Tags for this video have been changed from 'Video Games, Hardcore, Gamer, Gamer Room' to 'Video Games, Hardcore, Gamer, Gamer Room, Collector, obsessive' - edited by oritteropo

"We need the police." ≠ "Police can act as they wish at all times."

"We need the police." ≠ "We must excuse abusive police behaviour."

"We need the police." ≠ "The most important thing is that we take responsibility for our role in causing police to abuse their authority."

"We need the police." ≠ "We must show the police more respect than they show us."

"We need the police." ≠ "We must bend over if they get randy."

Sure we need police, but we need garbage men, postal workers and transit fare collectors too, and I don't think you would extend this tolerance of abuse towards them. Why the special pleading for the police?

Peart, Terry Bozzio, Ginger Baker and Kieth Moon have always been my favorites for sheer energy in execution, improvisation, and texture. John Bonham was fun to listen to and watch, too. Surprisingly, I sat mesmerized by Charlie Watts at this show in 79' in Dallas where the band was Page, Clapton, and Beck all jamming with Entwistle on bass and Watts on drums. He looks like a tax collector sitting there but busts out an incredible envelop of rhythm with the precision of a Swiss timepiece on a minimalist kit.

Leave it to Americans to have a nation wide debate over the logic that "more guns = more gun violence". It astounds me the volume of Americans blindly defending their idiotic right for guns.

I like guns, I think they're cool, but I'm not deluded enough to not know the fact that they are designed for killing! That is their single purpose. They are not a fucking toy (may seem obvious but jesus, so many Americans seem to forget this fact). There HAS to be regulations and very strong restrictions when weapons (remember, their sole purpose is killing) are concerned. There are more regulations and restrictions for owning a car than owning a gun, for fuck sake.

There needs to be regulations like:
You must have licence to own a firearm with different types of licences for different and more advanced weapons, if you want to be a legitimate collector. You must be trained in proper firearm usage and safety and pass a test to get a licence. Maybe even undergo a psyche test if you want things like assault rifles. Every firearm must be registered, then you are responsible for that firearm, and any unregistered firearms should be confiscated and destroyed. Then more advanced weaponry must be stored in something locked and secured.
If you think regulations like these are draconian, you're a tool.

@RedSky, I get what you're saying, but does that mean they shouldn't even bother trying? If they want to fix the situation, they have to start, no matter how long it might take

I can agree it appears sketchy, however I've worked at a collection agency. Truth is they get sued so much and for the most minor mistakes that YES it's a good idea to have the more experienced collectors handle a guy like this.

Your video, A Simple But Effective Way Of Dealing With Debt Collectors., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Very sketchy. Any company scared of being recorded, as company policy, is very, very bad and probably systematically breaking a number of laws.

On the flipside, I've got pretty limited sympathy for a debt ridden unemployed guy still able to be at home watching tv and worrying about running out of recreational drugs sometime soon. I'm reasonably sure no matter where he lives, somebody is hiring even if only for minimum wage. Hard to respect someone's crying the blues about their debt while passing over working the tills at any number of local businesses in favor of staying home and watching tv while smoking up and dodging calls from debt collectors.

This may be the case but it isn't what is going on here.

This initiative is buying distressed debt only, that is, the organisation who gave the loan has decided the cost of attempting to reclaim that loan or the chances of reclaiming a significant amount is futile. So they do sell the actual loan for cheap, to debt collectors, who employ more drastic measures than larger organisations want connected to them. (speculation, I'm not familiar with why these are more attractive to debt collectors).

Rolling Jubilee acts as the debt collector but doesn't collect, it buys the loan and cancels it. Then it hopes these people with cancelled debts, come back and donate a little, now that they have less burden.

That is the general idea, granted when people hear "loan", they think mortgage but this isn't the case here. Rolling Jubilee is unlikely (or never will) enter that area. They will be buying personal loans, medical loans etc. Smaller loans. It is already outlined how better performing loans, such as student loans, are off the table.

However from my understanding, it relies on the IRS remaining co-operative and for the regulations to stay within these bounds that keep it legal and charitable. So the cancelled loans are not counted as profit against Rolling Jubilee, at which point it all crumbles.

It has some merit but it also has a lot of downfalls and it also does jack shit to Wall St or banks, that is misdirected attention to garner support I gather.

(My understanding, could be incorrect)

P.S. Also it should be noted this is hardly for the 99%, it is for a much smaller percentage of the 99% who fail to pay their loans, good loans are not sold off. So really, this is the less troubled 99& bailing out the 99%'s further down on the scale. It basically boils down to a charity, it just abusing some loose regulations.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Granted, I know little about this and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're getting mortgages and mortgage-backed securities mixed up.
The mortgage is a loan. You owe 200,000 on the loan at 4% interest. This is debt.
The mortgage-backed security is a derivative; Theoretically it's a piece of paper whose value is derived based on that mortgage and the credit score associated with it. It's like stock in a company.
When they talk about doing away with debt, that's paying off the mortgage.
When they talk about buying 1,000,000$s worth of mortgages for 50,000$, they think they're also referring to the mortgage, but I'm pretty sure it's actually the leveraged mortgage-backed security. Buying those securities doesn't give you ownership of the loan. There is still 200,000$ that was lent by a bank out there. It doesn't just convert to 50,000$.

Joris Luyendijk - They're just like people (2006)

"
In People Like Us, which became a bestseller in Holland, Joris Luyendijk tells the story of his five years as a correspondent in the Middle East. Extremely young for a correspondent but fluent in Arabic, he spoke with stone throwers and terrorists, taxi drivers and professors, victims and aggressors, and all of their families. He chronicles first-hand experiences of dictatorship, occupation, terror, and war. His stories cast light on a number of major crises, from the Iraq War to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, along with less-reported issues such as underage orphan trash-collectors in Cairo.

The more he witnessed, the less he understood, and he became increasingly aware of the yawning gap between what he saw on the ground and what was later reported in the media. As a correspondent, he was privy to a multitude of narratives with conflicting implications, and he saw over and over again that the media favored the stories that would be sure to confirm the popularly held, oversimplified beliefs of westerners. In People Like Us, Luyendijk deploys powerful examples, leavened with humor, to demonstrate the ways in which the media gives us a filtered, altered, and manipulated image of reality in the Middle East." -- amazon
http://www.amazon.com/People-Like-Us-Misrepresenting-Middle/dp/1593762569

I have no affiliation with the book, except to say I've read it and its amazing. Its brilliant at describing both the Palestinian and Israeli media extravaganza and what both sides do to get on the cover of time magazine. You'll be ashamed of the way our media forms us about the conflict and about the entire region and how wrong we all are.

>> ^bmacs27:

Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.



Hence why I said most.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?


Personally I'm undecided. I think sword deaths and injuries may be rare; I can't find any statistical data on them, which in itself possibly supports that; or they just get thrown in with knives and other sharp objects; and a wholesale banning of sharp things would be highly impractical.

They are practically banned in Japan though; who would have thought?

They are also banned in Washington DC; and in the UK (unless you jump through lots of hoops proving you are a genuine collector).

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?
>> ^L0cky:
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.



I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring specifically to teaching children how to use firearms, which was done by both the NPFL in the Liberian civil war; and pretty much everyone in Mozambique's civil war, and those children (as young as 10) were actually used in the wars.

It's horrifying, and probably a bit of an extreme reference, but my point is we shouldn't need to teach children to use guns in the first place.

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?>> ^L0cky:

This idea of being a collector is providing no justification whatsoever.
In countries where guns are not freely available; people who like to collect things, collect something else. Like stamps, or Star Wars figures.
When the CIA turn up to investigate my nuclear bombs I'll just shrug and say "hey, I like nuclear bombs, so I collect them".
I don't doubt there are people who collect guns because they like them, and they're fun to shoot, and they like their history, and admire their design; the guy in this video is obviously one of them.
It doesn't justify a society with a proliferation of firearms.

This idea of being a collector is providing no justification whatsoever.

In countries where guns are not freely available; people who like to collect things, collect something else. Like stamps, or Star Wars figures.

When the CIA turn up to investigate my nuclear bombs I'll just shrug and say "hey, I like nuclear bombs, so I collect them".

I don't doubt there are people who collect guns because they like them, and they're fun to shoot, and they like their history, and admire their design; the guy in this video is obviously one of them.

It doesn't justify a society with a proliferation of firearms.

lol,
Ya, I'm a crazy star wars fan and collector.
I'm feigning mock disassociation.

I have to agree though, there was nothing special about those Slave Leia clips - I saw those clips many years ago, even have them on an old "behind the scenes" VHS tape I have.

I think people cling to clips like those just for nostalgia's sake.

Growing up with Star Wars, I've been collecting SW stuff ever since. It's an ingrained part of my life. I'm not freaky crazy about it. You'd never know from meeting me but my friends know about the 500 or more Star Wars figures I have still in packages - (oh, and so much more - to my wife's dismay and constant face-palming)

It's not like religion for me or anything just a fun pastime/hobby


In reply to this comment by MonkeySpank:
I honestly can't tell if this was sarcasm or not...

In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
Ya, why are you guys all obsessed with Star Wars - Geez...
>> ^MonkeySpank:

Why is this footage important? Maybe I missed out on that whole Startwars thing. Seen the movies; I still don't get the obsession.

>> ^colt45:

So those 82% are all owning guns for murder or war, then? Let's just take this absurd myopic view one step further: Rocks are dangerous weapons that need to be banned! They are readily available to children and highly dangerous!
>> ^L0cky:
Around 6% of US Americans hunt, yet around 34% own a gun; therefore around 82% of gun owners own a gun for something other than hunting. Bringing up hunting is just avoiding the issue.
Besides, I don't think that guy's UZI is for hunting rabbits.
Also, you don't need to teach children how to safely use firearms if they don't have access to firearms. Kinda like how you don't need to teach them how to safely use a particle accelerator, even though they too are dangerous.


Wow. That definitely made my top 10 list of "Really stupid things that I actually read on the internet".

Seriously, when was the last time a kid accidently threw a rock and blew his friends brains out? Accidently put a hole through their own foot / hand / leg?

Sure, they can be used as a close up blunt damage weapon. However, in order to actually kill someone with a rock, it would generally have to be pre-meditated (i.e. kill them when they're asleep, because if you try to kill someone with a rock when they're concious and healthy, it probably wont go well.)

I can think of countless stories over the years involving some idiot irrational gun owner going out and killing someone they knew nothing about, because they felt threatened. Lately, the one I remember is of Trayvon Martin. You know, the kid shot for eating skittles on a street he didn't live on.

But let's go ahead and get back to the point @spoco2 was making earlier. Rocks have existed since the beginning of time. They serve no purpose, they have no design, or goal. They're simply there.

Guns, on the other hand, were designed as an instrument of death. In no part of the gun design was someone thinking "AND it'll function as a paperweight!". It was just another step further in the direction of long ranged combat, specifically for ending the life of another human being.

That's not to say that everybody who does own a gun has it for the sole reason of killing someone, after all, people still collect swords, axes, fascinating weapons from throughout the ages.

But I can't honestly see the amount of collectors being too high.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I have personally witnessed one murder and one attempted murder, both committed with handguns. I have yet to witness a "defensive" use of a handgun.
There are just too many morons out there, for the number of guns circulating around.

Oh, so since you haven't personally witnessed a gun being used in self defense, it must not happen at all. I personally haven't witnessed a police officer stopping a crime, so why do we need them?

>> ^arekin:

You know taking the deathcows arguments into account (though I don't agree with them), Guns are meant to be fired. The guy only has two arms. I've heard the argument "what about his friends?" If they wanted to fire a gun they probably already have one. So either the guy has to grow more arms or hes just carrying around alot of extra weight.
Buy more clips and less guns.


I like to play video games, but by your logic, one game is enough. Also, stamp collectors, they only have two eyes, so why do they need so many stamps?

>> ^L0cky:
And you want to live in a country where every child is taught how to use a firearm?
I'd prefer a society where my kids play too much video games, so I tell them enough already go outside and play!
I'd rather that than feel like I live in a society where I have to teach a seven year old how to kill people (sorry, defend oneself with a deadly weapon).
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.


No one said anything about teaching a child how to use a gun. You have lots of things in your house that are deadly to kids (knives, chemicals, etc.), and I hope you would teach them that those things are dangerous and not to be played with rather than hiding them and hoping they wont find them. Why would a gun be any different?