>> ^EvilDeathBee:

"You know how there are those pretentious assholes that work at high end coffee shops and they make you feel stupid if you're not as obsessed with a stupid drink as they are?"
No I don't. Are these common place in the US? Does good coffee equal pretentious arsehole selling it to you?
My local cafe when, when I was living in Melbourne, the waitresses were so friendly and oh-so lovely, and their coffee was amazing (and so was the food) with their own blends.
Don't have to be snobby or pretentious to sell good coffee, but I guess since good coffee is easy to come by in Melbourne, there's no need to feel snobby about it.


I'm sure there are a few in the larger cities, I wouldn't say common. I've been in a few hipster pretentious coffee shops, where most of the pretentiousness was coming from the people I went with. The coffee was always odd tasting, the establishment dirty, and the seating overly casual, aka big disgusting couches.

So heres the current list with my own interpretation of the subjects of each.

COFFEE MAKES ME POO = bowel movements
Eddie Izzard - Do you want a cup of coffee? = mating rituals
The Most Expensive Coffee in the World = civet droppings
South Park on Coffee = caffeine's affect on kids
Charlie Brooker vs. Nescafe - (VideoSift Coffee Mug Compo) = commercial/advertising
The latte zoo- (mixed animal latte pours) = drinkable art
Kramer CaffeLatte -- Seinfeld = caffeine's affect on racist comedians
The Office - Coffee and Cocaine = caffeine's affect on business quotas
The Simpsons - Beer Coffee = stereotypes of Aussies
Wish I had this coffee maker! = middle American consumerism
Coffee Snobs - snobby hipsters
This is Coffee (1961) = **coffee**
How to make Iced Coffee = what ice is used for
Six million dollar man coffee commercial = commercial/advertising
The Clover Coffee Machine - Hand Built By Stanford Engineers = Engineering
Denis Leary - Coffee = douchebag
How Sherlock Likes His Coffee (Sherlock BBC) = a fictitious characters taste/preferences
Dr. Cox and the Coffee (Scrubs) = flirting
How to make cold brew coffee the homemade way! = how to throw off the shackles of consumerism
Chad Vader Coffee = Star Wars copy right infringement
Austin Powers' coffee mix-up = the old Switcheroo comedy bit
History of Coffee = average joes bid for youtube attention
Join the Coffee Achievers! (Weird1984 coffee ad with Bowie) = commercial/advertising
Mad TV Coffee Maniac = caffeine's affect on Keanu Reeves
Coffee Panda = drinkable art
Charlie Chaplin Drinking Coffee = bowel movements
La recette des cupcakes jamais vus... au tiramisu = Tiramisu
Vodka & Coffee = alcoholics
Latte Art - Swan Lake = drinkable art
How To Cold Brew (COFFEE) = commercial/advertising
How to Pronounce Cappuccino = Linguistics
Strange To Meet You = caffeine's affect on European Directors/Actors
Columbian Coffee Crystals = commercial/advertising parody
Juan Valdez ~ Colombian Coffee 1982 = commercial/advertising
Coffee and the Brain = health benefits of caffeine
Milk With Your Coffee? = how boobies lactate
"The Coffee Wars" - (Mockumentary) = dangers of caffeine addiction
60 Cups, 1 Bald Head = how German scientists are full of shit!
It puts the coffee on its skin... = dangers of caffeine addiction
The Journey of the Coffee Bean = **coffee**

http://videosift.com/video/Coffee-Snobs

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.

>>> You think Obama failed because he wasn't liberal enough, is that correct? I saw no vision, just a clever media-protected imago who freely admitted he acted as a mirror or canvas for everyone to project their ideas onto him. Middle East failures are no surprise. He's an appeaser, his offered olive branch to the turbaned vermin was predictably shoved up his you-know-where.

What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?

>>> It would do more good than fake solar companies. Special thanks to the current idiot Energy Secretary for admitting out loud what the rest of us already knew.

Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded.

>>> Where were you with this warning before the scamulus began (and yes, Bush conceived it but Obama supercharged it).

And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing.

>>> Back to leadership: a real leader can take it. FDR's scamulus was also a failure and revisionist history hides its lack of effectiveness, but at least FDR said of his enemies, "I welcome their hatred."

But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.

It's a tad more complicated than that. Bush Hatred was a daily staple of the libmedia diet and people were naturally disenchanted with negative-only libmedia reporting on the wars. I'm not sure if Bush got the lion's share of the blame for the Follies of '08...he does deserve blame for the initial scamuli, as well as acting like a liberal with a few conservative tendencies.

The seeds of the banking crisis were sowed by government ineptitude and corruption. Few people take huge risks with their own money, so when a socialist government funds a "Free Houses for Poor People Who Can't Afford Them Act" program and promises banks "risk-free" support of loans and investments to do so, people act accordingly.

Europe has European socialism to blame for its follies. Someone's gotta pay for all that free honey, and when there are more freeloaders than worker bees the hive collapses.

May the majority of bewildered voters not be so readily fooled this year, even if it means electing a stiff like Romney. Welcome back stability after His Earness and his planned chaos. And Barney Frank belongs in an orange jumpsuit for his role in the financial crises.












>> ^messenger:

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.
What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?
Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded. And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing. But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^entr0py:
Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/
That's disappointing. College should kill faith. Well, maybe not kill it, but certainly wound it. If you go to higher education for a few years and you aren't exposed to ideas that make you at least question your faith, you and/or your college have failed in your education.


I agree with you, but what you are saying is EXACTLY what doesn't happen. I know many people that hold doctorate level degrees yet they still think creationism is great; even THOUGH the science they (literally) use in MANY instances is BASED on evolution and it working as purposed by many scientists--over a very long amount of time; and the evidence is ONLY getting thicker and higher not falling apart and slimming it's waistline--it's madness. BUT, the key thing here is that all of these people have one thing in common, all of them... They all wanted to learn about THEIR field, but when it came to anything else outside of it--even fields that are directly linked to their fields--it didn't matter, because they are of a single-minded process.

They happen to not be as curious as you or I and of course many other people that even when they learned a lot about what interested them, they realized that there was NO FENCE and that the rabbit hole (as it is said) keeps going. I think many other people have successfully quarantined sections of their life of from other sections. Their mind functions like the CDC and it is why we start ending up with people with seemingly underlying psychological issues like Rick Santorum, as they treat their life like it is literally a world alone unto themselves.

They can hear and see all the information you say, but unless you have gotten their curiosity they will treat it as a contamination and try to find a way to dispose of the information--meanwhile, if they have psychological problems, their brain is actively helping them in their routine.

I've been confounded as well, for a longtime. Like I said if you pay attention the one thing you SHOULD learn from EVERY class you have taken is that the rabbit hole has yet to stop. So it seems like education would in fact drive a wedge between you and any faith as you learn more, the more you should realize how much we still have to learn. It should make your faith seem even smaller than you feel compared next to the Universe if you ask me... Some people must just be too fat and get stuck in their relative rabbit hole.

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.

What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?

Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded. And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing. But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.>> ^quantumushroom:

Pretending or denying Obama's lack of experience and leadership hasn't negatively affected the US economy is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.
Where were statements like this when Bush was being blamed for high gas prices? Nowhere.
Oil prices are affected by the federal leviathan's antics every day. Gasoline is taxed by the government, and although it shouldn't be deciding which industries thrive and which fail, here we have the Amateur and his merry crew losing billions of taxpayer dollars to bullsh1t green solar companies while vetoing the Keystone Pipeline.
Our enemies know His Earness is spineless. You think iran would be playing these games with a real leader in the White House? Or are you going to state that iran doesn't directly control oil prices so it "doesn't count".
And oh yes, what about the scamulus? FAIL.
Whether "fair" or not, the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame. Deal.
>> ^messenger:
How the uneducated make arguments:
1. Pick a random problem in your life.
2. Say your chosen target did it.
3. Repeat until it gains traction.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.>> ^quantumushroom:
Are you enjoying the higher gas prices?

The bullsh1t is so deep around here I thought you'd appreciate skipping the smell test and getting right to it.

So here's to hoping enough people are awake enough not to get fooled again by The One (and Done).

>> ^VoodooV:

Way to continue your long tradition of reasoned, arguments with no ad-hom attacks @quantumushroom.
nope, no trolling here. We're lucky you're here spreading your pearls of wisdom instead of spending your valuable time at more reputable websites like...Conservapedia.

Pretending or denying Obama's lack of experience and leadership hasn't negatively affected the US economy is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Oil prices are not controlled by your government.

Where were statements like this when Bush was being blamed for high gas prices? Nowhere.

Oil prices are affected by the federal leviathan's antics every day. Gasoline is taxed by the government, and although it shouldn't be deciding which industries thrive and which fail, here we have the Amateur and his merry crew losing billions of taxpayer dollars to bullsh1t green solar companies while vetoing the Keystone Pipeline.

Our enemies know His Earness is spineless. You think iran would be playing these games with a real leader in the White House? Or are you going to state that iran doesn't directly control oil prices so it "doesn't count".

And oh yes, what about the scamulus? FAIL.

Whether "fair" or not, the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame. Deal.

>> ^messenger:

How the uneducated make arguments:
1. Pick a random problem in your life.
2. Say your chosen target did it.
3. Repeat until it gains traction.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.>> ^quantumushroom:
Are you enjoying the higher gas prices?

How the uneducated make arguments:
1. Pick a random problem in your life.
2. Say your chosen target did it.
3. Repeat until it gains traction.

Oil prices are not controlled by your government.>> ^quantumushroom:

Are you enjoying the higher gas prices?

According to the Factcheck article, College does challenge individual faiths, because it has a positive effect on people switching faiths. The problem is it doesn't shake faith in faith itself, which is what I think you were talking about.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^entr0py:
Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/
That's disappointing. College should kill faith. Well, maybe not kill it, but certainly wound it. If you go to higher education for a few years and you aren't exposed to ideas that make you at least question your faith, you and/or your college have failed in your education.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I see what you're saying, and that seems plausible on the surface. I could easily see Universities and Colleges just taking "profits" and folding them into projects around the university that don't directly impact their productivity (hey, let's build a new art museum, hey let's build a supercollider, hey, let's pave the walkways in gold...). That way the increased revenues don't show up as profits or even budget surpluses.

But again that speaks to a more general market failure. In a situation like that, competitors should be able to recognize that there's inefficiency, and take it as an opportunity make a profit by opening a competing firm that's more efficient.

This is supposedly the mechanism that punishes firms that grow fat and inefficient -- a more efficient competitor can swoop in, sell an equivalent product at a lower price and make what used to be your profits into their profits.

All this is making me want to go googling for an economic analysis of the drivers in tuition cost increases. Unlike with health care, I can't really think of much that's special about the higher education market that would make traditional market mechanisms break down.

>> ^direpickle:

Universities are like businesses: they like money. Even if they're not stockpiling cash or being 'for profit', they like money. They like to tear down their old buildings and build new expensive ones so that they can get on the covers of magazines. They like to hire prestigious faculty. They like to get money, and they like to spend money.
Even if their fixed maintenance/faculty/staff/utility/etc costs are "low" (which I'd dispute, but even putting that aside), they will always find ways to spend money, and since they continue to have record enrollment rates even with tuition hikes, they'll just continue to raise tuition (and, yes, perhaps hire more professors) until demand stabilizes.

>> ^direpickle:

@NetRunner: Really, the for-pay university system in general is the problem, and the student loan system is a... really shitty offbrand bandaid that left all sorts of cotton and grit in the wound and got it infected. But sure. Call me a libertarian some more!


Sorry, I wasn't calling you libertarian, I know you're not one of those!