I have been trying to save this comment stream from @shinyblurry's comment. I have asked shiny to make comments like this in the future on personal profile pages, and not muck up and derail conversations on a video's comment stream.

This thing is starting to snowball -- three Sifters have now taken him to task on this comment stream.

I beg of you, please make your comments on his personal profile page. None of this has to do with Jack Abramoff. There are some really incisive, intelligent and passionate comments being made about this video. I hope that any further comments made here are about the video.

I urge anyone who has a problem with shinyblurry to take it to his personal profile page.

Thanks.

Make the protest, they are already doing that - continue to do that. Then if enough people can swoop in without being noticed and close accounts before the bank realizes the trend isn't going away - things will start to happen and a snowball effect will occur.

I'm pretty unclear on repudiate vs. default, but from the creditor's point of view, I don't see how they'd be different. In either case, you don't get back the money that you'd lent out.

The whole problem with Greek debt is that there are banks all over the EU holding those bonds. If they get turned into worthless pieces of paper, that puts stress on that bank's bottom line, and could make it go bankrupt, and make it start defaulting on its debts.

Then it just snowballs from there.

The problem for Greeks is that doing this will also kill their ability to borrow money, which means they can't run a deficit, and since they no longer have their own currency, they can't print their way out, so that means they're forced into austerity because the government literally won't be able to pay its bills. Who knows what happens at that point, but it won't be all sunshine and roses for Greece.

Thumping your chest and daring the EU to invade won't do you any good either. The problem isn't that the EU will want to invade to get their money back (which Greece doesn't even have), the problem is that Greece will need Euros from the other countries, and won't be able to borrow them. You'll need to take the army out to go get them, if you want to bring armies and war into this mix.

This isn't a magical solution to the Greek debt crisis, this is just an explanation for why people are really worried that Greece will wind up defaulting.

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Obama is the one bailing everybody out.


Bush is the person who bailed out Wall Street. Or were you not watching the news that day? Obama just continued the bailouts. It's not really fair to blame a problem that was snowballing for so long on the person who became president right after it happened. Bush had eight years. Not only did he not do anything about the housing bubble, but he set us up to spend six-billion-dollars-a-month on the fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only to have Obama catch Bin Laden.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that the Democrats are responsible for our predicament as well. But focusing on the left-right controversies is exactly what the people in power want us to do. Because it prevents us from discussing the real issues. We can just sit around blaming each-other forever as far as they're concerned.

When my father graduated high-school, he learned the floor-covering trade. (carpet,vinyl,etc...) His first job paid him three dollars an hour and it was enough to support a family of four. Back in the sixties, three dollars would get you a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes with a dollar left over. Now, three dollars won't even cover the gas I spend to get to work, not even one way.

And people can spin the numbers and facts any way that they want. Just as I've done here. But no matter how you spin it, the fact that there is a problem is glaringly obvious to most people. Even if we don't see it the same way. You obviously think there's a problem as well, but I just can't buy that we live in a society where working hard brings success, not anymore.

And you know what? If people keep protesting in numbers like this, they're going to make a change for better or worse. You don't need to be organized or even "right" to have an effect. The power lies in the numbers, not the message. It's the same for the Tea Party. Wouldn't it be great if we could come together and use those numbers for something positive?

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Special cleaning crews are being brought in to clean up after the trash messes left all over by the "99%" costing the city $$$.


And one last thing: Who do you think was responsible for cleaning up Boston Harbor in 1773?

>> ^bareboards2:

I love this movie. It didn't get near the attention it deserved, I thought.


I have never seen this! I had heard of it, but based purely on the title, I did not think it sounded interesting. It is now in my netflix queue!

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Lumm:
[citation] http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13495

From your source:

Many states have enacted "cyberstalking" or "cyberharassment" laws or have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws.

Just like it says, those laws just add electronic forms of communications into existing stalking and harassment laws. That still doesn't make it illegal to be a dick. If it was, who gets to decide what's considered dickish? Like they already said in the video, how is what he did any different than the WBC protesting at dead soldier's funerals. Should it be illegal because it's done online, but perfectly OK to do it in person? As sickening as what he did and what the WBC do, if we start telling them they can't do it, then that's just the start of the snowball rolling down the mountain.


I'd agree, except by everything I've read/saw he contacts the families and directs them to his stuff. They don't indicate how many times he contacts them or how he contacts them. But if there were no contact, it's likely his whole message would never be seen by the families and they wouldn't even know about it to react to it. The contact part is the important part of this, not him putting abhorrent things on the internet.

It's the difference between some guy telling everyone he meets that he thinks you're an asshole and him calling you everyday to tell you that he thinks you're an asshole. You tell him once to stop calling/emailing/etc and he's supposed to stop.

The difference with WBC is that if they do it in a public location, it's within their rights...if they take to doing it in your front yard or something you have direct control over then it moves into a different arena of law. You have the right to tell people to get off your property and to not call/email/write you anymore, and people will be punished if they continue to do those things. Like this guy.

>> ^Lumm:
[citation] http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13495


From your source:

Many states have enacted "cyberstalking" or "cyberharassment" laws or have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws.

Just like it says, those laws just add electronic forms of communications into existing stalking and harassment laws. That still doesn't make it illegal to be a dick. If it was, who gets to decide what's considered dickish? Like they already said in the video, how is what he did any different than the WBC protesting at dead soldier's funerals. Should it be illegal because it's done online, but perfectly OK to do it in person? As sickening as what he did and what the WBC do, if we start telling them they can't do it, then that's just the start of the snowball rolling down the mountain.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Very creative! Here's what you need to know about BHO.
He's a child of privilege posing as a downtrodden victim who somehow climbed out of America's drowning pool of "racism".
Every president ever has existed under an altered image. George Washington didn't really cut down a cherry tree.
He isn't terribly bright but he knows what he's doing. He was nominated to assuage idiots' "White Guilt." He is an affirmative-action president with no real political credentials.
Right, people who aren't very bright become professors of constitutional law at Harvard all the time.
He's got a grudge against America, American Exceptionalism and free market capitalism. What the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright believes, BARACK believes.
I have a grudge against Exceptionalism and free market capitalism, but still love America with all my heart. Do you still beat your wife?
He's likely a closet atheist, but for now obviously can't admit it.
There he goes proving his intelligence again. Bush wasn't a Texan either.
He has had no achievements to speak of since taking office, unless--UNLESS--you understand what his true motives are: turn America into just another forgettable Euro-dump with no identity. Suddenly it makes sense!
Does getting Osama count? Before you say that it's the Seals that got him, remember that Obama came under heavy fire for thinking we should reach into Pakistan.
"BULLPLOP QM! Barack wants JOBS for Americans!" As long as he embraces Keynesian rubbish, it won't happen. And he can't turn back now.
You don't know that his strategy won't work, this problem was a long time in the making. And it will be a long time getting out. (I've seen Morganthau quote)
The libmedia works for BHO as if they were being paid directly from the White House. They hide his gaffes, downplay his goof-ups and hide the results of his schemes.
I can't argue with this one. I stopped watching the news a long, long time ago.
America is worse off now than when this jug-eared socialist was elected.
Again, no one... no one... could have stopped the giant snowball yet.
I'm not a liberal (anymore) so I can't match wits wit the brilliant geniuses here, but the results of the BHO Fraudsidency speak for themselves. Every day.
I don't know why I feel the need to defend this president. Especially considering that I think all politicians are completely full of shit. I guess I was just way more comfortable with him than any of our other options. Do we really believe that he's anything but a powerless figurehead anyway?

Also, as far as the video is concerned, the problems we face are way more complicated than "working harder" and "getting more". A complex system composed of billions of individuals cannot be boiled down to a few simple rules. And the rules we have will constantly have to change as people adapt to the new system anyway. All kindergartners are taught that one plus one equals two. It takes a lifetime to even visualize what it truly takes to have a functioning society.

Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

@messenger that's what i've been saying, only i'm not as sure that the lumen seals itself once fully inflated thus avoiding any further extra work. But i do say that in either case you would still not stand a snowball's chance in hell of noticing it; it would be an act of supreme lazyness to refuse to ride one because of the 'extra effort' involved. Olympic lazyness. Like shaving your head just cos you don't want the added effort of carrying the weight.

Cool, finally a competition where I have a snowball's chance in hell to win a prize!

Regardless of how you like his politics, I don't see a snowball's chance in hell he'd beat Obama. He would fail to galvanize a significant portion of the political right due to religion, he'd lose most moderates, and most of the Democrats wouldn't support him because his views they support don't turn out Democrats to vote enough.

>> ^Morganth:

Why? Because when the government does nothing these people shouldn't care about their neighbor?They shouldn't try to practice what they believe and care for people like Jesus did?>> ^NaMeCaF:
I think the scariest thing about this whole story is the fundamentalist christian groups running the rehabs.



Oh no, don't get me wrong. If they sincerely were just helping them recover from their addiction then more power to them. What I have a problem with is the fact that they don't just do that, they brainwash the addicts and fill their heads with fundamentalist christian crap and breed more of these nutcases who go on to do the same thing, and like a big snowball effect, their numbers grow and then you end up with another America.

Hmmmm... the floor appears to be moving. Is it alive? It doesn't respond when I hit it with my right paw. It doesn't respond with the left either. Let me check the... GAHHH! DAMN YOU SNOWBALL, SOME OF US ARE TRYING TO RUN AN INVESTIGATION HERE!

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan
I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.
Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year...
The point I was trying to make is, he wasn't saying there should be no laws. He even mentioned that even the 1st amendment has rules, that you can't injure or defame others. He believes that your personal choices should be your own.
If someone injures another, like your child abuse analogy, then he believes there SHOULD be consequences and laws. If your heroin junkie breaks into someone's home to steal money, then he should go to jail for burglary, not being an addict. If he holds a knife to your kid's throat to get their lunch money, he should be jailed for assault with deadly weapon, not because he has a used needle in his back pocket.


How is polling the audience supporting that argument? He was making two arguments (at least), one of which was the "reasonable person" argument which I think is baloney. You could apply the same argument to a horrible crime like child abuse.

His _other_ argument which you highlight -- the right to personal freedom -- is much more persuasive. I agree it is THE fundamental argument on this topic, and nobody should believe that it's a slam dunk argument either way.

I think entr0py's argument is compelling. Drugs like heroin are an overly tempting way to ruin your life. It's not a matter of intelligence or education -- one of the most interesting anti-smoking studies found that teenagers actually OVERestimate the danger of smoking. But they still do it, anyway. Virtually everyone who smokes started as a teenager. People simply do stupid things which are against their self interests and society's interest. So I don't want to see heroin regulated the way cigarettes are. That's not sufficient. Anyway, this is the "should government protect you from yourself" argument which some people find repugnant. I take it you are one of them. You don't care if 15% of every high school class dies from heroin abuse because on their 18th birthday they get access to plentiful, cheap heroin. I'm not saying that would be the case, I'm just saying that a strict believer in personal freedom would be fine with this.

Also I think we should worry about preventing crime, not punishing it. Yes, we could offer a young mother lots of heroin and wait until her child neglect becomes actionable by the state, but why let a family be ruined? You're right, her actions would snowball to the point of being illegal without making the drug itself illegal. That doesn't really reassure me much.

Maybe such problems wouldn't be widespread if all drugs were legalized. But they're already fairly common, and I don't see how legalizing everything would make them rarer.

Are you really OK with living next door to a house full of heroin addicts? having them offer your children heroin? Watching them spiral in to filth while they lose self control? Seeing their children show up at the bus stop unwashed and starving? And having the police tell you "Well, they haven't done anything illegal yet. Clearly this situation will crash and burn shortly, but we should definitely stand at the sidelines and watch. We wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms". Or maybe child services is more on the ball and the children end up in state custody sooner rather than later, so it's a happy ending? So maybe children and parents aren't allowed to use these drugs but other people can? And maybe nobody who operates heavy machinery? And certainly not schoolteachers.

It just seems like a useless exercise to me to try to give people the freedom to use a drug like heroin when it will only cause terrible repercussions.