*ban
Molly Mae LLC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlBdBRZkIas

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Nice. I'm not anywhere glorious (Mae Sot), but there are enough Westerners around to make for a social scene. Of course, I've maintained my celebrity status by carting around my 2-year old daughter with me. It provides for constant harassment and a flood of (mostly unwanted) gifts everywhere we go.

@Fletch

Congratulations, you successfully pulled me out of bed to come write this.

First off, I stated my opinion, simple as that. I didn't attack your choice for posting it, I didn't attack UP for doing it. I basically pointed out the fact that the only reason this is getting any votes whatsoever is because it has a sifter in it. If this was daisy-mae from dallas, would anybody have voted? Likely not.

Now, lets turn to your argument, shall we?

We have Zero Punctuation reviews. I typically don't vote for them, but they actually add something. Agree with it or not, they talk about a recent video game title and an Australian man gives his opinion on it.

The daily show topics are generally comedic, and involve some news coverage in at least one form of another (Same goes for Colbert.)

QI? if you're really comparing this to QI then that's probably one of the silliest things you could have done. If you're saying that QI has absolutely nothing of value to it then you're fairly dense. I can't find ONE QI video where I can watch it and not learn something.

TyT, Once again, news. Granted, in a fairly bias form, but it's still news.

Now, lets go ahead and talk about the 25 seconds of someone stepping on a toy, shall we? What does this bring to the table? Did we learn anything? Not really. Is this anything to do with current or past events? Nope. Is it artistic in any way? Nope. If I'm having a rough day, and need something to just make me smile, is this gonna do it? Definitely not.

So, apart from the fact that it's got a sifter in it, what's its merit? Did others actually find it worthy enough to upvote it? Or are they only doing so out of obligation because voting it down would potentially hurt UsesProzacs feelings? I can honestly tell you right now the only reason I DIDN'T vote it down was for that very reason. I have no grudge towards her whatsoever, I do have a problem with a video being added to this site for the sole reason of "hey look, it's part of a videosift member".

The site has already been criticized as one giant "In community", do we really need to ostracize people who aren't familiar with the community by spamming them with videos of sifters feet?

Mae West once said; "I'd rather be rich and depressed, than poor and depressed".

Aw - the Frankfurter is sad because of a lack of substance? Well - maybe he'd have been happier if the reporter had dove into the following topics of substance...

1. Frank's role in the housing and banking collapse (IE his role with AIG in pushing the repeal of Glass-Steagall)...
2. The coverup of fixing parking tickets for the prostitution ring that was run out of his house...
3. Frank's involvement in a banking scandal in Boston with OneUnited...
4. Frank's abuse of office in forcing Fannie Mae to hire his lover, Herb Moses.
5. Falsification of documents where he claimed a $30,000 'gift' from hedge fund manager Donald Sussman was only $1,500...

Just a few 'substantive' issues that may this total sack of crap would have preferred to discuss. Barney Frank is one of the primary reasons for the recession. It is always impossible to pin such a big thing down to just one person, but if you could name one person that was to blame for the economic collapse it would be Barney Frank. This piece of human filth should be dragged out of Congress today, banned from all public service for life, should have every penny he owns confiscated, and then he should be tarred & feathered, pilloried, and tossed in a dank prison cell for the rest of his miserable, misbegotten life.

And that would be letting him off easy.

It was not Republicans pushing the Community Reinvestment Act, it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Even W warned that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in danger of insolvency.

Also no one in gov't has anything to do with the cost of higher education, which has been a sore point for the '99%'. You can blame your multi-million dollar university presidents for that boondoggle.

>> ^VoodooV:

Sorry, but reality disagrees with you.
Demand for health care is not unlimited, it is finite. Sure it is a large demand, but it is quite finite. You're making a strawman argument because no one is advocating the absurd prolonging of life you're accusing others of.
News flash, we don't exist in a vacuum. We don't live in a universe where our decisions only affect us alone so your Ayn Rand fantasy utopia of everyone taking care of themselves and fuck the other guy doesn't exist..it never will.
It benefits everyone to give quality healthcare to all. We are more productive and contribute more when we don't have to bankrupt ourselves paying medical costs. We pay large amounts of money already because people don't have proper health care and don't do anything about it until they show up at the emergency room at death's door. Taxpayers foot that bill when they can't pay. So the question is simple: Do you want to pay for it now while it's cheap and easy to treat, or do you want to pay more later when it's a LOT worse and a hell of a lot more expensive.
Besides, you don't seem to mind spending other people's money and taking their lives when it comes to defense spending and invading other countries. And as the video already pointed out. We don't see Republicans sticking to their conservative "principles" and refusing Medicare/Medicaid when they need it....only when other people need it. So stop being such a hypocrite.


Most of the costs are borne by people who are retired, so I fail to see how borrowing trillions we don't have on life prolongation does anything but doom the future to crushing taxes and inflation for something the present desired but weren't productive enough to pay for. You can't do that, it's not fair, and many young people are waking up to the fact that this essentially a generational ponzi scheme with nothing in it for them. The first SS recipient contributed well below what she received and the final one will have paid in far more than they will receive in benefits. SS and Medicare, by their end, will have impoverished more people than any government programs in the history of mankind. Every naive socialist program is a sentimental black hole that accomplishes the opposite of what it intends. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, made it easier to get a loan, but in doing so increased the price of homes and thus the size of the loan. Because suddenly you've got this "magic bottomless guarantee" to print up a loan, and now you've got damn near everyone seemingly capable of bidding up the prices. Of course, now we realize it wasn't bottomless after all, it just seemed that way for a while.

You've successfully convinced me that you really, really want health care at some future untold person's expense. The populace as a whole is resisting taxes. Their money has been devalued so thoroughly that they can't budget in broad tax increases today, so what makes you think the future can? It's also true that employers are not poor people. We've had nothing but more and more government involvement in this sector and, just like education, the costs have risen with how much the government is able to tax and borrow. I used to work for an online college called Kaplan. Kaplan's price IS what the government takes and loans. Why would they price below that? You just don't seem to understand how markets work. Look at something like LASIK and PRK aren't covered by private or public insurers. It's had nothing but price declines and quality improvements. Look at computers, constant price declines and quality improvements. When people are forced to spend their own money, the fear and greed offset works. When they're spending a pool of forcibly appropriated funds, they lose sight of its true cost to them and the future and become reckless.

Oh, and I'm not a Republican in favor of military adventures. I sympathize less with that nonsense than I do with you. I understand that public roads are of lower quality than toll roads, but I'd rather we bear that cost for the simplicity of not having to dick with toll booths. Everything governmental has that dynamic, but I say the government should be completely disallowed from borrowing in excess of revenue. If you want something now, pay for it now, the end. If you can't raise the revenue, don't cry about it and don't steal from the future.

And yes, demands are infinite. Austrian economics 101. You offer someone everything on earth for $100, they'll probably take it. Problem is, supply ISNT infinite, so the price will never be that low. If you found some way of making planets full of shit cheap and abundant, you'd see that demand is indeed infinite.

You know you want to, now you have no excuse not to:

ano kousaten de minna ga moshi skip wo shite
moshi ano machi no mannaka de te wo tsunaide sora wo miagetara
moshimo ano machi no dokoka de chance ga tsukamitai no nara
mada naku no ni wa hayai yo ne tada mae ni susumu shika nai wa iya iya

PONPON dashite shimaeba ii no
zenzen shinai no tsumaranai desho
headphone kakete rhythm ni nosete
WAYWAY akete atashi no michi wo

PONPON susumu iro-iro na koto
don-don KITEru? anata no KIMOCHI
POIPOI suteru warui ko wa dare?
sou sou ii KO aa
You Make Me Happy

Every Day PON
Every Time is PON
merry-go-round noritai no
Every Day PON
Every Time is PON
tabun sonnan ja DAME desho

PONPON way-way-way
PONPON way PON way PONPON
way-way PONPONPON
way-way PON way PON way-way

ano kousaten de minna ga moshi skip wo shite
moshi ano machi no mannaka de te wo tsunaide sora wo miagetara
moshimo ano machi no dokoka de chance ga tsukamitai no nara
mada naku no ni wa hayai yo ne tada mae ni susumu shika nai wa iya iya

PONPON susumu iro-iro na koto
don-don KITEru? anata no KIMOCHI
POIPOI suteru warui ko wa dare?
sou sou ii KO aa
You Make Me Happy

Every Day PON
Every Time is PON
merry-go-round noritai no
Every Day PON
Every Time is PON
tabun sonnan ja DAME desho

PONPON way-way-way
PONPON way PON way PONPON
way-way PONPONPON
way-way PON way PON way-way

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

>> ^westy:

Although i think using music to pacify kids and babies is a fantastic idea its probably not the best of ideas to play it at stupidly high volumes unless u want a deff baby.


WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

These borrowers knowingly made bad loans to people who didn't understand the contract

In the early 90s the banks were arguing AGAINST repealing Glass-Stegall. Politicians partnered with some big finaincal houses like AIG and started accusing mid-size & small banks of racism ala "red-lining" to grease the political skids for a repeal. In most instances there was no racism of any kind. Banks simply did not give loans to people that couldn't afford them. But poor, urban areas had higher percentages of minority populations - and so out whips the race card...

I lived in the 70s and 80s. I know how hard it was to get even a 30-year loan in those days. But literally overnight banks had to start giving out loans to people who traditionally would not qualify. Instead of making money on the interest of the LOAN, banks were expected to make profit by bundling & selling the mortgage. The government promise was that if things went sour on the borrower end, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would paper it over. It worked fine for about a decade. But you can't sustain a market when your only customers are poor people in homes they can't afford and property flippers taking out 2+ extra mortgages more than they can realistically pay for.

The bank's job isn't to be your daddy, or to lecture you about whether you should or shouldn't get a loan. If a person walks into a bank, then as long as they qualify under the rules which are established by government then the bank doesn't have much choice. When people qualify, the bank issues the loan or they open themselves to discrimination lawsuits. It's a Catch-22.

Your outrage should more properly be targeted at the government. Have them re-institute Glass-Stegall. Force them to tighten up the requirements on who can/can't get a loan. Make it so people who shouldn't get loans CAN'T get them and that banks aren't allowed to do it. Join the rest of us racist, evil, red-lining conservatives who think loans should only be given to those who can actually afford to pay them off. But prepare yourself for a tongue-lashing from every neo-liberal leftist group under the sun, because clearly your bean-counting logic is pure neo-con white hatred, right? Oh - and especially prepare yourself to get excoriated by guys like Barney Frank who was one of the principle engineers of this whole "UFFOWDABLE HOWSEING!" mess.

Whoa, I guess this explains one of the big US banks selling my mortgage to Fannie Mae. Should I be worried about that?