I find podcasts the most intrusive for ads because often I'm listening to them while doing something else that doesn't afford me easy access to the player controls. I can't stand being trapped for minutes at a time forced to listen to someone drone on about fucking squarespace.com.

I don't refuse to watch tv shows with ad breaks or youtube videos with sponsored content, but I've absolutely dropped some of my favourite podcasts just because they got the wrong kind of sponsorship.

@bobknight33
"socialism is not american"

i swear sometimes bob i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

even when people put out,quite correctly i might add,that america has socialism in its economic structure.you respond like they didnt state anything.

it is like you live in this weird bubble and that any information that attempts to enter,that may possibly contradict your own personal understandings.

so when i say that you can have a socialist democracy,i am not just pulling that out of my ass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

or that america already has socialist programs,and a majority of them YOU and your children enjoy:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country
(this is from the von mises institute.not exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive ideology.just in case you wanted to pull that tired and stupid response:well,they are a liberal website blah blah blah)

so if YOU think that socialism is SO bad and harmful and utterly un-american.let us revert to a pure capitalist society shall we?

here are the things that we will be saying goodbye to in your new capitalist america:
1.child labor laws.
thats right...your 8 yr old grandchild can now quit her fucking whining and get to fucking work.hmmmm...nothing like forced labor for the children working 14 hr shifts with no breaks,and 6 days a week.no work on sunday!
because:god.

2.minimum wage.
gone will be a basic minimum wage imposed by federal law.now we shall see the TRUE market place in action! of course,since there is surplus of available workers and there is no minimum.we can exploit the most desperate and vulnerable of our society and pay them 25 cents an hour!
take THAT china!

3.public schools.
education? only if your are part of the new american aristocracy! and what child will be going to school for an education? they are too busy working at the plant! pfffft..education.it is over-rated anyways.

4.fire and police.
now why would i spend my hard earned money in taxes, so my neighbor can be protected from fire damage and property damage? pay for your own protection fuckface! oh...you're too busy working 3 jobs,making .25 per hr? and your kids are working too? aww too bad loser.shoulda pulled yourself up by your bootstraps.

5.voting.(yep.you read that right)
i am a hard working american.who pays his taxes and owns property AND a business! and i JUST gave my employees a raise to .27 per hour! i have a RIGHT to vote! why should those non-property owning losers get a vote as well? i am obviously far more important than they are.whats next? women voting? the horror.

6.social security and medicaid.
now why would we waste time and resources providing a safety net for those losers again?how is it MY responsibility that they couldnt plan for their sunset years? i did give them a raise didnt i? fucking crybabies.and so what if they actually PAID into those programs.i feel better creating my own reality by calling those programs "entitlements",because it makes me feel morally superior to them.

7.public libraries.
there is that pesky "education" again.why should i be responsible for someone else family and their access to literature and information?what do you think i live in? a society? with neighbors? communities?this is just more government intrusion upon MY life and MY freedoms!

look man,i know i am being a cheeky shit in this comment,and i am not anti-capitalist..at all.
capitalism has brought great things for society as a whole..BUT..there is a difference between capitalism and unfettered capitalism,and what we have now is NOT capitalism.

it is socialism for the rich:
see: the bank bailout
see: corporate subsidies (welfare)
see:corporate tax breaks (welfare)
see:our current political system which has been totally over-run by corporate money.a corporate coup de'tat.
which we are all fed the bullshit line of how wonderful captialism is,but the only beneficiaries are corporations,wall street and the dept of defense.

the only people that get to engage in capitalism are the poor and middle class,because actually having to compete is for suckers and losers.

He honeymooned in Russia.


Bernie Sanders is a Communist Sympathizer.

Bernie Sanders is the first Democrat who is honest about being a socialist. After all, with their policies demanding more and more government intrusion into our business and personal lives, they could only hide the truth of what they actually believe for that much longer. However, since socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried, Bernie even admitted that the word socialism has become somewhat of a hindrance. Of course, you could point out all the despotic Socialist regimes, and you’d be making a good point. However, Bernie would still disagree with you! Not because he doesn’t think the mass murder and famine were a bad thing, but a good one. That’s right. An interview with Bernie emerged where he praised Fidel Castro’s regime. If you think his rape fantasy essay was shocking, or his folk album was hard to stomach, just wait until you hear his opinion on Communist Dictators A lot of people don’t know this, but Bernie actually hung a Soviet Flag in office when he was mayor of Burlington. According to reporter Trevor Louden, Bernie hung the Soviet flag in his office to honor the Soviet sister city of Yaroslavl. You know, singing praises to the opposing side while you’re at war might seem treasonous to some, but if you’re a mayor of a major city, it’s perfectly acceptable and everyone will forget about it. No need to mention that the USSR was responsible for what some believe to be the biggest genocide in history. You’d be crazy to call Bernie a Communist. He only proudly hung their flag in his office.

Bernie Sanders did not only vacation in the Soviet Union, he honeymooned there. He described it as “strange honeymoon”. Once again, Sanders used the excuse that he did so in his town’s sister city of Yaroslavl. You have to wonder how much bad the Soviet Union could have done that Sanders was willing to overlook . Perhaps if Bernie loves Yaroslavl so much, he could do everyone a favor and move there.

Sadly, it really doesn't matter what they call them, because the term terrorist has become meaningless. I've said this all the way back when GWB "declared war on vague abstract concept"

The definition stated earlier is not wrong, but you can use that term for just about anything. Americans were terrorists against the British when we revolted. We also had the audacity to not march shoulder to shoulder against the Brits as was the standard for every "civilized" army back then.

The only difference is who wins and who loses. if you win, you're a revolutionary. if you lose, you're a terrorist. and if you're white, you're a militia group.

This was a calculated move by the terrorists though. I think they deliberately picked some piece of shit building of no value that no one cared about and was unused, made sure they didn't kill anyone but yet still forcibly occupied it with weapons. It's a dare...it's an attempt to goad. They want the feds or police to go in guns blazing. They want suicide by cop because it will ultimately benefit them and gain sympathy for them. They took something that is completely inconsequential other than it was owned by "the gub'mint"

The Fox pundit thinks they're peaceful? armed occupation is peaceful now? Just because they haven't physically hurt anyone doesn't make them peaceful. They stopped being peaceful the instant they picked up their weapons.

Love all the usual buzzwords and sound bites from the fox pundit without any actual specifics. Once again, who specifically is this "left wing media?" They never actually say who. more accusations of "big gov't" without any specifics. They keep talking about these intrusions into our lives, but yet, can't seem to name them.

All fear, no concrete issues. Standard geriatric (that means old, bob) Fox audience.

Sir, if I may, judging by the fact that under the "Little about me" section of your profile, you have "VideoSift", that you are indeed the manager of this site?

If so, I wish to report to you an argument I have had with a member who goes by "Newtboy".

I must admit, I most probably started this argument, as I posted the first comment. However, this comment (found here:http://videosift.com/video/Start-Getting-Used-To-Saying-President-Trump -It starts with "To quote my view"), was not directed towards Newtboy at all, and was not meant to be argumentative, only contradictory towards the video itself.

However, Newtboy posted an argumentative response, and I followed suit, returning as much argument as was given to me, until, in his last post, he threatened to ban me...(http://videosift.com/member/Syntaxed)

Is this legal? Can he actually follow through with banning me?

If you are not indeed the manager of this site, I apologize profusely for the aggregious intrusion into your world with my rather displeasing inquiry, and wish you the best, sir.

I'm still at a complete loss as to why some people seem to think that calmly not submitting to random intrusive 'investigative' questioning makes a person a tool. The cop's not looking to have a nice conversation or make a friend, he's looking for anything he can use against the person he's interrogating...and often, as in this case, when they can't find anything, they'll make something up.
EDIT: often, they'll say you said something you didn't say, or twist what you may have said to come up with a reason to go farther and charge you with something made up. That's why you should say NOTHING, then they have nothing to twist or lie about 'mishearing' or 'misunderstanding'.

As I see it, not answering questions is not disruptive, not dangerous, doesn't cause fear (in normal people), is patriotic, and is also a methodology suggested by nearly EVERY lawyer worth their salt. I can't see the drawback, or how being respectfully reasonable and safe makes someone a tool. I think answering a cop's questions makes a person a tool...one that gives up their hard won right against self incrimination in order to not upset or inconvenience their overzealous interrogator, at the risk of their own freedom, safety, and sometimes life.
Since no one has put forth a reasonable explanation WHY one would act in such a self defeating, disrespectful (to those who died to secure the right to not incriminate yourself or be searched at random), unsafe, victimized way, it seems we should just agree to disagree. I think I put forth a number of logical reasons why I see this behavior (not answering questions) as perfectly reasonable AT ALL TIMES, and fortunately for me the DAs and judges agree with me.

Two things, no, actually three:
1. To answer your question directly: because letting LGBT people have these rights has no negative effects for society and requires very little effort. There are no measurable downsides here.
What's supposed to happen? Tell me what the negative effects will be. God's gonna make a pouty face and floods the earth again?
Another thing is, how is it the government's business who you can marry? Why should they get to decide that you can't marry shinyblurry if you really want to? Are you that fond of government intrusion in your life?
2. Capitulate? Are you at war with the gays? Did they stick a flag in your ass and declared it their territoty? Is it really an us vs. them situation? Are you sure you are not actually the problem?
You can only capitulate to an adversary. How are the homosexuals harming you? Are they taking anything away? Are they threatening you? Fact is, you are the one who wants to deny right and limit other people's freedom to be left the fuck alone. You're the agressor here. If you would stop that behaviour, nobody would give a fuck about you.
Why should I, who doesn't care what unknown gay people do, and we, who want them to have their rights, capitulate to agressors like you, who insist on regulating nobody's and especially not their own business? Why can't you leave the homosexuals alone? What's your fixation here?
3. Stop it with that "evolutionary dead end" crap! Every marriage with someone who is unable or unwilling to have kids is according to your definition one. Are you really willing to argue that people who can't procreate shouldn't marry? Are you going to tell every woman over 50 they can't (re)marry? Are you willing to walk up to a soldier who got his nuts blown off in Iraq that he can never ever marry the woman who doesn't care about his lack off balls? I'd love to see that. And what his buddies will do to you. And his wife.

Fact is, you don't like homosexuals. I don't know why but I do know that more and more people don't care about them. We're past the tipping point. That's why you feel it's "capitulating", because you know you're the minority now and your hatred and abuse won't be tolerated for long anymore. That's what you loose, the right to treat other's like shit. You can't kick that dog no more because it found the courage to bite back and we took away your ability to go old yeller on his ass. Must make you mad, foaming at the mouth mad.

Social Justice Warrior - basically a busy body who spends their time trying very hard to get upset about things and policing people's behaviour in an intrusive manner. It is a little true that social media websites have given rise (perhaps just confidence or a voice) to a certain class of professionally offended moron.

But the thing is, i think @shang is actually racist. "I find all black women disgustingly ugly," is a racist thing to say. No one can pull you up for NOT finding a certain race attractive in all the times you've met their representatives, but to then extrapolate that you definitely must feel the same way about ALL black women is, in my opinion, racist. It is not racist to say that you have never met a black woman you've been attracted to, but that's a different thing to say. You're making a generalisation about an entire race based on a handful of examples.

@everyone
Part of the reason, I should point out, that her care cost so much is because we don't have enough government intrusion @bobknight33

When I look at the bill for her formula for example, it apparently cost my insurance company $750 to buy one can of formula (in bulk, mind you) when I can walk down to Walgreen's and get the same can for $20~.
It's truly baffling and if requested I can post pictures.


Why is this? It has to do with insurance companies and negotiations about prices through the hospital. Those prices should be capped with a law, but they aren't.

Thank you to everyone for your kind words. She's doing well and just had a first birthday, but we have 3 appointments a week and another few here and there that each have their own $$$ amount attached. I REALLY would be in the streets if we had to pay for all of this alone. Even if they didn't drop us because of the pre-existing condition, she's reaching what would have been her cap for care of 1 million dollars. Obamacare did away with those too. :-)

Thanks Obama!

It's not wrong, I just don't like it. I'm not calling for it to be banned or anything.

My personal, subjective opinion is that the whole thing feels weird, intrusive and cynical.

You clearly feel different. That's why I get to downvote it and you can upvote it.

I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

There should be two types of cars:
- Those decked out with all kinds of techno-wizardry.
and..
- Those you can fix any part of with a wrench, welder, and a screwdriver.

Both have their place.
..also, can we get less intrusive motion graphics please?

How wonderfully ironic that a talk about intrusive surveillance is being watched by a guy -6.51- wearing google glasses...

It just seems hugely intrusive and presumptive. As a spectator I would feel irked.

I can just imagine his train of thought.

"Okay, serious unlawful detention, privacy intrusion, hard hitting reporter time. Game face time."

"Oh look a segway!"