@heropsycho
i appreciate your response but i think i may not have been clear.
the points you are making...and understand i am not attempting to invalidate them, but rather attempting to point out that anecdotal evidence or a media fueled narrative meant to illicit an emotional response does not an argument make.
the actual statistics paint an entirely different picture and that is what i am referring to.in the 80's the narrative was "welfare queens" where they would take a handful of people who abused the system and painted them as being the "norm" when the reality was the exact opposite.
or that the people who bought homes during the housing bubble were somehow mentally deficient while IGNORING the predatory and out-right deceitful practices of mortgage brokers who lied to these people.
the latest narrative has been directed at unions,specifically the teachers union.now we can discuss corruption and abuse of power concerning unions but that is a wholly different subject, because historically unions have dome more for the american worker and middle class than anything else combined.

all these tactics are taken directly from the propaganda playbook:conflate,deflect and demonize.
all to get YOU to view your fellow citizen with a questioning eye and to judge based on the parameters dictated to you based almost solely on disinformation and emotive language.i am just trying to point that out.

here is my anecdotal story for the day:
i have a dear friend,very conservative and religious and gets her news solely from FOX.
her favorite statement is :"we were taught if things get tough you pull yourself up by your boot-straps and get it done"
sounds noble yes?
but the reality is her and her husband were given 25 grand when they got married to buy a house(that BOUGHT the house in those days).she worked only 10 years until she had her first child and then stayed at home (because she could).
every 4 yrs her family would buy a new car for her husband to get to work who happened to work for GM and she collects a pretty penny from his retirement and still qualified for medicaid.

am i upset she was blessed with these things? of course not, but i do find it delicious irony that this woman rages against:unions,social programs and people getting help when they need it, when her own family benefited from the very things she is raging against.

Same here, not just you!
>> ^alien_concept:

Again, why the fucking hell is it blocked in my country the origin of said channel 4, stoopid shit! Luckily I watched this on TV

I agree with what your saying, trust me. But, as I was trying to point out we've, as a species, gone to great lengths to hurt ourselves and negate progress. That is what I was alluding to when I said: "I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... ".

In many cases the "evil" or "good" are a neutral aspect anyway (if you look at it from a evolution point of view). But, evolution also shows why many of the things we consider good are merely evolutionary necessities to survive, i.e. grouping, society, negative impacts on the group by mentally ill group-mates--leading to punishment/exile/or death. This is present in the animal kingdom as well. There have been some recent books covering this very point and they're quite good; if you wish to read one, my advice would be for "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Lastly, I know science will not have all the answers. But, if we can deal with the problems I listed above it will bring us closer to a day with understanding; but, many problems will still be left (as technology gets more advanced, it requires less and less people to cause near fatal problems for cities-->countries-->and then the world. If we can't find a way to fold the people back into society willingly we may ultimately fail. By the mid-point of this century, maybe even sooner, it may only take one scientist with a vendetta or a psychotic break (caused by the mind or drugs) to create a virus that targets human specific genetics--if that scientist can throw in some nano-tech... That might be it.

Or we could end up with nano-bots able to self-replicate in our bodies and provide us with protection from viruses, bacteria, other nanites, and able to give you your daily medication as well.

The future is clearly open-ended right now, but I don't think it's quite as dim as justanotherday postulates. Yet, science and religion in the long-term are most likely completely incompatible. Religion can stay in the background without causing conflicts, but if it's at the core or upfront competing with science they'll always rub each other the wrong way--as they are nearly polar opposite in function and approach.

/Yes, I do think the "Atheist" in the video is a Anti-theist. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he is approaching a solution in the opposite direction that I would suggest (unless the religious leader is like the scientist above in my example: psychotic, mentally ill, etc...).

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I didn't want to derail your conversation there, but as an aside, science has also been a great cause of pain and death. It is has a neutral bias, as I would also see religion. The state of it is largely in the hands of the humans at the helm. We have medicine, but we also have machine guns. We have the United Christian Children's fund, but we also have sexual abusing Fathers.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

White House:
Here are a few highlights:

* There's now a single agency responsible for looking out for consumers: the Bureau for Consumer Financial Protections. Instead of seven agencies dealing with these issues part-time, one agency will be in charge of establishing clear rules of the road for banks, mortgage companies, payday lenders and credit card lenders.
* Mortgage brokers won't make a higher commission by selling people mortgages that they can't afford. This was a major factor in the recent housing crisis. Now brokers and banks have to take into consideration a borrower's ability to repay before giving a home loan.
* You’ll be able to get a free credit score if you’re denied a loan, an apartment, or a job because of your credit, so you won’t be turned down without knowing why. Right now, you get one free credit report a year, but you can’t see your credit score for free, even if a lender or employer rejects your application because you have bad credit.
* No more bailing out banks with our tax dollars, no more "too big to fail." If a company's in trouble because of risky gambles, it will have to liquidate -- and do so before it can take down the rest of the financial system.

>> ^dag:

I'm sorry wait - are you saying that Windows changed a paradigm by inventing a GUI?
I would argue that Apple - yes, has invented a paradigm changing GUI - (again). Flicking to scroll around a capacitive touchscreen all seems very passe in perfect 20/20 hindsight - but so-called smart phones weren't doing it before the iPhone. Have a look at a Nokia or Windows Mobile phone from that era- and it's pretty clear. static icons, optimised for a stylus or control pad, nothing harnessing the power of your finger. The Android phones are very good- I might get one some day - but they owe a debt of innovation to Apple for blazing the trail.
I'm sure that getting a game distributed through EA or Steam would be great, and they may have better terms than Apple - but I'd argue that single hacker working in his basement to make something cool has a very slim chance in brokering a deal with EA or Valve. The App store is making a lot of these single programmers very rich - and I think that's a good, disruptive thing.
>> ^EDD:
>> ^dag:
Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.
Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.

"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.
And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.


Whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis? Hahaha...see what I did there? I said that thing Gary Coleman used to say and now he's dead. Just as dead as the horse you guys are kicking...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm sorry wait - are you saying that Windows changed a paradigm by inventing a GUI?

I would argue that Apple - yes, has invented a paradigm changing GUI - (again). Flicking to scroll around a capacitive touchscreen all seems very passe in perfect 20/20 hindsight - but so-called smart phones weren't doing it before the iPhone. Have a look at a Nokia or Windows Mobile phone from that era- and it's pretty clear. static icons, optimised for a stylus or control pad, nothing harnessing the power of your finger. The Android phones are very good- I might get one some day - but they owe a debt of innovation to Apple for blazing the trail.

I'm sure that getting a game distributed through EA or Steam would be great, and they may have better terms than Apple - but I'd argue that single hacker working in his basement to make something cool has a very slim chance in brokering a deal with EA or Valve. The App store is making a lot of these single programmers very rich - and I think that's a good, disruptive thing.

>> ^EDD:

>> ^dag:
Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.
Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA.

"Changed the paradigm"? What are you smoking, mate? They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the touch screen (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented a new, ultra-popular activity that we use computers for, like twitter or facebook or e-mail (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented the mouse or a GUI like Windows (they didn't). They might have changed the paradigm if they invented MS Office or at least an equal alternative to at least one of its products (they haven't). But a simple rework on an ages-old tablet device which is only becoming popular now because of the brand and the drop in price which they can take very little, if any, credit for? Puhh-lease.
And as for your second argument - try and compare Apple terms for iPhone devs to EA Partners terms or Valve's Steam terms. You'll find that there are few publishers with shittier deals for game and software devs than Apple. And by the way - moving into the social mini-game market isn't exactly "wresting power" from publishers of AAA console and PC publishers like EA.

This kind of action really pisses me off. It is a perfect representation of the Canadian government today. The unpopular minority government manipulates public opinion by any means they can. And shoves through policy after policy that the general public disagrees with. The Canadian political system is not working properly. The leadership of both the conservatives and liberals are US empire expansionist corporate hacks. Canada does not have a unique foreign policy anymore. We were on the right side of things with apartheid at the time, and an honest broker between Palestine and Israel, but not anymore.

Hey Sarah, dont quit your day job! And if you did, don't go in to real estate. Or any other industry that requires 1) Education above 6th grade andd 2) Maturity above a 4th grader. But then, did any expect Sarah Palin to be able to talk on something useful and on the topic? Real Estate people, are typically Republican, but MODERATE Republicans. The stuff her Tea Partiers enjoy will never work to real estate brokers/agents.

I recall a speech Mr. Clinton gave a few years ago, on real estate. While the speech was to help promote a Democrat, he stuck to the topic at hand. He explain the factors, the politics, and enviromental conditions from a politically-neutral stand point. Something a broker or CFP would do.

It doesn't help most Republicans/conservatives that most Americans took advantage of the $8000 tax credit on purchasing a new house last year. Certainly helped the real estate market. Which begs the question: Would you, as a real estate agent vote for the Democrat giving you more business? Or the Republican, who believes the goverment shouldn't be in the business of promoting good work ethics and policy?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mortgage broker stevenage' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by burdturgler

>> ^Ghostly:
"SUPERMODEL Miranda Kerr has come to the rescue of the Macquarie Bank broker whose job is under threat after he was caught on TV checking out steamy shots of her on his work computer."


I didn't even know who Miranda Kerr was until this very moment. He should get paid for this kind of publicity.

"SUPERMODEL Miranda Kerr has come to the rescue of the Macquarie Bank broker whose job is under threat after he was caught on TV checking out steamy shots of her on his work computer."

There are some BIG problem with this video: it either, 1) omits key aspects of the issue (e.g., pressure on brokers and banks to repeatedly cold call & pressure current renters [i.e. potential homeowners] with unrealistic mortgage offers, selling of sub-prime mortgages to prime borrowers [because investors get a higher rate of return for sub-prime loans], and - very importantly - Wall Street's lobby to congress to deregulate lending laws so that Wall Street could create new mortgage products for less-than-prime borrowers or, 2) flat out gets some information wrong (the portrayal of sub-prime borrowers as neglectful or bad people (too many kids & cigarette smoking? really???); especially without informing the audience that most subprime borrowers only defaulted at the 5 year mark on their mortgage, when the monthly interest payment ballooned from 3 or 4 percent each month to 10 to 12 percent each month (an aspect of the mortgage agreement that most brokers assured borrowers would never happen: that by the time the balloon payment was due, that the homeowner could then refinance to a fixed rate at 6-7 percent -- that is if the broker explained that the balloon payment at all (many brokers covered that fact up).

These are key deceptive maneuvers conducted by banks, investors, lenders, brokers -- all in the name of making quick money. THEY were the ones lending, it was their job to properly discern who to and not to lend to; to specifically target people more likely to default and put families already struggling to make ends meet at risk of bankruptcy and homeless just to get a higher rate of return is criminal.

But is the Wall Street broker the master? or the apprentist?

Always two...

What's the difference between Darth Vader and a Wall Street broker?

One's the embodiment of pure evil, bent on the destruction of the weak and determined to take over the entire universe, the other's just a Sith Lord.