It's also important to remember that neither broke businesses nor broke governments can take care of people.

I have run my own business off and on for thirty five years and can honestly say that I have never looked at it with the cynicism I see in the general population. I believe that if we take care of people, both our customers and employees, the dollars will take care of themselves. By the same token, I can't cripple the business by taking care of people or there won't be any business left to take care of people. That is what making a profit is all about; people get taken care of.

The same applies to government. The government which insists on not operating in the black will ultimately hurt the very people it desires to help. Our government simply must get back in the black. And when that tide comes in, all the boats rise. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^Mauru:
How do you call that: "Saved by the bell" For Romney?
To be fair, Obama was playing hugely on his experience there.
I am not a huge fan of Obama, but in this whole debate Romney came across as a bit of a clown. He obviously knows a lot about business stuff but his world-view really is quite skewered as many have suspected.

I think it's important to remember though, a businesses first concern is to make money first, take care of people second. A government's job is to take care of people first.
Hiring a venture capitalist to run a government is a little like hiring a butcher as a dog-walker because he 'knows about animals'.

Pause it right at 00:36, and I don't care how much of a manly man you are, you will still giggle like a five year old at a restaurant with two straws up his nose.

^Upvoted^ Five years old isn't THAT old for a dog, with the right ownership, his *health should improve. I also found his determination & tail-wagging kinda *cute.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'louie ck, five year old, borderline retarded' to 'louie ck, five year old, borderline retarded, chewed up' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, Louis C.K. - Talking to a Five Year Old, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

http://videosift.com/video/Louis-C-K-Talking-to-a-Five-Year-Old

Gonna have to wait five years to find out...
>> ^direpickle:

>> ^My_design:
Excellent writer? He's a decent writer with a nice detailed story. But after the last book, GRRM can gag on a pile of cat feces for all I care. I don't give a rats ass about his opinions after the ending he came up with for his, what I now consider crap, series of books. My only wish is that people had to wait 5 years between seasons of that show! I'm guessing that no one will be watching after every favorite character has been killed off in grand RR Martin form.
What a prick.

Hahaha! Oh, come on. I doubt that that's the end of that character.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Five years and two weeks ago This spectacular thing happened. FIVE FU NG YEARS AGO.

5 !~
like it was yesterday.
What were you doing when you heard of the news of this blunder ?


I'll tell you where I was:
Ten minutes ago this "epic" event wasn't anywhere near in my consciousness.....Now, thanks to your mischievous boredom I am reminded how increasingly embarrassing it is to be white and American.

Five years and two weeks ago This spectacular thing happened. FIVE FU***NG YEARS AGO.


5 !~

like it was yesterday.

What were you doing when you heard of the news of this blunder ?

If you want to change a law, you have to break it.

There are movies/documentaries that are not public domain that have been on here for more than five years, yet VideoSift is still operating. That said, our rules have not been enforced and seem to target individual's rather than videos.

I'm not proposing that we actively hunt and sift full-length movies just to make a point. But if we can sift a scene from a movie -- which is copyrighted -- why can't we copy and paste the embed for its entirety? It's a slippery slope argument that is constantly being redefined.

If the Federales ask dag, or lucky, or me to take a full-length movie down, then by all means I think we should. Furthermore, I'd almost argue against resubmitting another embed of the same movie!

But why not allow us to embed and share until we get a request to cease and desist? That's my point.

Have we been warned, yet? If so, please let us know. If we allow another four or five pages of full-length movies to sift, are we destroying everything we've worked for? I don't want that. But again, the onus should be on the owners, not us, in my opinion.

>> ^messenger:

We've had digital cameras that shoot when the subject smiles for at least five years, so why can't a mech shoot guns when the pilot smiles?


It's doable. The problem is that it's a terrible idea.

We've had digital cameras that shoot when the subject smiles for at least five years, so why can't a mech shoot guns when the pilot smiles?

>> ^garmachi:

Avid backpacker here. While I like the idea and support the cause, I probably won't get one for two reasons. First, my routine includes zero electronics while out in the wilderness. I do bring my phone, for emergencies, but I leave it powered off. Usually I'm someplace with no signal anyway. Second, it costs four times what I paid for my pocket rocket five years ago.


It's also 33 oz. Kinda heavy, considering you don't have to carry fuel.

Avid backpacker here. While I like the idea and support the cause, I probably won't get one for two reasons. First, my routine includes zero electronics while out in the wilderness. I do bring my phone, for emergencies, but I leave it powered off. Usually I'm someplace with no signal anyway. Second, it costs four times what I paid for my pocket rocket five years ago.

Damn, I was hoping to be the first one to comment meaningfully about this subject: seems I came up short (zing!).

I am circumcised. My lady friend and I (who have been together more than five years) have discussed at length (oh! I'm too good) whether I would want a son of mine to be cut as well, so I have mulled this over quite a bit.

Being a nonsuperstitious man (read: nontheist), the only consideration on side of cutting my offspring is that moment in the shower when he is two years old and he asks, "Daddy, why are you different?" (Heading off those who do not yet have children in the close family, I should say that bathing at such a young age with the older crew is not uncommon no matter what your culture.) For a son to see that he is truly, physically different from his old man is probably quite a shock.

Here is the bottom line: I have ZERO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER telling my son that I was cut because of a superstition; that my penis looks the way it does because of a superstitious bond between my parents and their imaginary friend. I am in fact quite excited to tell my young man that there was a time when this kind of thing was necessary so that people could feel closer to whatever it was they thought made the universe. I am excited because it will engender in him the same cynicism that took me more than a decade to discover.

My own father was born and raised Catholic and went to Jesuit schools from pre-K to law school. As Jesus-loving and God-fearing as he was on the surface, he made sure to let me know the barbarism is barbarism. To imagine that genital mutilation is part of a legitimate religious commitment is so far out of whack with current legal and cultural norms. Fuck circumcision and all its superstitious implications.