look after kids and you seem to think it's supporting it. You may think it's typical of the 50's but it's true today as well.
Also the character art is in the style of early 90's video games, not 1950's...

Right the woman character in this thing is in the style of 90s video game ?
also if you actually look into it deeper then you will come to the same conclusion as me.
this video only communicates the same message against sexism that's 20 years old and not really representative of the real issue or the reality of where we are at with sexism now.
it adds nothing to the discussion .
and as I said before its a complete over simplification of the issue.


Where do you think sexism is today? This video is talking about inequality in professional life, child care and housework. Do you think that the inequality doesn't exist?