Your video, Motorcycle Racer Averts Disaster With Impressive Save, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm a tolerant person and I hate racism, but there are very few things in the world that boil my piss as much as fucking pikies. What a bunch of assholes. Their whole way of life seems to revolve around a great big fuck you to everyone else.

Lucky for you, then, "pikey" is a derogatory term for poor people. Racism averted!


It may be where you come from, but here it's a pretty specific term for exactly this type of person. You try living near this sort of shit and see how tolerant you can be. I use the term because it differentiates these morons from the peaceful travellers they claim to be. The travellers do exist, but these guys are pikies.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I'm a tolerant person and I hate racism, but there are very few things in the world that boil my piss as much as fucking pikies. What a bunch of assholes. Their whole way of life seems to revolve around a great big fuck you to everyone else.


Lucky for you, then, "pikey" is a derogatory term for poor people. Racism averted!

And that last comment got downvoted. I am not against nuclear power. I am against the thinking that they can continue to not be investigated properly and lower the inspection standards in very obvious ways, and continue to think that the nuclear operations in the US would be allowed to continue operating if something happened.

As soon as it happened, all the plants would be investigated and if they let their upkeep of the planet lax in obvious "real problem" ways...the anti-nuclear movement will have them.

It's just stupid to have a watchdog that can't watch and operations that are not held up to standards of operation that would at least give them some hope of averting a uncontrolled reaction. It's making the whole industry look like the fearmongering against them is correct.

Why not insist on higher standards of inspection to alleviate it? If the people want higher standards and more checking, let them get it. What does it hurt to have your plant get a more thorough inspection if you are doing things right? And if you aren't, or your facilities aren't going to last 10-15-20 years.....who does it serve if you don't find that out until after it fails?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to expect corporations providing power to comply with, and that the people should demand. Avoiding it for a few more years of profit would HOPEFULLY prevent that company from ever getting permits to operate again.

Yep, change happened in the Auto Industry:

"As part of the 2009 restructuring of GM, the Obama administration insisted that “innovative labor agreements” be put in place at factories building small cars. The UAW pushed through, without a vote by local union members, a provision that allowed 40 percent of the workers at Lake Orion to be paid tier-two wages. The deal also opened the door to hundreds of even lower paid contractors."

Just how much are those tier two and three wages? I hear you ask.

"Not only has the UAW sanctioned second-tier wages of $16 to $19 an hour—little more than half of what traditional workers earn. It has also opened the door to a third tier of contract workers who earn as little as $9 an hour, with no medical or retirement benefits."

and

"In the present situation, however, rather than defending workers, the UAW is functioning as a cheap labor contractor. So thoroughly has the UAW reduced wages that American automakers are now boasting they can produce cars as profitably in the US as in Mexico, China or other low-wage countries."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/linc-d14.shtml

Depression averted: To an extent this is true, however it was averted without fixing the mechanisms by which it happened in the first place, and America is on the path to bankruptcy at the rate it is accumulating debt. In the short term you can fix just about any economic problem you want by printing and borrowing money, but in the long term you need to have a way of repaying your debt, I'm not aware of such a plan.

Iraq war ended: His promise was that ending the Iraq war would be the first thing he would do as president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g
And while the official war is now over, the US of A has an embassy in Iraq the size of the Vatican city, costing ~$3.8 billion this year (the most expensive in the world) and they still have around 16,000 people involved in the 'diplomatic effort', the majority of which are private security contractors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/#.TytXO1z9PUc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-usa-diplomats-idUSTRE7BH04B20111218

Looking at the bigger picture, the total defense budget, magically, despite the 'end of the Iraq war' is going to remain at similar levels, with projected spending of just under $700 billion for the next 4 years. This is of course because while you shrink your Iraq footprint, you increase it in other areas such as the Asia-Pacific.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1103bm47s1.pdf

This also doesn't take into account the spending that makes it's way to the military through other channels such as emergency funds, special projects etc. In fact more than half of every tax dollar is currently going towards military expenditure according to this:
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going-to-the-military

Bin Laden dead: apparently, not really worthwhile debating this as afaik there is no proof he's been killed and no proof he wasn't.

Same sex marriage: The DADT repeal was a good change, however at the Federal level same-sex marriage is still not recognized, not that I can criticize this, it's the same in Australia.

Anyway, that's my 2c, as usual, feel free to criticize.

didn't know who this guy was... I watched the first 15 minutes before stopping.. this guy is nuts.

... then I looked him up on ye old wikipedia.. yep, he's nuts.

Not that a WW3 isn't in the realm of possibility. An open conflict with Iran involving Israel may very well devolve in a nuclear clusterfuck, there are crazy people with their fingers on the button.

That said.. saying the impeachment of Obama is the only way to avert an otherwise unavoidable thermonuclear war is just stupid. I'm not Obama's biggest fan, but *IF* there is to be such a war, I don't think we'd be safer with a republican president...

Get yours cargo container while you can. The collapse of America will start in 2013.
From Business Insider:
A) The Bush tax cuts on those making more than $200k will expire.
B) The Bush tax cuts on those making less than $200k will also expire.
C) The Patch on AMT will expire.
D) The 2% payroll tax holiday will expire for all workers on 12/31/12 (I’m sure the current holiday will be rolled for another year)
E) The 99-week extended unemployment benefits die on 12/31. (The emergency benefits will also be extended for 2012)

F) There will have to be a budget that is approved. Alternatively, a series of continuing resolutions is required to avert a government shutdown. We have not had an approved budget in over 900 days.

G) 2013 is the first year that there will be mandatory caps on discretionary spending. These limits will result in a YoY decline in government spending.

H) The Federal Reserve has promised to keep interest rates at zero into 2013. While it is possible that the Fed could continue the madness for even longer, the reality is that interest rates have nowhere to go but up.

I) By January 2013 it will be painfully evident that the country’s key social programs, Social Security and Medicare will be running in the red at a pace that is far higher than anyone considered possible. The need for dramatic changes in these programs will have to come onto the table. The implications of this will be significant.

J) In 2013 the issues of Fannie, Freddie, FHA and the Federal Home Loan Banks must be addressed. The problems at the housing agencies has festered too long.

K) The country will face another debt ceiling extension. The last time cost us our AAA.

L) At some point in 2012 economic events (Probably Europe) will force the Fed into yet another round of QE. More LSAP and another increase in the Fed’s balance sheet. But when completed the Fed will have fired it’s last bullet. QE-3 will not achieve any better results than QE-1 or 2. The policy will be discredited as it achieves nothing positive and causes inflation. There are no credible options left for the Fed to fight the slowdown that HAS to occur when the effects of A – K are felt.


America looks like Mexico of the 70’s – 90’s. The last election cycle brought us the biggest economic crisis in 70 years. The next election will be no different. Dozens of landmines have been planted. They are timed to go off in 2013. Some may be fixed, others kicked further down the road. However the odds of the country addressing all of the things that have been programmed to explode is, in my opinion, close to zero. One or more of these things is going to trip us up. There are too many big issues to confront.

The end message is that people are going to purchase these drugs at cut costs just to stay ahead in the marketplace. The real evil is the lack of monitoring of these companies? I am thinking it is the cost of the drugs in the first place that drive people to put themselves at personal risk.

Awesome vid. Those dudes in the suits were cool too. Glad to see the "public health crisis" of Bob from accounting turning into a giant mutant was safely averted.

Modern medicine is extremely effect, especially when compared to none, for every vegetable hooked up to life support there are thousands of people who would otherwise be unproductive that have had their productive years extended. I don't view medicine as unnatural for people because it is an extension of our natural ability to understand and manipulate our environment. Just as regulation is something we can use to manipulate the market to avoid undesirable situations while allowing for continued prosperity.

That is not to say we always regulate properly or fairly, or that everyone in the market benefits equally. The problem with the bailouts was while they averted catastrophic consequences for the majority of people, and inconvenience for the richest.

And therein lies the crux of the problem, the people with the most, those who really created the problem are nothing more than inconvenienced, even if they lose millions they still have enough left to live comfortably, while the average worker who had little to do with the with the shifty policies suddenly have nothing. Further more there are many who benefited greatly by the practices proving if you've got the right acumen, or at least that's the illusion, you can make a lot of money.

Do the majority of people share some blame for what happened, of course, but when you look at who suffers and who had the most to do with the unscrupulous practices, those who had the least to do with it suffer the most. Those who have the most control suffer the least, or worse come out for the better, so why should they change their practices?

And that's why I think regulation has its place, when properly applied it acts as a deterrent for those who would otherwise have little to lose from unscrupulous practices, and gives those who have little control some method of petitioning for change.

As I said before I agree with you in that our regulations piecemeal conglomeration of polices that rob each other of efficacy. However I feel in free market situation you describe the people with the least amount of control suffer the most and the wealth continually gets concentrated in the hands of fewer ad fewer.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Regulation, in my natural selection analogy, is like modern medicine: It can sustain companies that should be dead, making those invested in the company happy but having negative effects on the system as a whole.

When the bailouts were fresh news, there were a lot of cries that the free market didn't work. In truth, the free market was working. Those banks had unsustainable practices and they were going down because of it. Would it have been catastrophic when they failed? Yeah. But the recovery process would have started then and there and any banks still standing would have had good reason not to repeat the others' mistakes. Instead the government propped them up and they are back to fucking us.

The auto industry situation isn't much better. Regulation imposes tariffs on foreign cars that get passed on to us in the price. Why? Because American cars suck ass and can't compete on a level playing field. Even with the deck stacked in their favor, the big 3 tank anyway. The government bails them out because of some misguided sense of national pride. They justify it with talk about lost jobs, but it's all nonsense. The demand for cars doesn't go down because car makers go out of business, people who would have bought from the big 3 just have to buy from someone else now. Toyota already employs more Americans than the big 3 combined. The textile manufacturers see no change in business volume as the other car manufacturers increase production to fill in the gap left by the big 3.

Let them tank. Let the jobs migrate. Let failed companies stand as examples to the rest.

I really feel like people are somewhat spoiled. They're no longer willing to see or endure anything "bad", but the old and sick must die to make way for new life, both in nature and in business, and things can get real ugly when you try to stand in the way of that.

I don't think everyone needs to be professionals at any level of market freedom. Even the most ignorant person knows they're being screwed at some point and there's nothing that says the free market can't contain professional advisers and watchdog groups.

What I think government's biggest role ought to be is enforcing a level of transparency so that we all have legit information to make our decisions on. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed on all food items. Some people don't pay any attention to it, but it's there. I'd like to see that sort of thing everywhere.

@Peroxide, it is your right to call other people imbecile because they say something other than "you are right, I agree 100% with everything you say."

However it appears to me that you guys are talking about two different things. @robbersdog49 is making a mild observation from his or her own way of looking at the world.

Is there some way this impending flameout can be averted? I hear you peroxide. You make good points. Robber is making a different point. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Shall we meet for tea and cookies? Maybe we can see that really there is a great deal of agreement here, once you know the topics are completely different.

I feel so old...

>> ^razzyl:

>> ^hpqp:
promote this delicious Sailor Moon parody!

I only wish it was just Sailor Moon.
Here in Osaka I can't get through the day without my daughter bouncing off the sofa, re-enacting a transformation scene in one of her shows.
This one's currently her favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28c0Bj-SBtU
I usually avert my eyes lest I go into seizures.

>> ^hpqp:

promote this delicious Sailor Moon parody!


I only wish it was just Sailor Moon.

Here in Osaka I can't get through the day without my daughter bouncing off the sofa, re-enacting a transformation scene in one of her shows.

This one's currently her favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28c0Bj-SBtU

I usually avert my eyes lest I go into seizures.

@dgandhi

You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Re: "state of nature" is a well developed concept, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

Re: The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

Citation please.

Re: You say this, but what do you mean?
I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.
Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

Re: The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!

Re: Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Think again.

Re: Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.


Okay, one at a time then(again):

"objectivism" is a ref to the content, It is in quote because Rand's name for her ideology is a troll, and should not be taken seriously, it is relevant to the vid in that the vid describes an ideology indistinguishable from Rand's.

marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces" is a ref to the bit that starts at 1:45, that claims legitimacy on the same grounds as Marx, except that the basis of the claim is false, because nothing in the modern world is not already owned.

Objects existing in a "state of nature" is a necessarily prerequisite for the ability to own your work, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

>> ^marbles:
False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels.

This video was not made pre-Marx. The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

>> ^marbles:

Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

I am not quoting the video at this point, I am referencing the video, there is a difference. I am also using reasonably clear names for positions the video creator takes, not typing out a transcript.

>> ^marbles:
Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property.

You say this, but what do you mean?

I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.

Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

Sometimes people decide not to mess with each other, they form a society and grant each other contractual rights that serve their best interests as they understand them.

Fee simple property is one of these arrangements where a group of people agree to protect privileged access to some resource to particular people, this too is only a right by contract.

The Randian trick of trying to conflate the contract with the fact, and somehow make it universal and immutable, is cute in its naivete, but really has no basis in reality.

The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

>> ^marbles:
False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.


Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

>> ^packo:

>> ^deathcow:
I think people should blindly trust pharmaceutical companies. All the modern products you see on TV every night are really improving the lives of insurance company executives. For profit health care systems are looking out for you.

and never would the government be in bed with them by creating a scare over an epidemic that can averted by regular washing of hands, just so the government is "forced" to buy a whole bunch of vaccinations... nope, never... i means there's other ways to finance campaigns to stay in office, so you can spend 30-70% of your time meeting with the lobbies who paid your way into power



Excellent points. Please join with me in voting for any republican or democrat in 2012.