>> ^quantumushroom:

Cliff's Notes version: Obama got SPANKED.
Romney accused His Majesty of "Trickle-down government", meaning the intended recipients of any big government program are the last ones in line.
Also, I don't know where Ears gets his figure of "saving" American families $3500 on average. Even if it's proven true, the middle class and small businesses still lose paying obamacare's NEW taxes.


Do you know where Romney got any of his figures? See I don't know where anyone got their figures because the media doesn't talk about that. No one does any legitimate studies anymore, they just put out bullshit for the parties to use. There are good economists with good research, they won't be quoted or used in the media, because it's not about that.

Cliff's Notes version: Obama got SPANKED.

Romney accused His Majesty of "Trickle-down government", meaning the intended recipients of any big government program are the last ones in line.

Also, I don't know where Ears gets his figure of "saving" American families $3500 on average. Even if it's proven true, the middle class and small businesses still lose paying obamacare's NEW taxes.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
*promote the shame.
>> ^Skeeve:

Yeah, people are making a really big deal of dropping out of it, and I understand wanting to participate in something that will help stop climate change, but if the targets are completely impossible to meet, then there is no point in participating.
There is an article here that says that meeting the requirements could cost $3500 per Canadian, or $30 billion, as a nation, to purchase emission credits.
The only industrial nations to come close to their targets have done it through changing their power generation to cleaner methods, but 70% of Canada's power generation is already "low-emission" and changing the others is almost out of the question at this time.
We should be making an effort to reduce emissions and help the environment, but sticking with an insane plan isn't going to help us get there.>> ^Sagemind:
I've heard all about this as a decision but have heard nothing about the reasoning behind it.
I did read one article that said the targets were so unreachable, we'd have to remove every moving vehicle from the road and go back to horse travel within one year to meet the standards or the penalties would be 14 billion dollars per year. But that's mostly hearsay - I haven't seen anything official.
A little bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Withdrawal_of_Canada
< br>

*promote the shame.
>> ^Skeeve:

Yeah, people are making a really big deal of dropping out of it, and I understand wanting to participate in something that will help stop climate change, but if the targets are completely impossible to meet, then there is no point in participating.
There is an article here that says that meeting the requirements could cost $3500 per Canadian, or $30 billion, as a nation, to purchase emission credits.
The only industrial nations to come close to their targets have done it through changing their power generation to cleaner methods, but 70% of Canada's power generation is already "low-emission" and changing the others is almost out of the question at this time.
We should be making an effort to reduce emissions and help the environment, but sticking with an insane plan isn't going to help us get there.>> ^Sagemind:
I've heard all about this as a decision but have heard nothing about the reasoning behind it.
I did read one article that said the targets were so unreachable, we'd have to remove every moving vehicle from the road and go back to horse travel within one year to meet the standards or the penalties would be 14 billion dollars per year. But that's mostly hearsay - I haven't seen anything official.
A little bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Withdrawal_of_Canada
< br>

Yeah, people are making a really big deal of dropping out of it, and I understand wanting to participate in something that will help stop climate change, but if the targets are completely impossible to meet, then there is no point in participating.

There is an article here that says that meeting the requirements could cost $3500 per Canadian, or $30 billion, as a nation, to purchase emission credits.

The only industrial nations to come close to their targets have done it through changing their power generation to cleaner methods, but 70% of Canada's power generation is already "low-emission" and changing the others is almost out of the question at this time.

We should be making an effort to reduce emissions and help the environment, but sticking with an insane plan isn't going to help us get there.>> ^Sagemind:

I've heard all about this as a decision but have heard nothing about the reasoning behind it.
I did read one article that said the targets were so unreachable, we'd have to remove every moving vehicle from the road and go back to horse travel within one year to meet the standards or the penalties would be 14 billion dollars per year. But that's mostly hearsay - I haven't seen anything official.
A little bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Withdrawal_of_Canada

>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^Powel6016:
These planes are 20+ years old. LOT needs new planes. Flew with LOT several times and its just ridiculous.
Just goes to show you, they don't build 'em like they used to.


The 767 has a far fewer deaths than its older cousin the 737. It isn't apples to apples, because they aren't the same class of plane, but the 737 has well over 3500+ fatalities, where as the 767 has about 500+. Its brother, the Narrow body 757, is over 700+ deaths in its run so far. The 737 is only a decade older, not enough to make up the death per year ratio of the 737. So in this case, thank god they don't make them like they used to. If you notice that in the ten latest crashes include a 737 and a 747. The 767 has had a bad rap ever since EgyptAir Flight 990, but it is a good hull if properly maintained. That being said, the plane in question was delivered to LOT on 15 May 1997, a very new plane in all respects.

The cinema is so shit its not funny and if you are seeing more than 40 films a year you might as well get a HD projector and decent surround sound system it will be infinetly better than what a cinema can offer.

even though technically a cinema should be able to do things better they muck it up getting sound levels wrong , focus wrong , marks on scree, idiots in room with you WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WANT TO WATCH A FILM IN A ROOM FILLED WITH PEOPLE you don't know !? , noisy food , uncomfortable seats , adverts before film , trailers that show whole fucking plot of future films , anti piracy bullshit messages , waiting in-line for a ticket , 60% of the seats in places that are a detremnt to the viewing angle and the sound.

for $3500 you can get a home system that avoids all the shit of the cinema and delivers things to a higher quality than what would happen on average when you see a film at the cinema.

Granted you might just "enjoy the cinima" for no real objective resoins purely its an engraind thing you have done from a young age and then regardless of all the shit you will probably enjoy it more than a home cinima , and there are definelty some cinimas around that actualy have a degree of charm and add something to the exsperance , but if you are talking about your average multiplex cinima when a new film is out or when its normaly operating the cinima is utter wank.

sorry if you read all that !



Cinimas drive me mental every now and again I fall for the trap and go along thinking oh hay this time it might be ok and every time there is always some shit.

If sum one said you can see a film for free at a cinama or pay £2 not to see it and you had to chose I would pay £2 not to see it.



>> ^budzos:

I came close to that pace in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, seeing 75+ movies theatrically in each of those years...
Drive is showing in the local VIP auditorium, which charges a premium for nicer seats (basically leather recliners) and reserved seating. You can also have a beer in the licensed lounge beforehand, and have drinks delivered to your seat, as it's age restricted to 19 years and up (the legal drinking age here). You can usually count on less miscreants being at those screenings than say the Friday midnight screening of Transformers 3 that I attended in a town that is, shall we say, closer to the airport. However, you still can't count on actual conscientious comportment. In fact I would say most of the most eggregious cases of talking or what I call cinema calisthenics have occured in VIP screenings. Not to mention the actual screen is garbage and I always forget to check but I'm pretty sure they leave the 3D lens on at all times.
I'll probably go see Drive tonight or tomorrow night, and keep my fingers crossed. Because I do really want to see it, and I haven't seen a movie for at least a month.
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^budzos:
I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.
There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.
And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

>> ^bobknight33:

SS is broke and empty.

Social security isn't broke.

Oh, and if you appreciate me, then you should treat me with just a little respect.

If you really want to prove you're right, and I'm wrong, start by attacking my ideas, not my character.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^Stingray:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/1-900-740-3500

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/1-900-740-3500

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Stingray. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^Ornthoron:

I felt a lot of the same as @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Morganth" title="member since March 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">Morganth watching this video. The story is supposedly set 3500 years before the events of the original movies, yet everything looks almost exactly the same. I will admit that I know very little Star Wars lore, but were the culture of the Old Republic really that similar? Among the things that looked almost exactly alike in this video were
-Stormtroopers
-Star Destroyers
-Tie Fighters
-smuggler ships
-door control panels
When I think of the Old Republic I want something old-fashioned and exotic, not the same stuff that I've seen hundreds of times before.


Yep, basically all content is ancesteral to Ep 4/5/6. Same schtick Lucas did with Ep 1, 2 and 3.

The thing that bothers me is that they keep trotting the exact same scenarios out.

-cocky smuggler a carbon copy of Han, check
-standard "enemy can't hit for shit" when a main character is striding in to combat with them
-freighter is 'fastest in sector' and 'looks like junk'
-ppl in the gun turrets ala New Hope
-Asteroid chase ala Empire
-Flying up the belly of a SD ala Jedi
-Flying through superstructure ala New Hope/Jedi

as if it's something new and fresh... The characters in this are infinitely more likeable than Ep 1/2/3 (although the smuggler character just annoys me) but the whole thing is so damn derivative it's like they're going down a checklist of homages they have to hit... I didn't hear a Wilhelm but I'm guesssing there's probably one of those in there somewhere as well.

I'm honestly surprised the hyperdrive didn't conk out and the smuggler started up "It's not my fault!"

I felt a lot of the same as @Morganth watching this video. The story is supposedly set 3500 years before the events of the original movies, yet everything looks almost exactly the same. I will admit that I know very little Star Wars lore, but were the culture of the Old Republic really that similar? Among the things that looked almost exactly alike in this video were

-Stormtroopers
-Star Destroyers
-Tie Fighters
-smuggler ships
-door control panels

When I think of the Old Republic I want something old-fashioned and exotic, not the same stuff that I've seen hundreds of times before.

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #3500 (supplied by member calvados) - video declared dead by member calvados.