Tags for this video have been changed from 'grease, travolta, dance, tell me more, tell me more' to 'grease, travolta, dance, tell me more, tell me more, college humor' - edited by Boise_Lib

@MonkeySpank

Every time you label things like "communist-founded ACLU," etc., you bring down the entire discourse to poop-hurling and name-calling.

Do you know why I "labeled" it communist-founded ACLU? Because it was!

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

--Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU in 1920, speaking in 1935

I'll ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe in evolution?

>>> A Creator created evolution.

2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?

>>> It's always flawed in the sense that it's run by humans, not angels. Corruption is the grease of democracy; the greater the size of the government, the more tyrannical.

3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?

>>> As much as possible, but I imagine everyone thinks that. Also, sometimes the best way to love your enemies is to end their karma in this lifetime.

4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?

>>> No, but we pay a heavy price for each.

5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10

>>> It doesn't work, so no. Do I believe in helping those who truly need help? Yes.

6) What countries do you like besides the United States?

>>> There are other countries? I like some aspects of some countries. Japanese ninjas, Canadian Shatner, etc.

7) Would you support a war against Iran?

>>> Yes, as needed. You really want to allow nutjobs to have The Bomb? Say goodbye to Nuked York.

Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?

>>> We won those states by winning wars with Mexico. We are all trespassers on dinosaur land.

9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

>>> He's an eloquent speaker.



1) Do you believe in evolution?
2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?
3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?
4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?
5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10
6) What countries do like besides the United States?
7) Would you support a war against Iran?
Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?
9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

Disney made a few movies using this technique in the 60s and early 70s. Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, etc.. I remember finding them all dreadfully boring as a child of the 80s.

Roger Rabbit looked far better and more convincing with much more elaborate integration between the "toon" and filmed elements. The two main innovations are painting all the toon elements with extra passes of light and shadow which were "interactive" with the scene (using animator's eyeballs and elbow grease to figure it out). Also using pupeteers and specially built sets to allow more in-camera interaction between toon and physical elements.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Made me laugh. I remember watching this as a little guy and it being the rage.
Kudos to that movie though, is it not the first of its kind ?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election.

For the sake of argument, let's say your basic point is right and uncertainty about government is the only reason that $2 trillion is "parked," and the people who actually control what's done with that money bear zero responsibility for the damage their choices are wreaking on the economy.

Even if I, for the sake of argument only, stipulate all that as true, why does only Obama bear responsibility for that uncertainty? Using your own logic, if Republicans put the well-being of the country before their own ambition, they would restore certainty by a) dropping their suit against the ACA, and b) letting Obama run unopposed in the 2012 election.

Certainly that would restore "certainty" to the markets.

Now, if what you really meant was that the so-called "job creators" are intentionally fucking over the economy in order to a) put pressure on the SCOTUS to rule against the ACA, and b) try to get a Republican into the White House, why is Obama the villain in your story? Clearly if that's the case, then these people formerly known as job creators are actually terrorists who deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
>> ^quantumushroom:
It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

Right, if it weren't for the government, corporations would be free to collect their own taxes from people, and make their own laws directly without any need to go through the pretense of democratic process.

You know, Utopia!

Again, even if I accept your basic premise, your logic is still flawed. If I bribe a bank security guard to look the other way while I rob his bank, the right response to that is to say "that bank should be more careful about who it hires" not "the entire practice of banking should be abolished."

Same for you and government -- if you don't like corporations buying influence in our government, you should be trying to find a way to limit their opportunities to do so (like campaign finance reform), or voting for people who are a lot less cozy with business than the people you like to vote for.

As for "make government smaller," that's no solution. All that does is create a power vacuum, one corporations step in to fill themselves. It doesn't level the playing field, it tilts it even more towards the people who already run things now.

If you're interested in getting out from under the thumb of people with too much power, you need to focus your sights on trying to reduce income and wealth disparity, and help try to return us to a more egalitarian society, rather than going out and trying to help the rich and powerful fuck us all over.

In most cases, the racism is incidental. Race has nothing to do with your argument that the "job creators" are being taxed to death and their wealth is being given to people who don't deserve it, and yet you still insist on throwing it in there. I don't judge people for being racist, everyone has issues, some more frustrating then others. But when you focus on things like the "skin in the game" phrase, whatever you're implying (even if it's legitimate) most people are only going to ignore you. (except racists that is)

I suppose I can't expect everyone to know everything His Earness says, I sure don't.

RE: "Skin in the game" But it would be nice if SOMEONE knew OBAMA SAID IT.


Unfortunately, when you include things like that, it distracts people from your main point, which is the bullshit mentioned above about how the job creators are being ruined by the government.

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election. If the Supreme Doofs rule this piece of crap commiecare NO ONE wanted "Constitutional" (P.S., it isn't) expect another economic nosedive.

Time and again the myth has been proven wrong. And on top of that, there are huge companies here in America that pay absolutely no taxes at all.


It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

If it's a "myth", as the left proclaims, then who ARE the job creators? Certainly not government, as a government job is a tax drain. Small businesses, while making up the highest percentage of businesses, can only hire so many employees, and if obamacare passes, you can expect they'll be hiring even fewer.


Corporations that would be providing in some cases billions of dollars are given a free ticket because they own a few lobbyists. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever worked for any corporation can clearly see that the main principal behind corporate success is the elimination of jobs wherever possible. Sure every once in a while a new position is created. Usually it's for the sole purpose of eliminating others. These days it's practically the first rule of business.

If liberals, who make up just over half the population, really feel this way about corporations, then why don't they do something on their own?

I don't know if Jim Sinegal, the CEO of Costco, is a liberal, but Costco pays an almost-living wage to start and he's stated his employees come first over both rapid growth and the whims of stockholders. When Ben and Jerry ran their company, they "used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees". I got no problem with that, and obviously it was profitable.

Don't wait for government to make everything "fair". You'll be too poor to notice when it happens.

>> ^littledragon_79:

>> ^therealblankman:
A collectivist society at work.

I know, right? The nerve of people working together w/o resorting to violence. Just look at how we shop at Mall of America now...


Just an observation, not a criticism.

Individualism- "The squeaky wheel gets the grease".
Collectivism- "The nail that stands up gets pounded down".

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

Side effects? Do you shit bacon grease like that other stuff?>> ^deathcow:

Try using HCG... OMG does that work.... I mean, its positively surreal. My parents, overweight for 20 years, just deflated to normal size. You lose a pound a day I think.
Personally, I like the eat right and exercise idea. However... I have seen enough HCG results to know that after I do another round of eating right and exercising, and my abs STILL dont show... I am going to do a round of HCG to shrinkwrap myself.

He's funny, but I have a feeling if it were good they wouldn't be door to dooring it. Elbow grease is the catalyst there.

Door to door salesmen are like trolls, you don't want to feed them or they keep coming back. Massive resurgence of them these last two years, most don't bother knocking anymore.

>> ^dag:

Nothing like a little axle grease and burlap to give popcorn flavour.


Well you know the old saying: "That which doesn't kill you give you cancer"

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

Nothing like a little axle grease and burlap to give popcorn flavour.

It wasn't 'the bank's' idea any more than the Internet was Al Gore's 'idea'. Computer records were just a natural evolution. Computers came along. Magnetic card readers came along. Banks didn't 'invent' them. They just used them like everyone else to simplify their work. Secretaries didn't invent word processors, but they use them to improve performance.

And consumer convenience via electronic records is very much something that banks want to 'do for thier customers'. They can use the convenience to attract customers and profits. Obviously such a thing is helpful to them both on the back end with their records, and on the front end in attracting potential clients. If a bank is more convenient than the other guy - it gets more business. That's making something for YOUR convenience that also helps them. Nothing wrong with that.

And so what if it is 'institutionalized'? Clothing is institutional. Should you tear them all off and go around naked because you're afraid of getting ripped off by the textile industry? Food is institutional. Should you die of starvation so you don't get ripped off by farmers and grocery stores? TV is an institution. So go throw your TV out the window so you don't get brainwashed by the 'free' TV progam ads? Money is an institution too. What's your point? That we should live in a cave and never partake of any human advance in civilization just because someone else is making a profit on it?

And everything you say you 'can't do' without a credit/debit card is bologna. You can walk to your HR department right now and demand your wages as a check, and then take that check to the bank and get cash. You can buy airline, bus, and train tickets with cash. You can buy food, clothing, utilities, and every other necessity with cash. You can pay your bills by mail. You can pay rent in cash. You can buy a house with cash. A bank account HELPS in all these transactions (IE convenience). But if you walk up to a business with with a wad of legal tender they WILL accept it - I promise you. I have never once walked into a car dealership with a pile of cash to buy a car and had them turn me away. Quite the opposite. They literally drool over me, and it gives me far more power to negotiate.

All I'm saying is that the things you SAY you can't do without a bank are easily doable if you apply a little elbow grease. If you find paying a measley $5 a month so horribly offensive and crippling to your finances, then do yourself a favor and stop whining about it. Take your money and go somewhere else.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dannym3141:
@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.

You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.
I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!


But you DO have an "idea" of it. You know how it behaves. You may not understand why it does that but you can prove to yourself that it does. You might find that it crops up more often in nature than you like - as i said, quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive which unfortunately only goes to tell us that our intuition is wrong.

My lecturer's example was always to take electric charge - we have a name for it, we have a set of characteristic rules for electric charge and interaction between charges but when it gets right down to it 'electric charge' is just a name. We have simply defined and described a set of rules for a phenomenon that we have observed. And the same goes for quarks - we have up, down, top, bottom, strange and charmed. Those are just words too, we're just more familiar with electric charge as a term so we think we understand it.

I don't necessarily think you do need an idea of something to talk about it; anything more in-depth than "it exists, and here is how it behaves" comes after you analyse it, and presumably talk about it if only to yourself conceptually.

Some ideas are intuitive to me and others are not. I don't think that makes my declarations of what's "real" or not any more than personal opinion. The idea that we see 3 cats and 3 goats and associate the same number 3 to each is an abstract construction. If I have one piece of chalk and another piece of chalk, does that mean I have two pieces? What if I break one in half? Or could I place them so close together that they are one piece of chalk again? We can't talk about one of a thing being inherently different than two of a thing, since no two identical things exist in the universe.

You are comfortable with the idea that we can count things and that the numbers we assign to quantities of different objects are comparable. In some remote places of the world you'll find people, adults, who see this idea as unnatural. The idea that you would quantify any group bigger than 5 is alien to them.

1+1=2 because we have defined a number system in which it is so. Conveniently, we can understand real objects in terms of this system. We arrived at this system through a combination of intuition and abstract manipulation. No one has ever sat down with 1350 oranges in one pile and 6723 in another and counted the sum to see that they got 8073.

Similarly, the sum 9x10^(-k) = 1 because we have defined infinite decimals to work this way. Conveniently again, this allows us to understand physical phenomena. We also arrived at this system through a combination of intuition and abstract manipulation. The fact that it doesn't feel intuitive to you doesn't give you any real argument against it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dannym3141:
@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.

You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.
I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!

>> ^dannym3141:

@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.


You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.

I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!

Natural oil supplies are dwindling and these gears need grease. You tell us where we are supposed to get it hmm??

It'll be much easier when we finally reveal our human farms to the public.