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

Screen shot if possible, please. That shouldn't be happening either.>> ^paul4dirt:

i now get a popup-ish one that immediately starts playing sound and is hard to close (you first have to close the popup and then look for the video in it's non popup state and stop the sound... very annoying.
got it a couple times now (here but also on other website), already spoke to the complaints department of the company the ad was for (mediamarkt, a dutch company) cause i found it so ridiculously annoying

i now get a popup-ish one that immediately starts playing sound and is hard to close (you first have to close the popup and then look for the video in it's non popup state and stop the sound... very annoying.

got it a couple times now (here but also on other website), already spoke to the complaints department of the company the ad was for (mediamarkt, a dutch company) cause i found it so ridiculously annoying

Did you not read what I wrote? I'm pretty sure I said the national debt is a problem. My issue with you is your rationale for the national debt is overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous. OH NOEZ! The average taxpayer owes 137K if the national debt is broken down per taxpayer, and the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have 137K lying around to pay that. Say, do most Americans have 50K laying around? No. So if the debt were cut in third roughly, surely it wouldn't be a problem. See? The rationale doesn't hold up. Most Americans don't have 10K laying around either, but if that were the debt per taxpayer, the national debt wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that wealth is concentrated in this country, too. Granted, most people don't have 137K laying around, but you know who has millions upon millions laying around? Guys like Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. The stat you threw out doesn't mean a damn thing. It just sounds bad.

That's the kind of crap that makes discussing something like this with you utterly impossible. You don't care if the national debt is truly a problem. You WANT it to be a big problem that must be dealt with immediately, and THE ONLY WAY to deal with it is... survey says... reduce spending. NO TAX INCREASES!!! EVER!!!

It's a pointless discussion. You've already made up your mind the national debt is a problem that must be dealt with like a crisis, with only one way to deal with it. Any rational person would look at this issue and conclude that even if it is huge problem, (which by the way, since you can't apparently read, I DO think it's a problem, but does not need to be dealt with in extreme measures, or unilaterally with spending cuts only) cutting spending isn't the only solution. I also know that we've run up historical deficits in our past and came out the other end a stronger nation. I also know that the vast majority of the current deficit has been caused by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, by the Bush tax cuts (which actually caused more debt than those wars did, and a collapsing economy.

Comparison between POLICIES of Bush vs Obama as contributors to the national debt:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

Sorry, but that's the truth. The reality is we spent ourselves out in two wars and cutting taxes to ridiculous proportions.

As a side note, I just did my taxes. I'm married with no kids, my wife doesn't work due to medical reasons. I make $122,000/yr in a lower than average cost of living area. You know what my effective federal tax rate was? 10%! How in the hell can the federal gov't do what it needs to do when I'm paying 10% effective federal tax rate?! It's absurd. And it's not like I was hell bound to escape paying taxes. My deductions? $5000 in wife's traditional IRA contribution, state income taxes, mortgage interest, and some charitable donations. I benefited also from 401k contributions and a Flexible Spending Account program.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say GDP cannot be raised significantly from where it is today in the next 5 years, which would increase tax revenues to make up for much of the deficits we're running today, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not in favor of cutting any gov't spending that would jeopardize significantly economic growth in the short run. Therefore, I don't think we can cut a whole lot of spending right now, and we'll unfortunately have to run very large deficits in the short run. However, once the economy grows significantly, we will need to cut spending at that point, and run substantial surpluses for awhile to get the debt more manageable again.

That is what we've done in the past, and it worked when facing very severe economic downturns. Call me crazy, but I look at history and see what worked, and follow that path.

>> ^bobknight33:

From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?

thanks back at ya =)

i'm a china analyst serving overseas for the state dept

and you?

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

@criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

The popups actually work well to add background to what he's saying.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

I used to think exactly the same thing, "Who wants to listen to people talk through the movie ON PURPOSE?!?"
But you really are missing out on some great stuff. Some movie commentaries are hilarious (Versus, Pink Floyd's The Wall). On the down side some are just horrendously boring (The Exorcist, In The Mouth Of Madness). You should give it a chance. Listen with a movie that you know really well and you won't miss a thing.
>> ^spoco2:
Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.




Oh, it's not that I haven't given it a chance, I have, I used to... and I agree, sometimes there's some good stuff. But just too much it's long pauses with nothing being said, so you end up watching the movie again, except that you're not really, as you're just waiting for the next interruption. OR it's long periods of talking about rubbish you don't care about.

I know there are good ones, I just get so little time to watch anything these days I'm a lot more picky

I used to think exactly the same thing, "Who wants to listen to people talk through the movie ON PURPOSE?!?"

But you really are missing out on some great stuff. Some movie commentaries are hilarious (Versus, Pink Floyd's The Wall). On the down side some are just horrendously boring (The Exorcist, In The Mouth Of Madness). You should give it a chance. Listen with a movie that you know really well and you won't miss a thing.

>> ^spoco2:

Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.

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

The best DVD commentary I've heard was that of American Beauty, from the director. I learned that I didn't actually know about half of the stuff that was going on in that movie. Things like the shadows created by the vertical blinds in his office evoking prison bars. I LOVE that stuff. >> ^spoco2:

>> ^jimnms:
>> ^spoco2:
Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.

I don't watch entire movies with commentaries on, but sometimes I'll go back and watch a scene or two with it on. There was on movie that I did watch with the commentary on, Sunshine. I went back to watch one scene like I sometimes do, but the commentary with directory Danny Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox on as the scientific adviser was so damn interesting that I ended up watching the rest of the movie before I knew it. I had to start it back from the beginning with the commentary on and watch back up to that scene.
The special feature I never cared for were the interviews with the actors where they just brown nose and ass kiss the director, producer and other actors.

Oh yeah, the press kit half hour long ad 'making of' 'docos' are terrible. But things like the bonus features on the Lord of the Rings discs, or those on Blade Runner, ooh, or the making of 'The Abyss', that's awesome. That stuff is fascinating to me. I LOVE seeing how movies are made. I just would rather watch a movie OR making of... not a half way house

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^spoco2:
Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.

I don't watch entire movies with commentaries on, but sometimes I'll go back and watch a scene or two with it on. There was on movie that I did watch with the commentary on, Sunshine. I went back to watch one scene like I sometimes do, but the commentary with directory Danny Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox on as the scientific adviser was so damn interesting that I ended up watching the rest of the movie before I knew it. I had to start it back from the beginning with the commentary on and watch back up to that scene.
The special feature I never cared for were the interviews with the actors where they just brown nose and ass kiss the director, producer and other actors.


Oh yeah, the press kit half hour long ad 'making of' 'docos' are terrible. But things like the bonus features on the Lord of the Rings discs, or those on Blade Runner, ooh, or the making of 'The Abyss', that's awesome. That stuff is fascinating to me. I LOVE seeing how movies are made. I just would rather watch a movie OR making of... not a half way house

>> ^spoco2:

Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.
I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)
So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.


I don't watch entire movies with commentaries on, but sometimes I'll go back and watch a scene or two with it on. There was on movie that I did watch with the commentary on, Sunshine. I went back to watch one scene like I sometimes do, but the commentary with directory Danny Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox on as the scientific adviser was so damn interesting that I ended up watching the rest of the movie before I knew it. I had to start it back from the beginning with the commentary on and watch back up to that scene.

The special feature I never cared for were the interviews with the actors where they just brown nose and ass kiss the director, producer and other actors.

Commentary tracks are the one special feature I don't like, actually those and the stupid 'watch the film with popup behind the scenes snippets'.

I LOVE behind the scenes stuff, but if I want to watch the movie I WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE. I don't want to half watch a movie, half listen to people talk about the movie. Give me a behind the scenes documentary that shows and tells me about how things were done and you'll have me watch for longer than the running time of the film even (which many of the docos are)

So... yeah, I just don't listen to them.

I thought I was, but it turns out that those popups are coming from my "other" active browser session...