To be fair, SOME people do work hard honestly to become rich. SOME people are merely lucky, right place right time. But as more and more people simply inherit their wealth, or get their wealth through dishonest means, it stacks the deck against the honest and the lucky to the point where hard work is the exception, not the rule. Which is where we're at now.

I also got a kick out of the difference in monopoly money, where the "rich" player got 2K and the "poor" person only got 1K. If you want to make that more realistic, the "rich" player should have received something like 50K or 100K.

If rich people merely had double what the average person had..and SOME perks, I doubt that people would be complaining as much. I think most people accept that there is always someone more well off. so the issue isn't envy as some of the pundits like to point out. The issue is not that they have more, but that they have EXPONENTIALLY more, and on top of that, they appear to be exempt from certain rules the rest of us have to follow. Justice seems to be in favor of a rich person and their expensive lawyers vs the poor person and their public defender.

We don't have lower/middle/upper class anymore, it's more like lower/middle/upper/very upper/extremely upper/obscenely upper where even the well off are paupers by comparison.

@RedSky I would add that the Jewish laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. are the foundations for Sharia law, but that most Christians throughout history see Jesus as having repudiated Jewish law (this is of course a question of interpretation), causing it to have "lived on" almost exclusively in its Islamic form. I still hold that as far as fundamentals go, the Quran and life of Mohammed are somewhat more easily used as unequivocal justification for violence than the New Testament and Jesus. (I would reference gorillaman's comment, but... see below)

I'm glad you brought Indonesia into the picture, as it is a good example of my argument. It may be the most populated muslim country, but it has repeatedly refused to let its central gvt be encroached upon by Islam, i.e. to become an Islamic state or espouse Sharia (despite the pressure from noisy fundamentalists).
In the one part of the country where Sharia is allowed to be enforced, Aceh, you get the same amount of unethical conduct and discrimination/violence towards women, homosexuals, non-jilbab-wearers, "adulterers" etc as you'd expect in the meanest of the Islamic states. And where do they find those discriminatory laws and the "divine" authority to enforce them? The Quran of course.

@gorillaman You make a few salient points (about the life/example of M. and the fact that, unlike The Bible, the Quran is the work of one author, alive at the time of the religion's birth) but you lose all credibility by
a) using a homophobic slur as a pejorative in your first line and
b) making gross (and false) generalisations, notably the all-caps
"THIS IS WHAT ALL MUSLIMS BELIEVE" which is so easily demonstrably false (simply ask the nearest muslim). If it had read "this is what fundamentalist muslims believe" or even "this is what all muslims should believe if they want to honestly hold that the Quran is the perfect word of God" then you would be a bit closer to reality.
Finally, the hyperbole of your last paragraph does not help your credibility either. I am as antitheist as one can be, and the gross demonisation of religious believers (aka fellow human beings) as criminals and inhumane, ethic-less zombies not only made me shake my head sadly, it also reminded me of how religious extremists depict atheists.

@Babymech You do know that most of the Islamist terrorist attacks were perpetrated by middle-to-upper-class, well-to-do educated men, not poor and desperate Jean Valjeans, right?
The reason I pointed to your first comment as one of the "ignorant extremes" of attitude towards Islam and violence is that, the way I read it, it illustrated the common rebuttal that often comes from the far-left when a terrorist/mass-murderer is found out to be a Muslim extremist: "it must be other political/socio-economical factors, it can't be plain old religious fanaticism" or "it's our fault for waging war on them". While I agree that the US should never have gone a-warring in the ME, it's often a false equivalence and ignorant simplification to exclude or minimise the religious factor. In hindsight it was maybe rash of me to read that much into your comment, but I hope I have made clear what I meant.

As for Maher's stance that Islam is (in this point in history, as he stresses) worse than Christianity: for my opinion see above, and feel free to refute my "argumentum ad comparatio" to support your disagreement.

Not really here to boost my stats. I've been here a while and only posted the video I did to get the "p" off my name. When I joined years ago I vowed I would only post a video if i though it was the of high enough quality. The few i have deemed good enough would have been dupes, so I haven't posted. I wont compromise those standards to make myself look better.

As for some of the other stat boosting you suggested, If I have free time I might, but I don't consider it a high priority.

As for your hatred for the government, I find it to blind hatred, completely unfocused. You are looking for problems to bitch about rather than addressing the problems that exist. I personally think that the current administration should do more to balance wage inequality, do more to protect the middle class from upper class and business abuses. I don't think the government is "out to get us" because the government serves the interests of businesses to often and they need consumers to continue giving them money.

But you see, this is the thing you learn about James Bond. Vesper Lynd gets it - he's a common thug in a Savile Row suit. Ordering such a malapropos beverage as a shaken vodka martini is one of the ways Fleming let his readership know what sort of chap Bond is - either studiously disdainful of what his upper-class schoolmates might have considered correct, or clueless.

You can do your own research if you really want to find the answer. From the research I've done, I've already established that the availability of guns does not guarantee a significant reduction in violent crime. If that were the case, DC's violent crime rate would be significantly lower than it is because they have very strict gun laws. I've also established that a ban on assault rifles would not have a significant impact on gun-related crime because the vast majority of gun-related crime is committed using pistols, not fully-automatic weapons. I've also established that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, either stolen or obtained through unofficial means. The facts simply don't support the idea that banning assault rifles (or even all guns) would significantly reduce violent crime.

The current fixation on gun control is a purely reactionary response to recent shooting sprees (which comprise a negligible percentage of all gun violence). The only reason people care now is because these shooting sprees generally take place in middle and upper-class areas. Nobody cares when people get killed in poor areas, where the bulk of violent crime occurs.

I'm in no way a gun nut (I don't own nor plan to ever own any guns) but I'm not going to let my opinion of guns get in the way of facts. People who blindly believe that banning guns will solve all problems are just as bad as the NRA. Do your own research and don't ignore facts that contradict your own position. The FBI website is a great place to start, as they provide annual statistics on all crime in the U.S. and they don't have any reason to skew the numbers.

really disappointed in stewart. I think we should take care of people. Upper class is doing better, middle class is getting smaller, poor is being taxed more. Most people do not under stand what a semi-automatic gun qualify as.

Hey America! If you really want to "save" lives how about getting the fat asses off the couch. 20 kids dead... it is terrible, but how about texting drivers, super-size meals, buckets of movie size sodas?

I can't wait for the next bandwagon to jump on.

Poor Bob, punching stuff into google doesn't qualify as "research"

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Hrm, I wonder why THE BOTTOM 50 pay so little. Hrm...maybe it's because they're in THE BOTTOM 50 and don't have as much to give?

SHOCK!!

If only we had a strong middle class to even things out a bit. Congratulations Bob, you're demonstrating the point of the video. The Rich get taxed more, because they can afford it. When you have such a large disparity in incomes such as we have now. flat taxes don't fucking work dumbass. It would be nice if they did, but reality just doesn't work that way.

The bottom 50 pay little or no tax because there is really no point in taxing them more. a higher percentage of a small amount is still a small amount silly. Meanwhile you have the top 1 percent. You can take over 90 percent of their entire wealth and they'd still be extremely wealthy. No one's even asking for that much in taxes. The amount extra they are being asked to pay is paltry. They spend many multiple times more than that on political campaigns so they can continue to keep their taxes low. Imagine if that money actually did something more than just buy fucking ugly billboards and lawn signs and commercials.

We don't live in a world of 3 classes anymore. lower/middle/upper. It's more like lower/middle/upper/VERY upper/OBSCENELY upper.

When your upper class is poor compared to the obscenely wealthy. you've got a problem. Money must flow for an economy to work. Money doesn't flow when it's being hoarded at the top. Trickle down economics might actually work if money actually trickled down. Problem is, it doesn't. It stays at the top.

You really should have just watched the video bob, then I wouldn't have to repeat it for you. We all know you have comprehension problems, but still.

>> ^nanrod:

What I got out of that is that Romney/Ryan are proposing to increase the tax burden on the rich. The math is actually simple. There will be a revenue neutral 20 % across the board tax cut with neutrality achieved thru closing loopholes and the middle class will benefit from the cuts. If the overall package is revenue neutral and the middle class benefits then someone, presumably the upper classes must be paying more under this scenario. It's simple algebra.


LOL That was awesome.

You forgot your "sarcasm" tag though.

What I got out of that is that Romney/Ryan are proposing to increase the tax burden on the rich. The math is actually simple. There will be a revenue neutral 20 % across the board tax cut with neutrality achieved thru closing loopholes and the middle class will benefit from the cuts. If the overall package is revenue neutral and the middle class benefits then someone, presumably the upper classes must be paying more under this scenario. It's simple algebra.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^chilaxe:
@VoodooV
A clever person might be able to hide a weapon inside a uniform, but uniforms still serve their purpose if it's more difficult to do so and if data shows it occurs less frequently.
(But all smart kids should do the world a favor and drop out, take their high school equivalency, and go straight to community college / online classes.)

I am agreeing with you. I'm just ripping on the video because they're pretending that uniforms are this magic shield against firearms and basically trying to scare dumb white people.


As long as uniforms work (reduce the use of weapons), I don't see any reason to downplay the value of the video and uniforms. They're not claiming a 100% success rate.

Poor people deserve freedom from violence as much as middle & upper class people, who don't care as much because they don't send their kids to schools where this is a problem.

>> ^sixshot:

I propose an idea... create a humanity level scale... with appropriately named levels like "Scum", "Garbage", "Good", "Saint", and "God-like" if you will. Can you imagine where this guy would end up on such a scale?


I'd love to have this sliding scale in society instead of the current classes (working, middle and upper class), if your humanity level scale were a concept taught to people from a young age it would almost certainly be a positive influencer of peoples' behaviour

Not being expert in British accents, am I correct in interpreting that as 'upper class preppy'?

About a month ago, a buddy and I were in Beijing going to a bar on a Saturday evening. In the subway station, we spotted a middle/upper class couple get into a heated argument. All of a sudden, the boyfriend (with significant height and weight advantage over the girl, a typical petite chinese girl) started violently laying hard punches on the girl. I mean, the type of punches you would only expect to lay on a guy. It was disgusting to watch.

My friend was so enraged, she started yelling at the guy and calling him trash. For a minute, I thought I was going to have to fight that night. But when she threatened to call the police, the couple left.

So yeah, I guess you have to watch what types of people/cultures you hang around. Even though this was a picturesque chinese couple; and the girl obviously knew the guy. And you have to watch what neighborhoods you walk through. Even though we were in a wealthy part of town.

Thanks for the lessons @chilaxe.

edit: If your friend comes to videosift to see your educational video, make sure she searches for "punch girl" and "cunt punch" so she can take notes on who to avoid.

>> ^zombieater:

So, basically his idea is that these people don't know actual work or hardship and that these poor humble corporations (as if they're actual people) are the saviors of our modern world. What bullshit.
Here is my response.
Even if you work one or two jobs, it wont make much of a difference because workers' wages are at an all time low and corporate profits are at an all time high. That destroys his "work hard and win" argument right there for the majority of Americans.
Since 1980, corporations have started to take their profits and reinvest them and buy out competition instead of increasing the pay for their workers (that's in the link too). Basically, screw over the working class and benefit the upper class.


Apparently in order to protest in this country we have to actually become a third world police state. I say we protest BEFORE that happens.

>> ^jmzero:
The 50s were an aberration, not the norm for all time before the horrible 60s. This is a ridiculous untruth propagated by people who grew up in the 50s and who, in the US, are bitter about losing a cultural war. Much of the reason the 50s were so explicitly religious was because of government intervention - explicit religion was seen as a counter to communism. Other than that, it was a generational effect, you can see the cycle through history. In terms of overall morality, I'll take now - a time without slavery, less crime, and much more protection for the bullied in general - over pretty much any point in history.

This isn't entirely true. Yes, the late 40s and 50s were aberrations in the 20th century, mostly because of world war 2. America considered WW2 to be a moral war, perhaps the greatest example of the paradigm of good versus evil in our history, and biblical morality was at an all time high. However, Christian theism has always been the dominant worldview of American intellectuals until secular humanism started to dominate around the 1930s. If not for the war the culture may have changed earlier, but in general it has been a Christian nation with Christian values.

>> ^jmzero:
I mean, there were certainly positives to the 1950s if you were a middle-to-upper-class white male but it really sucked for most other people.

I think the society was quite a bit better, and safer for most. Crime was much less than it is now, cost of living was lower, standard of living was rising, etc. Yes, there was racism and the like, but it's not like we've gotten rid of that either.

>> ^jmzero:
As to now, the biggest immoral behavior I see the US doing right now is slaughtering people overseas. I'm waiting for the time when warmongering candidates can't get support in Tennessee because of all the Christians. Oh wait, it's not warmongering they hate, it's "differing slightly on religious views".

I agree, many Christian voters are voting on superficial issues and not on whether the candidate is meeting biblical standards.

>> ^jmzero:
And who is fighting hardest against universal healthcare, foodstamps, and progressive taxation? Most people (of any kind) are good and want to help the underprivileged; mostly they just differ on how to administer that aid.

Conservatives are, and not all Christians are conservatives. Jesus taught both conservative and liberal principles, but both sides want to claim Him for themselves. I think most people want to help the poor, but most people aren't doing anything about it unfortunately.

>> ^jmzero:
According to this - http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/most-charitable-states-cx_lh_1125home_ls.html - the #1 state is Utah. Hmmm... I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're browbeaten by their church into donating? Too bad they're not Christians, eh Shiny, or you could take credit for them. On the whole, I think it's ridiculous to count donations to a Church as wholly charitable for this purpose. A donation to a church is partially going to support charitable stuff, but largely is going to support building a church, heating it, maintaining it, advertising it, supplying it, and paying people who work there (the same as a donation to Applebee's).

Well, supporting the church also supports all of these local programs and ministries, such as food banks and homeless shelters, so I think it all pans out. As far as mormons go, they aren't Christian for the same reason muslims aren't Christian; they both teach another God apart from the God of the bible.

>> ^jmzero:
Speaking for myself, I made it about 10 seconds in before it annoyed me too much to keep watching. Annoying voice, cliche, stupid non-jokes.

I made it all the way through somehow. It hurt me deep inside.