I like cupcakes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fox, moon, bill nye, global warming' to 'fox, moon, bill nye, global warming, climate change, cupcakes' - edited by xxovercastxx

He was way off on cupcakes. They don't cool off faster than cake because they are tastier than cake. Just sayin.

I love how Bill Nye had to break it down into cupcakes so this moron could understand! Then right after Bill says "if you wanna get into mathematics and algebra"...woah there Bill Nye....remember, youre on FOX!

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.
For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).
So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.
This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?


Not really.

If all state-influences (regulations and subsidies et cetera) to all businesses are gone, how can a small competitor then compete with a larger competitor? (I'm working under the presumption that there had not been a null-setting of all capital.) Would the large competitor not be able to be more efficient and therefore cheaper? Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulatet environment)

>> ^DerHasisttot:

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?


I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.

For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).

So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.

This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?

>> ^marinara:

do mexicans have rosy cheeks? i doubt it


Those aren't rosy cheeks... those are smear marks from pink frosting covered cupcakes!

Baby = delicious bite-sized cupcake.

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

Would you like some cupcake with your icing rose?

It's like watching ninjas bake cupcakes.

Was an unemployed student.

Now, I'm sportin' the title: Cupcake Delivery Boy.

W00T!

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.
What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on! <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake? <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.


Touchy.

Your opinions are valid about revisionism, even if you can never prove them. They are yours, so keep them and try to explain them. I simply would rather have a debate of reason, something none can do while calling each other names, than a click of a down-arrow and you occasionally saying somehting like, "You are wrong Law, you take the pussy way out and do not blame religion at all."

I do not mind a downvote, in fact I have been downvoted by many and am fine-as-peach-wine with those downvotes---but when they grow to "Oh, another downvote by, I wonder who? Oh, its Animals again, surprise surprise," I stop finding it amusing.

I was not even offended by you at first, and took many of your downvotes casually.

Further, I only bolded "Every" because bold is a function on the sift and just like a "downvote," I think it should be used more often. Thanks for unintentionally pointing that out Animals! Learn to get over it please.

Oh, and I clearly stated that blaming religion for every woe was a dying horse on the Sift. I congradulated and congradulate the entire Sift again.

Addionally, I clearly stated that I was using hyperbole(I.E using hyperbole) when I was making the assertions about you "Downvoting ALL," my comments. That makes the statements satire, like the comedy Lewis Black uses... And since I stated they were blown outlandishly out of proportion, everyone knew they were intentionally ficticous. In short, I did not lie, nor did I insult you with a personal attack---I made a clear joke. Kind of like when you were joking (I assume) and called me an "impertinent, lying fuckstick." If you were not joking there, I am sorry I assumed you were; however, I would like you to prove that I am indeed a "fuckstick." And since fuckstick is a made up word, good luck with that.

Also, since we are speaking of Sift Talk and being 100% accurate, prove to me where I am actually a "cupcake" as you stated. The definition of cupcake follows;
"1. a small cake, the size of an individual portion, baked in a cup-shaped mold.
2. Older Slang .
a. a sexually attractive young woman.
b. a beloved girl or woman." (Dictionary Reference)

This is, by definition, the equivilent of calling me a transvestite (Although there is nothing wrong with being a transvesite, I am not a transvestite,) and I would like veryfiable evidence that I am indeed a woman in a man's body. Either that, or you were calling me a food product, which I doubt I am.

After all, since we want to be 100% correct in ALL statements, get back with me on that. Either that, or you lied, and never made it clear you were joking. Which makes them lies.

Threats aside (I find them amusing) it seems, with your diatribe, that you took far more offense to my comments than I to your downvote. Because I am so offense, I am stopping here. Lawdeedaw out.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.


You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.

What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on!

"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake?

Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.

>> ^Shepppard:

Infact, upon more investigation on this woman, she doesn't deserve any of the infamy this video is giving her.
She throws a hissy-fit if something doesn't go right and yells at the performer or tech that screwed up (infront of the entire audience) and then makes them start over.
She also ridicules her audience. There was a video I saw of her telling one man in her audience "Do you have a problem? want to discuss it? Sir, you should leave the theatre if you don't want to be part of this performance. I will fuck you up. Would you like a cupcake? would you like a dvd sir. would you like me to suck your dick? [she starts the music again] fuck off."
"On stage, Ann Liv Young has rolled around in her dog’s ashes, had sex with her co-stars, covered herself in blood, drank urine and attacked a PETA activist. Off stage, she has given the audience lap dances"
She also included her 4 day old daughter in one of her performances, having her sit on stage during the entire show.
This woman doesn't deserve any merit for being an artist.


Ooooh, but she made you angry and challenged your sensibilities! That means she's a great artist!

Infact, upon more investigation on this woman, she doesn't deserve any of the infamy this video is giving her.

She throws a hissy-fit if something doesn't go right and yells at the performer or tech that screwed up (infront of the entire audience) and then makes them start over.

She also ridicules her audience. There was a video I saw of her telling one man in her audience "Do you have a problem? want to discuss it? Sir, you should leave the theatre if you don't want to be part of this performance. I will fuck you up. Would you like a cupcake? would you like a dvd sir. would you like me to suck your dick? [she starts the music again] fuck off."

"On stage, Ann Liv Young has rolled around in her dog’s ashes, had sex with her co-stars, covered herself in blood, drank urine and attacked a PETA activist. Off stage, she has given the audience lap dances"

She also included her 4 day old daughter in one of her performances, having her sit on stage during the entire show.

This woman doesn't deserve any merit for being an artist.