I’m still waiting for you to explain how 75% inflation over 22 years becomes 150% increased prices under Biden as you claimed. Please, I need your expertise in mathematics to make the world make sense. 😂


To my dumber than a bag of hammers-
😂 🤦‍♂️ 😂
So that’s a “yes”, you do think the economy is worse now than in 2020 solely because inflation is doubled and you don’t understand earnings/purchase power . 🤦‍♂️
I grant you, inflation is still elevated, but down near 2/3 and well below what other countries are experiencing, so is getting better not worse. Hyperactive economies can tend to have inflation issues, and the Biden economy exploded like it was made of lithium deuteride.

Yes booby, prices have gone up on average, they always do…and on average everyone makes more too….much more. If prices go up 3% and wages go up 6% you have 3% more buying power, A GAIN…that’s pretty basic math for it to go so far over your head. In 2020 prices went up near 1.5% (for items still on shelves) but wages went DOWN near 6% (for those who were still employed) for a >7% LOSS in buying power. See how Bidenomics is better yet?

Probably not…ask a 3rd grader…is being able to buy 3% more yearly better than only being able to buy >7% less than last year?

Earning power is rising fast, double inflation, so are GDP and employment rates unlike under Trump when not only was there still inflation (granted much less thanks to the floundering MAGA economy) but wages actually went down significantly GDP went NEGATIVE and up to 20 million jobs evaporated thanks to mismanagement (NZ didn’t have that problem).

When inflation is barely above 3% and wages are rising at near 6%, yes, things cost more, and average people can also BUY MORE you fucking idiot.
I know, that’s keeping two things in your head at once, so impossible for you to comprehend, but trust me, that’s reality. You should try it some time.
You think you have something because inflation went up, largely thanks to Trumps horrific last year of hyper spending and the economic crash his mismanagement caused but also due to Biden’s economic recovery outpacing the most optimistic predictions…but you are too dumb to see the other half of the earning equation…wages. Since earnings are rising at double inflation, people can buy more.
Again, in 2020 wages went down almost 6% with 1.5% inflation (during a massive negative gdp) so earning power went down by almost 7.5%…today inflation is 3.24 but wages are rising at nearly 6%, giving a RISE in earning power of 2.75%. That is a >10% difference, going from a 7.5% loss of buying power in 2020 to a 2.75% rise this year…and no recession. That’s called winning.
Inflation is only one part of the equation, buddy, and is absolutely meaningless without the other parts.

Yes, I repeated myself…I hoped by saying it over and over some might get through.

Interest rates…😂😂😂 true, Biden didn’t lower rates to zero and still have a stalled economy, he had to raise them to combat inflation…it worked, and hasn’t stalled the boom yet. You claim to be rich…high interest rates shouldn’t mean a thing to you…or do you really carry massive debt and aren’t really rich at all? 😂

As a side note, the stock market is also booming, paying great for those who are invested. Similar to wage growth since many (like me) live off investment earnings.

Gas prices have dropped sharply, today below $3 in 1/3 of the country and $.22 lower than a year ago on average. That’s costing LESS! Try again.

Many staple food prices are lower too. National average turkey prices were cheaper than last year, so are eggs. Try again.

According to Edmonds, “ The good news is that, in general, prices have been on the decline since late 2022. In May 2022, the average selling price of a vehicle was about $721 over MSRP. Compare that to July 2023, when the average selling price was about $714 below MSRP.”. Try again.

American's purchase power is rising, under Trump it plummeted like never before. I know, you just don’t understand. It’s ok boob. Adults understand.

I bought a bag of hammers for $10 at a yard sale…it was incredibly smart of me. I got about 10 hammers including 3 small sledge hammers and 2 metal framing hammers. My bag of hammers purchase was quite smart. 😂

Boob, get a brain. You might ask the scarecrow how he got his, because you really need help. I’ve never met a person as dumb and delusional as yourself, and I’ve known some real idiots.

Try this simple example.
Last week a soda cost you $1, and you made $12 an hour ($1 every 5 minutes). This week a soda costs $1.20 but your pay went to $15 ($1 every 4 minutes). Yes, the soda costs more this week…INFLATION!…are you better off now or were you better off with cheaper soda last week? Show your work. (I’m pretty certain that second grade math is just too hard and I won’t see a reply).

THIS IS WHY YOU FAIL EVERY TIME BOOB. BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU RANT ABOUT AT ALL.
GO TO SCHOOL AND LEARN THE BASICS.

Perfect for the hyperactive quadriplegic.

I can't come up with any YT channel or person that annoys me, really. But I only know a handful, so...

As for video styles, well, anyone who shoves his/her face into the camera or seems hyperactive. Not my kinda thing. Any instructional video that focuses more on the person than the actual subject.

Ian of ForgottenWeapons.com has a style I rather like. Composed, focused on the subject, very informative, bit of comedy -- no yelling, no twitching, no music, all business.

Holy goddamn this is what youtube is starting to feel like. Not all of it, just the most prominent/promoted parts. Attractive, hyperactive (post-)millennials speaking eloquently about some incredibly forced, made up situation, and it's heavily monetized and intended to build personal brand.

Half of this video was her talking about a problem that doesn't exist for real people and the rest was advertising for squarespace. Now that Bernie Sanders doesn't look like he'll be allowed to get money out of politics, he should get money out of youtube.

Nah, come on, mischievous fox + driven hyperactive bunny, this has got win written all over it.

When my cat was that age, he would be hyperactive all the time if he saw my eyes open. He would literally look at my eyes to make sure I was awake. So in order to get some reading or work done, I would fake nodding off and when Polo would look at me, he would think its nap time and nod off.

"Toxoplasmosis is a parasitic disease caused by the protozoan Toxoplasma gondii. The parasite will infect most genera of warm-blooded animals, including humans, but the primary host is the felid (cat) family. The parasite spreads by the ingestion of infected meat or the feces of an infected cat, or by vertical transmission from mother to fetus....Recent research has also linked toxoplasmosis with brain cancer, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia."-WKI

"AwwwwwwwwwwWW!? Let kitty sleep on baby's faaaaace!"

Your video, Hyperactive Baby Dwarf Goat, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


But who are you chastising? The people who vote democratically for it or against it (and they seem to vote for it), or the people who post it for it to be voted on?

I can't watch cenk, i think he has a great mind for doing this kind of thing, but until he can siphon out the 30000 miles per hour hyperactivity and fluff and deliver it in a good way, i can't watch. But videosift will continue to sift up whatever is popular and sift down whatever is not!

I get sick when i see the 3 billionth pomplamoose video being posted on the strength of having a very plain/oddly pretty girl with her face 3 inches from a webcam, but that's just what people like. I think this has a lot more content than that at least; there's a lot worse things you could get annoyed about first.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^spoco2:
Also, people say that the opening car chase in QOS was awesome here it is, I contend it isn't. This isn't so much to do with shaky cam as it is with insanely quick cutting, never allowing the staging of the scene to be felt, just making it feel like it was edited by a hyperactive 2 year old.

I see openings like this as a way to introduce the characters or to jump into the story. Casino Royale started with a parkour chase which was definitely better than this car chase. But the car chase was more of a way to get the ball rolling I guess.


That Parkour scene was a great demonstration on how to stage an action sequence in such a way that you saw everything. You saw that they were actually doing large portions of it in single runs, that it looked awesome and thrilling. That's exactly the sort of action scene I love. The quick cut, shaky cam style means they only have to shoot a second of the scene at a time, because that's as long as you see of anything before you cut to another angle.

>> ^spoco2:

Also, people say that the opening car chase in QOS was awesome here it is, I contend it isn't. This isn't so much to do with shaky cam as it is with insanely quick cutting, never allowing the staging of the scene to be felt, just making it feel like it was edited by a hyperactive 2 year old.


I see openings like this as a way to introduce the characters or to jump into the story. Casino Royale started with a parkour chase which was definitely better than this car chase. But the car chase was more of a way to get the ball rolling I guess.

@Yogi If I have you to blame then...'DAAAAMN YOU!'.

I don't mind a little bit of moving camera, Private Ryan got it pretty good, there was the motion of the camera as if it were IN the scene, but not so much that you couldn't place all the people and what was happening.

My prime example of this?

The Bourne Indentity, first in serious. An AWESOME film, where the action scenes were nail biting, fantastically staged, and you could SEE what was happening, UNDERSTAND what was going on. Great film.

Next film, Bourne Supremacy. Had a great story, but I couldn't fricken STAND the action scenes, couldn't tell what was going on.

Compare this one from the Bourne Supremacy
with this one from the Bourne Identity

To me, the first one is confusing, a jumble of fast cuts and blurry movement. The second is nicely staged, has good beats, and lets you know what's going on.

I have to say that just watching them again then after not watching either movie for some time, the first one didn't annoy me as much as it did at the time, which is probably due to 2 things:
1) I'm getting used to the god forsaken effect.
&
2) It's not as painful on a small screen. Blow it up so it fills your vision and it's unbearable (which may be some of the problem, as looking at the shots on monitors means they don't get the full effect).


Also, people say that the opening car chase in QOS was awesome here it is, I contend it isn't. This isn't so much to do with shaky cam as it is with insanely quick cutting, never allowing the staging of the scene to be felt, just making it feel like it was edited by a hyperactive 2 year old.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

>> ^packo:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Soooo... Where's this guy's video they're talking about here? Never heard of this guy but he sounds like he's on coke or something.

what does someone on coke or something sound like? i'm assuming you are drawing from experience here...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2491LucLa1g

But yeah make a douchey response. You know full well I'm referring to his hyperactive speech tendencies. I'm not suggesting he does any drugs, it just sounds like he's hyped up on something. Maybe that's just the way he talks. It was just an observation, but thanks for the insults buddy!

Perhaps its a sign I'm getting old but I find planking to be the most retarded 'activity' fad in recent memory. I get the feeling it was invented by a babysitter tired of dealing with some hyperactive idiot children. 'LETS PLAY THE PLANKING GAME! You just lay as stiff and still as you can for as long as you can!!'