Ironic post is ironic.

You refute my "talking points" with a huffpost article, of all things, largely written by Russell Simmons himself?

His card is crap and does indeed exploit poor people with shady fees and little long term benefit.

What? Do you have a Rush Card? If it's so great, why not get one?>> ^Trancecoach:

Gee, @longde, you've got some nerve spouting someone else's talking points before doing the research needed to realize that it's not the conflict of interest that you think it is.
>> ^longde:
Russell "Rush Card" Simmons has some nerve to talk about OWS while peddling a financial product that screws over poor people.

Gee, @longde, you've got some nerve spouting someone else's talking points before doing the research needed to realize that it's not the conflict of interest that you think it is.

>> ^longde:

Russell "Rush Card" Simmons has some nerve to talk about OWS while peddling a financial product that screws over poor people.

It's obvious that you have a steady job and/or a lot of money. I'm so very happy for you.

I apply for a job--I jump thru all the hoops, except I refuse to give up my passwords--I don't get the job--how am I to know what their reasons are? If it's because I didn't give up my passwords how would I ever be able to prove it?

No one ever said that employers owe anyone a job--they do however owe everyone a modicum of dignity.

You don't see your argument as idealogical--your ideology has blinded you.

"Doesn't matter how important you consider a job to you or your family's survival, it's never your only possible means to survive." I imagine that someone probably would have said the same thing to Jean Valjean before he stole that loaf of bread.

I'm done responding to you.
>> ^renatojj:

This isn't ideological, it's about defining coercion. If you can prove in court that you were under real economic duress, then you can say there was coercion involved in denying your job because you didn't hand out your passwords.
However, we must be careful not to accept this interpretation that employers owe us jobs. That when they deny us a job, they are taking away something that is rightfully ours.
A job is a voluntary relationship that usually involves a contract. So, by definition, no coercion is involved, because no one is ever forced to hire/accept a job.
The hipocrisy of people who yell coercion, is that they want government to make laws to coerce those that aren't coercing at all. So we end up with a less civilized society overall.
You shouldn't resort to violence to stop something that isn't violent to begin with. How about not panicking, and coming up with non-violent solutions?

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's that on the wall, the countdown to Judgement Day?


It reminds me of SNL's skit with Al Gore's computers behind him: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/a-glimpse-of-our-possible-future-ii/1356800

What's that on the wall, the countdown to Judgement Day?

Countdown to bar owner being sued when when someone swallows/breaks teeth on these...

>> ^Trancecoach:

2011, 2012.. same difference...
or not.


I fixed that--it can be our little secret.
Thanks.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Thank You, Thank You.
In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*promote

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
*promote



right on that's a full reverse double sift, totally pro. Garcias senior.

That was AWESOME!

But all I can think of is Moss' Countdown experience on the IT Crowd.

@lucky760 same deal with this video as the other one.
http://videosift.com/video/Faux-News-with-Jerry-Springer-Countdown

iframe embed from current doesn't work.


<iframe src="http://current.com/bc/1439442969001?linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcurrent.com%2Fshows%2Fcountdown%2Fvideos%2Fkeiths-special-comment-why-susan-g-k
omen-for-the-cure-remains-corrupt-under-nancy-brinkers-leadership" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen allowFullScreen></iframe>


>> ^dag:

This is one group that will be happy when the spotlight of media scrutiny swings the other way - but the damage may already be too great.


One can only hope. If even half of their donations move to more cost-effective charities, cancer victims will be the real winners. And administrative overhead of 60-70% is utterly absurd, making it pretty obvious what their -real- purpose is.

Countdown begins to Rush Limbaughs accusations of faking it for attention ala Michael J Fox begins ... right now.

>> ^longde:

Russell "Rush Card" Simmons has some nerve to talk about OWS while peddling a financial product that screws over poor people.


I did not know about that.
Thanks, @longde

No way, shape, or form? That's a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? Except for 30 seconds this entire video is contained in the original. The 30 seconds of additional content (2:04 - 2:33) is of another reporter asking a completely unrelated question that has nothing to do with the fight/argument Romney was having with the first reporter.

Since there is extra footage then there is only one criteria that keeps it from being a dupe. Does it contain any significant additional content. I would say no, the unrelated question from another reporter is not significant additional content.

The fact that the original has extra content then this one is irrelevant.
>> ^Boise_Lib:

In no way, shape, or form is this a dupe.
Out of 4:25 in your video a total of two clips are directly out of this video--one of 1:46 duration and the second is 1:07.
KO's story is about 2008. Now--in 2012--this is again a story of interest. The commentary completely changes the video. Without any commentary the raw video is again relevant.
Think of it this way: tomorrow someone asks about Romney and this event--would you first direct them to the 4 year old Countdown video--or to this complete raw video?
(I'd show them both)

>> ^Grimm:

Sorry...but it contains no significant additional content...that equals a dupe.>> ^carneval:
>> ^Grimm:
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter

I think that the lack of commentary makes this not a dupe, but thats just IMHO. Didn't see your post though, gave it an upvote



In no way, shape, or form is this a dupe.

Out of 4:25 in your video a total of two clips are directly out of this video--one of 1:46 duration and the second is 1:07.
KO's story is about 2008. Now--in 2012--this is again a story of interest. The commentary completely changes the video. Without any commentary the raw video is again relevant.

Think of it this way: tomorrow someone asks about Romney and this event--would you first direct them to the 4 year old Countdown video--or to this complete raw video?
(I'd show them both)