There is no need to lie to make your point. Stick to the facts and a robust discussion can be had. If not, you're no worse than a teabagger hack that thinks everything is "official" discrimination against white people.



>> ^chilaxe:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since October 18th, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Kofi">Kofi @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since June 11th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/JiggaJonson">JiggaJonson
If affirmative action was about remedying past injustices, we wouldn't be promoting official discrimination against Asian Americans. http://videosift.com/poll/Is-discrimination-against-Asian-Americans-in-college-admissions-good-or-bad
Also, many Asian Americans come from even lower income family backgrounds than the beneficiaries of affirmative action in the US, so if we promote discrimination against Asian Americans, affirmative action doesn't appear to be about giving a helping hand due to low income.

@Kofi @JiggaJonson

If affirmative action was about remedying past injustices, we wouldn't be promoting official discrimination against Asian Americans. http://videosift.com/poll/Is-discrimination-against-Asian-Americans-in-college-admissions-good-or-bad

Also, many Asian Americans come from even lower income family backgrounds than the beneficiaries of affirmative action in the US, so if we promote discrimination against Asian Americans, affirmative action doesn't appear to be about giving a helping hand due to low income.

Fixed, for you - it's the least I could do!
A couple months ago, I thought "I'd like to hit Ruby before my 4-year anniversary", but didn't think I'd make it. Thanks for the BIG helping hand!!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
, it's *dead.

Ed and the left is such full of Bull Shit... Get off you ASSES and find or create a job... Quit leaching of the backs of WORKING Americans. Get some backbone. Get some Personal responsibility. I can see a helping hand but 1 1/2 years of unemployment to too much.

You stupid asses, The Republicans have Zero control. This has been a Democrat controlled Nation since 2006.

The Democrats have trashed this great country by turning this into a welfare entitled nation.

Why is Greece collapsing? -- Entitlements. USA spending is 1/2 its budget in Entitlements. WE are laying our dept onto out grandchildren. How Fucking Shameful.
This Entitlement altitude (spending) has got to stop.

Social security is bankrupt There is nothing there but an IOU.
1/2 our States are on the edge of failing.
The Left was pissed at Bush from wiping out Clinton's Surplus
This President/Congress has Spent more in 1 1/2 years than Bush did in 8.
Where is the outrage now?

Everyone who votes for spending money on something with out cutting out spending from somewhere else needs to be Voted out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLPsSZf5YKY

here Is a pre history on this video, I guess this is a pilot episode for a new show " a helping hand " seems pretty funny.

No worries!

In reply to this comment by marinara:
thank you for the helping hand!

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
*promote

thank you for the helping hand!

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
*promote

@geesussfreak.
either you didnt read my entire post or you were offering a helping hand.
either system is flawed if taken to its extreme.
both have their inherent advantages and disadvantages.
game theory espouses the harnessing of mans selfish nature to create an equilibrium and was used almost exclusively during the cold war.
so while it did create a stalemate it also promoted a protracted and prolonged conflict.
on the other hand,co-operation can reap benefits that are much more quickly manifested yet takes a certain thing called "trust" that game theory was never really able to resolve.
i use these examples to illuminate my previous post.
sometimes stalemate is the only option and is necessary,other times it is co-operation that brings the biggest rewards.

i would like to know where this system of pure individual rights exists?
is it a country?a city?township?
where on planet earth is this place of pure individual rights?
said the spider to the fly......

In reply to this comment by Deano:
Not that I provide much killer sifting advice but I recommend perusing the HD channel on Vimeo from time to time.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
awesome *music in this video also.
beautiful..nice find deano.

thats good advice my friend but i sift almost exclusively things that i have already seen,done or wish to share,and archive on occasion.
rarely do i post something that is new to me.i consider what i would like to share and then search for it.
on rare occasions i stumble upon something that is quite unique even for me and i will post that video with wide-eyed childhood glee,but that is rare.
i am still trying to find graeme revells "escape from crematoria" from the chronicles of riddick but it seems david twohee is a proprietal dickhead and no matter where i look i cannot seem to find that particular clip.

and honestly,why would i peruse a video site for beautiful videos in HQ when all i have to do is watch yours?
you always find beautiful imagery and music that i thoroughly enjoy.
thanks for the helping hand though my friend.
a testament to your character.

Amazing step forward in technology - and I suppose one step closer to Skynet taking over and giving big brother a helping hand. How long until we see these flying around town video-graphing everyone's faces and running them through face recognition programs on the fly (pun not intended). I think the only part of the technology left here are the batteries. Batteries are heavy and don't store enough power for the prolonged flights needed for proper surveillance.

Edit: An, why is this in SiftTalk?

First of all, being "good" has nothing to do with religion. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism explains being good, and why atheists don't all go around killing and raping.

Religion has an organized system with which it attempts to train and instruct people in how to 'be good'. Atheism does not. Is religion perfect at it? Of course not. But having a group that teaches a moral system is more likely to result in a moral people. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism without an underlying moral system to support it is rhetorical.

Second, if our problems were being solved by compassionate people at an individual level, we wouldn't have problems big enough to be addressed by collective (government) action.

This is an 'either or' point of view I reject. Using your logic, is it not equally fair to say that "If the problems were being solved by putting them in the hands of government, the USSR wouldn't have had problems that needed addressing?" Clearly the problems are NOT 'solvable' under ANY system. Therefore your statement is a logical fallacy. We do not need government programs merely because private ones have difficulties.

People place these responsibilities in the hands of PRIVATE CHARITY because most feel completely unable to help individually, so we choose to give a portion of our income so that we may, as a group, fund PRIVATE CHARITIES that have a chance of helping. And if they are flawed, then it is our responsibility to try to fix them.

See whut I did ther?

I would love for you to define "personal freedom".

Sure - the ability to think and act as I wish. That includes all levels of the human condition including social, personal, intellectual, emotional, physical, and FINANCIAL freedom.

Like the struggle now for health care, which is overwhelmingly supported by the majority.

That 'overwhelming support of the majority' explains why 52% oppose it I guess...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

So let me summarize, the conservatives who are "rugged individualists" say if you are unlucky and $#it happens to you, well then you are ****ed.

And you say my perspective is warped. Such didism as you spew here is the epitome of warped, even brainwashed, perspective. Conservatism says "If you can take care of yourself - you should." People who can afford insurance (even if it isn't 'convenient') should pay their way. Conservatives are more than willing to volunteer time, money, and help to those who need it - but that aid is not in the form of an involuntary, confiscatory tax going to a wasteful government program. It is in the form of personal, individual, freely-given time, talent, and resources.

Whereas the liberals say that any one of us at any time could face difficulties, so we should collectively try to support those that are worst off.

That isn't a liberal approach. That's a CONSERVATIVE approach. Your problem is that the FORM of your 'collective support' is politically liberal - I.E. an involuntary, forcible tax going to an iefficient, ineffective program. And you don't see how wrong that is. 'Collective aid' does not have to be 'forced taxes' or 'government programs'.

Now it may be the case that every program we try to implement is a "spectacular failure", but at least we are trying.

Private, volunteer efforts are also 'just trying' - and they don't strip away your freedoms.

In conclusion, if you feel that PRIVATE programs are not working, then you should be working to fix them or supporting people with plans on how to fix them, rather than simply giving up and trying to remove them.

C whut I did ther again?

Killing a program like social security may save you ten bucks a month, but it wouldn't help anybody.

It would save me over $100 a month. That is $1,200 a year I could be investing in my own retirement plan. Then when I retired I could be a multi-millionaire and wouldn't need Social Security. Now imagine millions of retired people who DON'T NEED SOCIAL SECURITY because they are all multi-millionaires. These people would have money for thier own medical care, to purchase goods & services, travel, or whatever else they want. They could also contribute to charity, and help out the needy because they were in a position to lend a helping hand instead of need government subsistence checks just to pay for utilities. I'd call that helping EVERYBODY. Would there be a few hard luck cases? Sure. Again - they could be helped without the spectacular failure that is the Social Security program.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'helping hand, condom, applicator' to 'helping hand, condom, applicator, penis, junk, willie, john thomas, family jewels, dong' - edited by therealblankman

I don't know about this. I'm an atheist, and I too think the burqa is a repressive symbol, but basically the French government is outlawing certain articles of clothing. That smacks of heavy-handedness to me. I wouldn't want to strip away someone's civil liberties in an effort to produce an egalitarian society. I also believe it's a violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

One manifestation of faith for some Muslim women is the burqa. Now I realize the burqa itself can also violate a woman's freedom of conscience when she is forced to wear it by her family or community. However not all Muslim women are forced to wear it. This is a sticky wicket.

The French government is going about this the wrong way, IMHO. Maybe they should set up support centers specifically for Muslim women in France who are being forced to live lives they don't want to lead, sort of like centers for abused women. If they can help those Muslim women make the transition from patriarchy to true independence then I think they will better achieve their goals of egalitarianism.

However all of that would involve money, and it's much easier to make stupid laws than to actually extend a helping hand to those you claim to be looking out for.

Upvote for the controversy, not the policy.

Maybe our household wasn't normal but my three siblings and I would play this game properly. And, yes, when the first two players get to the final-loop part of the game it can take a few turns before someone lands on the cheese whilst the other player lands on the crank. But that gives the other players a chance to catch up. There are only six squares in that final-loop part of the game, so by the time three or four players get there you get to set off the trap quite often.

Part of the appeal was the fact that the trap wouldn't always work. Sometimes the ball would get stuck at the bottom of the rickety stairs, or the spring-loaded "helping hand" wouldn't fire when the ball hit it, or the man on the diving board would jump into the pool only for the cage to stubbornly sway at the top of the pole without dropping. If the trap fails to work then you gain a reprieve, the trap is reset, and the next player takes their turn.

So when you finally get to turn the crank to set off the trap there's a sense of anticipation with one player rooting for the trap to work and the other hoping that it jams up somewhere. And then there's all the oohs and aahs and cheers in reaction depending on who you're rooting for.

Great game, I loved it.

>> ^Thylan:
Whos line is it anyway started your side i think, and that influenced a lot re improv.


Yeah, it did. Matter of fact, I watched the brit version of who's line is it anyway long before it became popular and came to the states (which was later remade with Drew Carey as host).

The original with Clive Anderson was better in some ways. Especially with the "helping hands" bit they did quite a lot. My favorite pair were Josie lawrence and that other guy that had the slicked back black hair. They were frequently just-raunchy-enough to keep it hilarious. The other cast members were also just as brilliant.

Drew Carey's "Who's line?" is good too, but there's nothing like the original.