@NetRunner. Did I say that? Violent degenerates once rich and industrious? There you go again with your narrative.

Go spew that bile on DailyKos. You won't find an audience with me. Throbbin and I are having a civil conversation over here.

@blankfist, you mean to tell us Native Americans on reservations were once rich and industrious, but welfare checks turned them into poverty-stricken drug-addicted violent degenerates?

I'm only talking about who is successful, not who any of us think is funny (Leno, The Wayans are successful, but they're not the least bit funny). Some funny, attractive comediennes exist, I'm sure, somewhere, but there's not one to challenge Pryor or Williams or Murphy or Wright or Rock or Cleese or Carrey in terms of success and popularity. I could even include unfunny "comedians" like Dane Cook, and there still isn't a woman on the horizon. Even the "biggest names" like Degeneres or O'Hara still aren't in the same league. Lucille Ball is about the only one I can think of who has ever had that kind of sustained massive popularity.

>> ^messenger:

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:
It's about power.
A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.
Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.
Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.


I know it's conceited of me, but i somehow feel proud that this isn't true in my case..

For example, none of the women you listed as funny do i find funny. There's several over here that i've seen on QI and HIGNFY and mock the week that i've found very funny, and they're also really hot imo. True i can name more funny men than funny women, but i suspect that's not my fault specifically.

Maybe this says something about me feeling more comfortable with a woman in charge? Ahem..

Edit: Oh yeah, and i'm a straight male. Just thought i'd mention that for teh analysis.

>> ^dag:

Choggie- as we've previously discussed, your return to VideoSift was predicated on the condition that you would adhere to the rules of the community. Over the past few weeks I've noticed a degeneration towards the old pre-ban Choggie with increased racial slurs and personal attacks.
You've been on Sift probation during this period and unfortunately, I don't think it's working out.
You are hereby suspended from VideoSift.
In reply to this comment by choggie:
BT??...Downvote comments but respond in a fashion more fitting a mouth-breather....You have come down from the trees??...I mean, yer people have...Right???


thats gay

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

Choggie- as we've previously discussed, your return to VideoSift was predicated on the condition that you would adhere to the rules of the community. Over the past few weeks I've noticed a degeneration towards the old pre-ban Choggie with increased racial slurs and personal attacks.

You've been on Sift probation during this period and unfortunately, I don't think it's working out.

You are hereby suspended from VideoSift.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
BT??...Downvote comments but respond in a fashion more fitting a mouth-breather....You have come down from the trees??...I mean, yer people have...Right???

>> ^messenger:

Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.


Except... Sarah Silverman, Wanda Sykes, and a slew of ones I can think of here in Australia, but you wouldn't know over there...

I think it just comes down to them being funny... There really aren't anywhere near as many good female comedians as male, but also think about your circle of friends and the 'funny ones'... I bet they're almost always male.

And, as said on this clip, a lot of women do the shtick about 'being a woman'... compared to GOOD comedians who have no 'topic' to their comedy, but range over everything.

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:

It's about power.

A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.

Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.

Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.

Lol, Ellen Degenerate, she must hate her parents. Also *dyke channel.

Your video, Family Feud - Ellen Degeneres Category Fail, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Ellen DeGeneres speaks out about the Lawrence King murder. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I am just commenting on a few cases I know for sure are happening and have been happening for many years. My personal experience and what I see people whom I know are on government assistance doing.

As for proving it with statistics, many of these people on the government subsidies fill out forms improperly or change information on the forms they submit from their landlords to the government. I have also seen this when my grandmother had rental properties, they would ask for them back so they could mail them, instead of having her mail them. One time my mother typed up her response, and the renter who lived next to my grandmother...was asking for a typewriter. Never asked for one before or since, just when that one piece of paperwork had been typed.

So how can one accurately find statistics on how much people deceive or change their living situations to benefit more greatly from the system? Do they have a check box on forms that says "I divorced my wife and refuse to pay child support so she can draw a government subsidized check for rent on my children, and get them into medicaid?"

It's enough that I've seen multiple cases like this over the last 10-15 years.

This bill could help the middle class greatly, because it's impossible to say how it'll get twisted around and massaged to make it work "better" for corporate interests or what loop holes have been overlooked in it's creation and re-examination.

And really middle class is a pretty broad term, a lot of people like to classify themselves as middle class. In this "middle class" range people go from being 10k above the poverty line to pulling down 250k or more. So sure if you're barely above poverty, YOUR middle class will be subsidized. But if you're pushing the upper limits of middle class and spend your time worrying about trying to avoid taxes, YOUR middle class probably won't be sudsidized much if at all.

Middle class is such an ambiguous term, I couldn't even find a definition that meant anything from a discussion standpoint.


>> ^longde:

I'm willing to talk about your anecdotal cases, but please back them up with statistics. How many people are like this, and how much of our budget goes to subsidizing them? I don't think it's much in either case.
It's baseless to say working people were and are getting screwed. This bill for instance, helps the middle class greatly.
The american middle class is much more subsidized than the Tea or Republican parties would have us believe. >> ^Porksandwich:
I have to say that Grayson's proposed bill to allow people to pay into Medicare is interesting. It's not as if the US gov hasn't spent the time and effort into setting up a healthcare network like every other health insurance company has, IE Medicare. So allowing people access to what they have been and still are paying for is not crazy hard to understand. We already spend the money for the agreements they make with the hospitals and providers, so why can't they just allow people to trickle over to Medicare if people choose to? I suspect it has something to do with keeping insurance companies in business.
All I know is for the last two years minimum, the economy has obviously been down. And maybe 3 years ago it was starting to get to those levels. In that same period of time, my insurance premiums jumped up each year. This last year, it went up by nearly 50 percent. I pay out of pocket for it, and if I looked into it I would probably be in the realm of receiving government assistance at this point. But I'm trying to keep it coming out of my own pocket. The silly thing about it all is, I pay these outrageous premiums and I can't afford to get any tests done besides really simple blood tests the doctors want every so often. If I didn't have to cover the premium costs, but could get in on the pricing deals Medicare/other insurance companies had.......I could have the tests done with the money I would have been putting toward premiums. I've had to stop getting treatments in the last couple months for allergies because of the out of pocket costs on top of the new and improved monster premiums (even after I raised my deductible, etc).
Now I know for a fact there are people out there who've been on Medicare/SSI/Medicaid/Welfare/Whatever government program gives out money, who are 50 something years old and have been on it since they were 15. Worked an actual job very little in their lifetime, and have drawn a pretty sizeable check (more than someone would typically draw on unemployment at the lower end). So these people choose not to work at all, have the government cover most of their health care costs, live in a rental property most lower income working stiffs would find quite nice, and still afford to go out to the casinos every week and grab a steak dinner every week or so as they gamble away their government check.
And there are people out there who just want to be able to get treated so they can keep their job/house/whatever. And the government officials can't figure out a way to make it so working people can suffer a little less, but they can provide all of the above for people who don't work at all. It's a pretty fucked up situation, and all these welfare recipients get together and figure out ways to get more government money via divorce, custody, and other legal loop holes other people wouldn't even think of doing. And that's just the legal stuff, then you get into the welfare/medicaid guys who are getting drugs on the government dime and selling em for cash outta their welfare paid for houses.
So if you're not well off job wise, and completely unwilling to be a degenerate milking the system even though you could work......you get fucked.

I'm willing to talk about your anecdotal cases, but please back them up with statistics. How many people are like this, and how much of our budget goes to subsidizing them? I don't think it's much in either case.

It's baseless to say working people were and are getting screwed. This bill for instance, helps the middle class greatly.

The american middle class is much more subsidized than the Tea or Republican parties would have us believe. >> ^Porksandwich:

I have to say that Grayson's proposed bill to allow people to pay into Medicare is interesting. It's not as if the US gov hasn't spent the time and effort into setting up a healthcare network like every other health insurance company has, IE Medicare. So allowing people access to what they have been and still are paying for is not crazy hard to understand. We already spend the money for the agreements they make with the hospitals and providers, so why can't they just allow people to trickle over to Medicare if people choose to? I suspect it has something to do with keeping insurance companies in business.
All I know is for the last two years minimum, the economy has obviously been down. And maybe 3 years ago it was starting to get to those levels. In that same period of time, my insurance premiums jumped up each year. This last year, it went up by nearly 50 percent. I pay out of pocket for it, and if I looked into it I would probably be in the realm of receiving government assistance at this point. But I'm trying to keep it coming out of my own pocket. The silly thing about it all is, I pay these outrageous premiums and I can't afford to get any tests done besides really simple blood tests the doctors want every so often. If I didn't have to cover the premium costs, but could get in on the pricing deals Medicare/other insurance companies had.......I could have the tests done with the money I would have been putting toward premiums. I've had to stop getting treatments in the last couple months for allergies because of the out of pocket costs on top of the new and improved monster premiums (even after I raised my deductible, etc).
Now I know for a fact there are people out there who've been on Medicare/SSI/Medicaid/Welfare/Whatever government program gives out money, who are 50 something years old and have been on it since they were 15. Worked an actual job very little in their lifetime, and have drawn a pretty sizeable check (more than someone would typically draw on unemployment at the lower end). So these people choose not to work at all, have the government cover most of their health care costs, live in a rental property most lower income working stiffs would find quite nice, and still afford to go out to the casinos every week and grab a steak dinner every week or so as they gamble away their government check.
And there are people out there who just want to be able to get treated so they can keep their job/house/whatever. And the government officials can't figure out a way to make it so working people can suffer a little less, but they can provide all of the above for people who don't work at all. It's a pretty fucked up situation, and all these welfare recipients get together and figure out ways to get more government money via divorce, custody, and other legal loop holes other people wouldn't even think of doing. And that's just the legal stuff, then you get into the welfare/medicaid guys who are getting drugs on the government dime and selling em for cash outta their welfare paid for houses.
So if you're not well off job wise, and completely unwilling to be a degenerate milking the system even though you could work......you get fucked.

I have to say that Grayson's proposed bill to allow people to pay into Medicare is interesting. It's not as if the US gov hasn't spent the time and effort into setting up a healthcare network like every other health insurance company has, IE Medicare. So allowing people access to what they have been and still are paying for is not crazy hard to understand. We already spend the money for the agreements they make with the hospitals and providers, so why can't they just allow people to trickle over to Medicare if people choose to? I suspect it has something to do with keeping insurance companies in business.

All I know is for the last two years minimum, the economy has obviously been down. And maybe 3 years ago it was starting to get to those levels. In that same period of time, my insurance premiums jumped up each year. This last year, it went up by nearly 50 percent. I pay out of pocket for it, and if I looked into it I would probably be in the realm of receiving government assistance at this point. But I'm trying to keep it coming out of my own pocket. The silly thing about it all is, I pay these outrageous premiums and I can't afford to get any tests done besides really simple blood tests the doctors want every so often. If I didn't have to cover the premium costs, but could get in on the pricing deals Medicare/other insurance companies had.......I could have the tests done with the money I would have been putting toward premiums. I've had to stop getting treatments in the last couple months for allergies because of the out of pocket costs on top of the new and improved monster premiums (even after I raised my deductible, etc).

Now I know for a fact there are people out there who've been on Medicare/SSI/Medicaid/Welfare/Whatever government program gives out money, who are 50 something years old and have been on it since they were 15. Worked an actual job very little in their lifetime, and have drawn a pretty sizeable check (more than someone would typically draw on unemployment at the lower end). So these people choose not to work at all, have the government cover most of their health care costs, live in a rental property most lower income working stiffs would find quite nice, and still afford to go out to the casinos every week and grab a steak dinner every week or so as they gamble away their government check.

And there are people out there who just want to be able to get treated so they can keep their job/house/whatever. And the government officials can't figure out a way to make it so working people can suffer a little less, but they can provide all of the above for people who don't work at all. It's a pretty fucked up situation, and all these welfare recipients get together and figure out ways to get more government money via divorce, custody, and other legal loop holes other people wouldn't even think of doing. And that's just the legal stuff, then you get into the welfare/medicaid guys who are getting drugs on the government dime and selling em for cash outta their welfare paid for houses.

So if you're not well off job wise, and completely unwilling to be a degenerate milking the system even though you could work......you get fucked.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
Degenerating into the dark ages.

They did this in the dark ages?


Yeah,in the dark ages people were kept at a basic operating level of literacy and critical thinking was frowned upon....not unlike today, keeping the masses distracted by inconsequential bullshit like this, while behind the scenes, preparing for more consolidation of power, control, and empire.

Welcome to the double-aughts.

This is not news, it's fucking rhetoric associated with more distracting rhetoric, like why the fuck a health care bill is more important than the leaky southern borders, banks in collusion with the fed to maintain their ability to commit similar future economic smoke and mirrors, or anything else that would move society fast-forward towards consciousness and self-awareness.

Now that we have a new health care plan, I will continue doing my part to see that myself, and my children, and my children's children, understand how to treat their bodies so they won;t need to avail themselves of band-aids in the form of insulin, pig heart valves, or Bariatric surgery to correct years of self-abuse.