search results matching tag: teh
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
| Videos (86) | Sift Talk (12) | Blogs (6) | Comments (850) |
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
| Videos (86) | Sift Talk (12) | Blogs (6) | Comments (850) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Praise the Colo-Rectal Surgeon!
Payback*promote
Bah, I don't think the backup embed worked. I R teh dum.
Trump and Putin -- A Love Story. Trump Does Bite
bobknight33RED WAVE coming.
you need to join #walkaway
https://youtu.be/GiLXCJCMizQ?t=2m25s
This all occurred under OBAMA administration. Obama administration and did nothing. Sill Rodinstine when he came out last week about teh 12 Russians also noted NO American involvement and Zero influence in the outcome of the election.
Reading and comprehension are two different things...
Happy 12th Siftiversary (Sift Talk Post)
Eklekkeep siftin' teh intertubular wizardry!
Logan Trailer #2
ZawashIf it's only half as good as the trailers it's going to be Teh Epicness.
OMFG!
If this movie doesn't live up to these trailers I am going to f-ing kill someone.
Sorry, explain again what happened to your co-pilot...
siftbot5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.
"SEAGULLS! (Stop It Now)" -- A Bad Lip Reading of SW's ESB
poolcleanera ant wuz n teh matrix eh liddel two lang .. .
+o
Rigging the Election - Video II: Mass Voter Fraud
bobknight33Obamacare was sold as THE ANSWER. IS HAS FAILED. It isn't the answer.
Clinton Foundation is so freaking great. Just ask the president of Haiti and its people how they got screwed by the Clinton Foundation. Its a scam for them to line their own political pockets.
To believe anything from a Clinton is utterly fullish. History is full of Clinton lies.
Democrats don't back down no matter what.
Loot at Clinton wiki leaks have her dead to right but she is not backing down. Attack the Russians but lets not looks at the emails just blame the Russian. Great miss direction and teh mainstream media goes right along with it.
look Hillary will will win by a land slide (not) and you can cream your pants.
You can pull any website and "look" at premiums but until you actually y go through the process you don't know the number,
Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!
Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.
Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.
Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.
You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.
So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.
Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.
Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *subsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/
If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.
Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.
Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.
I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.
BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.
Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png
More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.
These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.
Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.
REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.
That's not substantial?!?!
Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.
Bill Maher - Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Biopsy
ChaosEngineI 100% agree that not only is Bernie the better candidate and would make a better President than either Clinton or Trump, he would also have a better chance of beating Trump.
Republicans might not like Sanders on a political level ("ermahgerd, teh socialism is coming!", etc), but they DESPISE Clinton on a personal level.
And let's be honest, most of that has nothing to do with her real or perceived failings.. it's because
a) she's a woman and
b) she was married to Bill.
But that is irrelevant because Clinton is the candidate.
Addressing your other points:
"Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.
Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill)"
Sorry, I missed the part where Bill Clinton was the nominee. Leaving aside the dubious nature of the allegations against him, the point is that he's not the candidate, Hillary is.
The email thing was bad, but as has been gone over many times, it was stupid rather than malicious.
"Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?"
Easy, Trump is worse. When did we all decide that being able to make deals was a bad thing? That's what politics is. If you don't know the system, you will get railroaded.
Now, my preference would have been for someone who knows the system and wants to change it, but as that's not going to happen, I'll take someone who can get shit done over an inexperienced buffon any day.
Once again, I completely agree that Bernie would have stood a better chance than Hillary of being elected, but it pretty much doesn't matter anymore. Everyday that passes Trump slips further behind, giving me some small hope for humanity.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
... parapharsed...
Bernie would be better than Clinton or Trump.
Bill is a womanizer
Clinton lies constantly.
Political experience.
Enough already, Eric3579 -- let us celebrate you! (Happy Talk Post)
ZawashCongratulations @eric3579 - one of the nicest Sifters in existence! Thank you - you make the Sift (and teh Internets in general) a much nicer place - hooray for the very much deserved Galaxy badge!!
The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses
Zawash*wears his bleeding amazing Maui Jim's*
http://sunglasshutsucks.blogspot.no/2010/01/maui-jim-luxottica-split-up.html
Boo ya, Luxottica!!
True story - I *really* love my Maui Jim sunglasses, and I'm pleased after watching this and finding out they're not only teh awesome in themselves, but also one of the few brands not owned by Luxottica.
Aziraphale
(Member Profile)
bareboards2Isn't it so much more fun to actually exchange information and points of view, rather than getting snotty? I love it.
Maybe we are talking a bit at cross purposes. (Like, that has never happened before on teh intertubes, right?)
I try not to "re-edit" or "re-imagine" videos. I'm sure I do it -- I often do things that I later complain that other people do. This comment goes back more to your first response to me, however it applies to this comment, too. The idea that the video would be better if it this'd, or that'd, or it fails to do this other thing that it wasn't even trying to do. The concept of being conscious of "the bigger picture" is what I am addressing here.
However, isn't it just YOUR vision of what the bigger picture is that you say is missing? Because for me, I see a bigger picture being addressed quite nicely -- the vision that the video maker set out to address.
I wonder if the nebulous nature of your instinctive dislike to this video is indeed EXACTLY what the video maker was setting out to illuminate? Or rather, decided to be not obsequious to? Like women have been taught to be obsequious for eons?
I notice that you are sure that your difficult-to-describe instinctive reactions are "correct." What if it is actually your own internalized and unexamined sexism? I know you say thunderfoot bugs you, too. I also know that all my impassioned information about how women across cultures and time are expected to "tone it down" wasn't addressed in your response to me.
That is the elephant in the room here, as far as I am concerned. Sure, "condescension" is gender neutral. The whole video, though, is about sexism and the unconscious ways that it leaks out. I don't see you addressing that in your response -- except maybe, MAYBE, it is this nebulous and difficult thing you are struggling to understand and maybe, MAYBE, it needs to be examined and understood.
So maybe look at your feelings through that prism?
I say this as someone who has their own internalized sexism (towards men and women both) that I am constantly trying to identify and own and uproot. Racism, too. I so want to be the person who, like Stephen Colbert of old, who doesn't see race. And yet I do and I am mortified by it and I try to push through that lizard brain instinct and the training of my youth.
Something to think about maybe?
Or not. Maybe it just is as simple as you don't like the humor in the video, and I do. There are differences in taste, after all.
I suspect, though, that it is much more complex than that -- as you said, "maybe I'm going into it with the notion that I'm going to be offended anyway."
First off, let me thank you for your kind words, and for engaging thoughtfully and civilly. I really respect anyone who can do that. So first, "poisonous" is probably not the right word, but I did feel like I was being talked down to. Possibly just because I'm oversensitive, or maybe I'm going into it with the notion that I'm going to be offended anyway, I'm not sure. It's not easy for me to put into concise language the nebulous feelings that float around in my brain.
Also, I'm almost certain that if the presenter had been a male, with the same tone, I would have found it equally as off-putting. As I said, thunderf00t is a dude that I mostly agree with, and I find his patronizing attitude to be... unhelpful at best.
In the end, I can't come up with a good rationalization for why the video should be any different. We shouldn't all be emotionless robots, and these issues *should* be talked about, but at the risk of falling into a relative privation fallacy, I think we all should be conscious of the bigger picture when creating content like this.
Cheers.
The New Wave of YouTube "Skeptics"
PaybackHonestly esjews has nothing to with Jews beyond trying to speak an acronym.
SJW = esjew
NRA = neera
GOP = gope
He's just being teh sillies.
I'm not sure if this is anti-zionist, anti-semitic, anti-SJW, anti-islam, antiquated, antipodean or just anti-everything.
What's with the esjew and esjudaism stuff? I'd love to know what point you were making by it - was it just something you found darkly funny, or do you think there's a link between SJWs and jews?
Also an Islamist in the traditional sense ('someone who promotes Islamic politics') shouldn't share much of their ideology with an 'SJW'. Depends on what group or particular muslim you're talking about, but an 'Islamist' and SJW should disagree on homosexuality, women's rights and capital punishment to name a few. I'd have thought strictly traditional muslims would be diametrically opposed to SJWs.
Progressive Dems To Clinton: This Race isn't Over
ChaosEngineWe'll have agree to disagree on the merits of Clinton and Trump.
As for the rest....
I haven't been "duped" by the media. The dem primary is over in all but name. Yes, it's not mathematically impossible for Bernie to win, but it's also highly improbable.
I've done the math.
Ignoring the super delegates, Clinton has 1768 vs Bernie's 1494.
There are 714 delegates still up for grabs, so Bernie would need to win 495 of them to be the popular pledged delegate candidate. That means Bernie needs to win 69% of the remaining delegates.
The vast majority(66.6% \m/) of those delegates are in the California primary where Bernie is projected to lose. Even the most optimistic poll has him losing by 2 points. If that happens it is mathematically impossible for him to win. Even if he manages a miracle and wins California by a few points, it's STILL mathematically impossible for him to win. He would have to win at least 53% of the vote in California to even stand a chance.
Finally, you're preaching to the converted. AFAIC, Bernie is so blatantly the obvious choice, I really can't understand why anyone wouldn't vote for him. Well, I can, it's because "boo! SOCIALISM!!! Oh teh noes!", but I find it depressing to accept. I've said before that in a sane political system, you would have a choice between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and Bernie.
And yes, Bernie beats Trump more than Clinton, but the democrats don't seem to have gotten that message.
The reason you don't see other candidates is that the primaries aren't over. Only the Democrats and Republicans play this game of 'the race is over...don't go vote, it won't matter' before the vote is over, even mathematically (which it still is not, BTW, contrary to your assertion. It is POSSIBLE, however unlikely, that Sanders could win despite the super delegates being in Clinton's pockets and the fix being in by the DNC, with only California's delegates, but they've duped you like millions of others into thinking it's been over for months now, and Clinton is our only remaining choice, and supporting Sanders now is like a vote for Trump, which is outrageously insulting BS).
Because Sanders has ALWAYS polled better than Clinton against Trump, if it's really a fear of yours that we might elect Trump, you should all be shouting at everyone possible to vote for Sanders on June 7th. Clinton VS Trump is at best a toss up at this point (and she's not even indicted yet), Sanders VS Trump is consistently a landslide for Sanders. Just DUH, people. It's like...come on.
Transgender in Women's Bathroom (Social Experiment)
enochyeah...this dude really misses the point,and plays right into some peoples fears.
how did he ever think this was a good idea?
"hey,let's make a video revealing people's bias by mocking that bias AND the trans people they are so hopelessly afraid of".
but the fact that he called his trans friend,absolves him of any responsibility i guess.i have a few black friends and a number of teh gays,and even a long time trans friend.guess that means i can be as racist and homophobic as i want to be right?riiiight?
this just makes no sense...
accomplishes nothing except for being trite,shallow and offensive....to everybody!
this morning a fellow minister posted a meme in regards to this on how it is a mans job to protect the females and any transitional male should be beaten.
for what,he does not clarify.
most likely because americans have become sissy pant bed wetters at the thought of a penis using a female lavatory.
look..my gelatinous blobs of fear,that delusionally call themselves "strong" americans.here is the simple truth:trans people have been using your bathrooms for...well...ever.
you didnt know,and really didnt care,but now that there is a law in place you and your gaggle of sissy prude-police have convinced yourself that all trans people wanted from that law is to bugger your little johnny,or brittany.
no.
they just want to pee.
Sanders Supporter Berns CNN During Broadcast
jmd says...Fox may be the trumpet boy for republicans, but CNN is the trumpet boy for teh stupid.