theo47 says..

Smart and tolerant include, vandalizing peoples homes because they want Obama out of office? Teachers attacking students because their not Democratic? People making threats of rape to women and their children because they want to get some one in office who don't tax the shit out of honest small and middle class businesses who really want to get people working again? Oh yeah I guess it is, because you all follow the man who's best friends are the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda. And their idea of tolerance is like all Libtards, If you want it a cerian way you'll tolerate those who also want it and if some one wants some thing else you'll tolerate the rape and murder that happens to them for disagreeing.

I bet you Libtards are real pissed now that our own Military that Obama claims to be his Military are standing up saying they didn't join to work on the side of Al-Qae4da.

You Liberals constantly make claims that are so fucking bogus then you watch a video like this and say how it's all the right but during the whole administration you people have been rioting, murdering, vandalizing, talking way more hate then anyone you have blamed for it, shit now you want to run to the Obamaman because you don't like who's playing Batman, you're idea of tolerance is such bullshit you make the real world want to puke. Fuck a liberal, you're all worthless and as far as I'm concerned and really as far as the Bill of Rights and Constitution is concerned you're all traitorous Communist, Marxist, and socialist garbage. There is nothing to be tolerant about you pieces of shit. Oh and in real life I guess you stupid Nazis never have watched Top Gear because I see you're defending their safety using this episode to blame the right (which by the way The real right finds the people on this video as inbread wastes of life as well, almost as much as they find you) and Top Gear UK is always talking about the Democrats and the Liberals getting in they way of every ones lives, just as you do here as well.

If you're a Liberal fuck you and have a nice day you intolerant communist fucking nut cases.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

It may be a bogus scandal, the fact remains who cares? The laws are written by the cunts who run the show-The show is theirs, the president they placed in position is theirs.....Who are they and why are they still breathing and breeding?

I love my country, Americas' the shit- Her government needs a douche that involves blood again-The charlatans with the brass balls the size of Volvos who have run this game on the nation and the world have fucked the planet long enough-Wake the fuck up, take names and inscribe them on bullets perhaps?? The talking about it does shit-Start by not making purchases for anything but food, using gas and utilities sparingly, dump your cable packages and take your fucking heads out if the television-Proactive is to cut-off their money supply AND THEIR MEANS OF PROGRAMMING-Suffer yourselves a bit for a change, real suffering brings real change, everyone on the planet is either worked to exhaustion, too uneducated/uninformed (street-wise included), and too lazy from poisonous foods and habits to be of any effect-Get healthy, body follows the mind-

Uhhh, we need to impeach this fucking cunt on principal alone.

When these suddenly controversial wiretap/monitoring measures were put into place a decade ago, the controversy was based around the fact that they didn't requie a warrant. The Obama admin has added oversight to the process by requiring a warrant.

I hate to go against my fellow lefties on this one, but this is a bogus scandal.

Are you having hot flashes, as well? Cravings for pickles and ice cream? Feel like crying sometimes for no reason at all, or hearing voices in your Wheaties?

Just trying to figure you out. Lots of good and bad info flying around, accordingly spun by the provider's worldview. There exists a fundamental truth here, however, and although it's possible to miss it amongst the din of spin, your position seems to be as ephemeral as your cut&paste cache. The enemy of your enemy doesn't have to be your friend. This isn't just another bogus scandal. I wouldn't even classify it as a scandal. It's much bigger than that. Dystopian future, today. Pick a fucking side already.

Obama says it's bogus. And we can trust him to tell the truth, right?

I don't understand how you think that this is bogus at all. This is the latest abuse from the Patriot act which still exists. The president has reserved the right not only to spy on us but to prosecute those who give small windows in to the inner workings of what is supposed to be OUR government. Diane Feinstein basically threatens Greenwald, who will basically lose everything if he can't keep his sources. His sources will dry up as soon as he is targeted again illegally by the government. It's a serious threat, it's Orwellian as was already pointed out.

Furthermore watch a bit more of that episode and it goes on to talk about the Drone killings of two American citizens. One a radical cleric who was never accused of a crime, murdered by his country. The other his 16 year old son who wasn't even CLOSE to what they say he was. He was just a kid who wanted to go to college in the US after having been born here, and he was murdered.

So I don't see what you don't see about how the Obama administration is fucking awful, and is starting to look even worse than Bush.

Sorry Mr. Fisk, I can't upvote this. This scandal is starting to feel just as bogus as the rest of them.

@eric3579, here is a transcript. So you can get the info without the annoying delivery:


And finally, New Rule: there are scandals, and then there are scandals. And perspective is important. Yes, to explain Benghazi, Susan Rice used talking points. But at least she didn't have to read them off her hand! [graphic of Palin looking into her palm]

Now this week, someone was taken off a cross-country flight in handcuffs for singing "I Will Always Love You" for three straight hours. And that's still fewer times has said "Benghazi". I've seen this woman [Megyn Kelly] say Benghazi on my TV so many times, I don't know if it's a problem with the set, or I'm in an Asian horror movie, and there's a monster named Benghazi.

Congressman and friend of Real Time Darrell Issa is the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, and as most Californians know, he made his fortune in car alarms. And now, ironically, has become a loud, repetitive, but ultimately pointless device that you wish to God someone would shut off so you could get some sleep. (audience applause)

But here's the difference between Darrell Issa and a car alarm. Sometimes when a car alarm goes off, there's an actual crime. I keep looking for the crime here, I feel like Reese Witherspoon arguing with the cop. Why are you arresting me? Susan Rice said "mob" instead of "al-Qaeda"? Obama said "act of terror" instead of "terrorist act"?

Republicans are constantly coming up with these never before stated secret rules, that they only tell you about once you've broken them.

"You don't make important speeches from a teleprompter!"

OK.

"No golfing until we have a budget!"

All right.

"Thou shalt not criticize the President when he's on foreign soil, unless he's a Democrat, of course, then it's OK."

Congressman Peter King thundered that the President was almost four minutes into his first Benghazi statement before he mentioned an act of terror! Ah yes, the four-minute rule. Fuck, how could I forget?!

'Scuse me, Nixon ran a burglary ring out of the Oval Office. Reagan traded arms with terrorists. Bush ginned up a war where thousands died by sending Colin Powell to lie to the UN with props, remember that? He turned an American hero into General Carrot Top! But I let it go. I said this is the business we've chosen.

But please, don't tell me that freedom died because Susan Rice broke the scared bond between citizens and talk shows. In a poll this week, 4 in 10 Republicans said Benghazi is the worst scandal in American history. Second worst? Kanye West snatching the mic from Taylor Swift.

If you think Benghazi is worse than slavery, the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, Tuskegee, purposefully injecting Guatemalan mental patients with syphilis, lying about WMDs, and the fact that banks today are still foreclosing on mortgages they don't own, then your hard-on for Obama has lasted more than four hours, and you need to call a doctor. (wild audience cheering and applause)

And while the press has been occupied with scandal, the biggest scandal, and the most important story of the century so far, happened last week. Scientists reported that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed the long-feared milestone of 400 parts per million. And unless you're a chimney sweep, that's bad news. Because humans have never lived through it.

You think Susan Rice gave bogus talking points about Benghazi? What about the bullshit talking points the entire Republican Party has been spewing on climate change since the 90s? (audience applause)

I wanna see the e-mails to find out who came up with the talking points that global warming is just a theory, and that it needs more study, and climate change is a hoax. The Obama administration isn't dirty, the air is.

I'm sorry, but there are lots of bogus points in here. First of all, no one is arguing that the scope or impact of funded science should be anything less than great. The question is who should decide it. It seems the republicans want to take the awarding of scientific grants out of the hands of peer review, preferring that politicians micromanage the appropriation of research grants. Personally, I think that will lead to an end of basic science. Politicians are bound by their sponsors whom for the most part have an interest in public funding of applied rather than basic research.

This particular research is not about ecology or the environment, or some squishy bleeding heart first world problem. It's about the relative value of sexual and asexual reproduction. This particular snail can reproduce in either fashion, and it raises fundamental questions about when and why sexual reproduction would be preferred. It will likely lead to a deeper understanding of the genetic mechanisms that underlie sexual recombination, and how they relate to the success of progeny. Sounds like it's got some scope to me. The competition for grants is so stiff within science today that it's highly improbable that narrow research aims will be awarded. The fundamental question you need to ask yourself is "should basic science be funded, or should the only funding available be for applied science." My answer is an emphatic yes to basic science. It has proven its value beyond all doubt. Further, I personally feel that the applied work should be forced into the private sector as anything with a 5 year pay off will be funded naturally by the market anyway.

You also sing the praises of defense funding. I agree, many great discoveries have been funded by, say, DARPA. However, break it down by dollar spent. Because the money isn't allocated by peer review, but rather the whims of some brass, I personally don't feel it is efficiently allocated. Our impression when dealing with ONR (for example) is that they had absolutely no clue what they were interested in as a research aim, and had no clue what we were actually doing. They just thought we had some cool "high tech looking" stuff. Further, we as researchers didn't really care about their misguided scientific goals. It was sort of an unspoken understanding that we were doing cool stuff, and they had money to burn or else they wouldn't be getting anymore. All the while, the NIH is strapped with many of their institutes floating below a 10% award rate. Most of the reviewers would like to fund, say, 30-40% of the projects. Imagine if a quarter of that defense money was allocated by experts how much more efficiently it would be spent.

You can stop e-mail notifications by putting a bogus e-mail address in your prefs, or you can ask @dag or @lucky760 to completely disable your account.

Those figures are bogus. This video is a fucking total joke.
Ive got direct family members that have been in the police force since the early 70's....they are not shitkickers, so to speak.

Home intrustion in the period 1996 to 2006 had dropped in HALF (http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf)

In the period 1989 - 2010, gun related murders have MORE THAN HALVED.
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf

FUCK the NRA, and FUCK this video. Nothing but propoganda.

Still waiting for the facts?, its been nothing more than arguments from authority & the gun deaths chart is pure bogus, I.E. bee stings annually kill more US citizens than terrorism thus terrorism is not as important as stopping people getting stung straw-man argument. furthermore, alcohol is regulated, cars are regulated even medical practitioners are licenced - if you went into surgery knowing that your doctor may be one of 40% of unregistered practitioners would you feel safe in that knowledge?.

Here is how easy it is to twist this logic to suit your claim: Since the war began in Iraq there has been 4488 U.S. causalities, comparing this to 11,000 annual gun death's in the U.S. PROVES that being at war is LESS DANGEROUS than merely being at home. This example is how correlation does not equal causation (& if this girl in the video is indeed a psychologist she should know this).

Maybe one aspect of the Mexican gun rate is also the fact that the U.S. with 'the 'Fast & Furious law' actually allowed the trafficing of guns from the United States into Mexico right into the hands of drug gangs in the hopes of stopping the cartels. (But did she mention that?).

What are the stats for mass homicides?, rather than suicides compared to other countries?. and in one breath the speaker said that a gun is the most effective way of killing yourself, and later that regardless of guns the person will find a way to kill themselves regardless of guns which she just stated were the most effective other than hanging or jumping from a height. (& Japan is a collectivist culture with a high population, where the individual is expected to look after their entire family & the government is expected to ensure public safety hence strict gun laws - so it may in fact be due to feelings of being ashamed culturally rather than seeking attention & fame as in individualistic cultures like America.

a gun is not a 'tool', it's a weapon - it has no other purpose than to kill. it's like saying a harpoon is a 'tool'.

No-one is saying its just about A) whether being allowed to own a gun B) or not. it's about as stated in the opening of this video as stated in the 2nd amendment 'A well REGULATED militia or marketplace of guns' and the American gun lobby is definitely not said anything about wanting to strengthen the gun-laws I.E. waiting times, background checks, sales at gun-shows etc.

This video is wrong in all these areas listed from start to finish it has been nothing but misrepresentation calling them facts.

I lost a lot of respect for Chomsky while watching this. He has completely bought into the myth of consensus in the climate science community and seems to actually believe it is only those with a vested interest who do not support the climate scare.

Here are two of my pieces on the 97% of scientists agree" myth:

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/pbs-frontline-climate-change-special-cites-bogus-consensus/

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/like-doren-and-zimmerman-the-pnas-denier-black-list-paper-also-falls-flat/

Here is ICSC's open letter to the UN Sec Gen - are all these people oil-funded deniers. Norm, your statements in this regard are not only wrong, they are not credible:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon
-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition

I'm confused. How is that supposed to address my point? I'm saying I've seen many more girls ridiculed and shamed for "dressing slutty" on halloween than I have seen girls shamed for wearing something more modest. It's frustrating that there is this assumption about the motivations of girls that choose to dress in a particular way. I don't understand how assuming they are dressing to please men is any different from the logic that leads rapists to assume women have implicitly consented based on their dress. The video implicitly makes that assumption. That is, it assumes girls are doing this for externally motivated reasons rather than intrinsically motivated reasons. I've never found that to be the case. Most often the girls enjoy "looking cute" and all of the attention that brings with it. The snarky tone of this video suggests that those somehow aren't valid motivations, and instead self-respecting girls should aspire to some higher set of values. In other words, the video seems to have the agenda of slut shaming. I think that's bogus. Your link is dumb because the girl I was talking about didn't buy her costume. She put it together from her wardrobe, painting the mask and everything. I think the prevalence of "sexy _____" costumes has more to do with market driven realities (i.e. how women like to look) than by some externally imposed patriarchal agenda.

>> ^bareboards2:

http://fucknosexisthalloweencostumes.tumblr.com/
@bmac27