Bank of America has been evil for a long while. They are vultures to low income people and shit all over their regular customers as well. I stopped using them a couple of years ago. Credit unions are the way to go.

I love this guys analogy to McDonalds. A bank and Mcdonalds? This guy really thinks everyone is an idiot; what a scummy piece of work this guy is.

>> ^EMPIRE:

here's what I seriously don't understand about these riots... there's rampant pillaging and vandalism, and only today is the police pondering the possibility of using rubber bullets?? wtf? That should've been used 2 days ago.

How would baton rounds stop what you see in this video? It doesn't matter what the police use, its an issue of manpower. These scum know the Police is stretched, so they take advantage like the opportunistic vultures they are.


Why hasn't a heavy hand been used? Well, its partly political (Tories government is basically afraid of stepping on the lower classes and don't want to compromise the "image" of London before the Olympics - A little late for that imo) but also purely practical. The police can't risk seriously injuring or even killing a civi, criminal or not, it would likely incite more violence. Further more, things like Water Cannons just aren't useful against this type of Riot. This is almost "Guerilla" looting and arson.

Personally I feel that if this goes on they need to really consider a curfew, although I'm not sure how practical it would be to actually implement.

In other news, several paragliders in nepal have been reporting vultures following them at close range and trying to mount their hands.

Very cool!

>> ^Smugglarn:

My first thought was that the explosion was the work of Muslim terrorists, and when I heard about the shooting - things didn't make sense. First, that it was a socialist gathering - they are useful idiots for the terrorists, but they were the party in power so maybe that was the reason. Second, it came out pretty early that the shooter was blond. I figured it was a retaliation - but couldn't find any timeline.
Now, everybody predictably screams that there is no Muslim threat, and the Nazi bogie man is everywhere. Which couldn't be further from the truth, and has been the dogma in Sweden, giving Muslim youths and Anarchists carte blanche to rob, vandalize, brutalize and murder citizens they don't approve of - oh and everybody else.
Everything sucks.

Do you ever get bored of being wrong? Little vulture.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^ponceleon:
Yup: one quick google search later and it is an ad for food rescue:
http://simonfoodfavourites.blogspot.com/2011/05/mast
er-chef-judge-matt-moran-loses-it.html
For a good cause, but it did seems a bit odd/staged.

Your viralometer is strong.


Like I said in my first comment... if you've seen ANY behind-the-scenes stuff about cooking shows, it was just clear this didn't make any sense whatsoever. The staff on those shows are like fucking vultures. It's like they don't pay for food outside of work or something.

The media here in Edmonton is having a field day with this, but I have mixed views regarding this incident.

Firstly, he's being an ass and could have handled it much better. The first thing he should have done when he saw those vultures from CTV was stop, tell them that there would be a media event/press conference in half an hour and that he had no comment until then. Hopefully the media would have stopped following him then but even if they didn't there would be no story for them to run.

Secondly, the media people were being pushy assholes who should have just understood that he wasn't going to comment and should have just waited for the press conference for a comment.

Either way, it's stupid that this is becoming 'big news'.

swooping in like a vulture for the *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Advertising-swords-with-middle-aged-mean-hacking-at-meat

thanks dingens for saving me the trouble of looking for it

*discard this preying like a debt vulture asshole

"You're beautiful in your wrath. Were Wang younger and more nimble at dodging swords, I might give you to him and keep the furs. For they, too, are beautiful."

"I shall keep you, Bortai. I shall keep you, and responding to my passion, your hatred will kindle into love."

"Before that day dawns, Mongol, the vultures will have feasted on your heart!"

*SMACK!*

Yeah, bitch deserved it.

But seriously. John Wayne as a Mongolian?? I'm not sold.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?
This. Whatever liability BP is on the hook for should be handled 100% through the courts, not by the Executive branch. There is a separation of powers for a reason.
Umm, false. If I break something of yours, do you have to 100% go through the courts to get compensation? No. Why? Because civil court is totally optional.

Can I prevent you from seeking damages in court? Only if you sign a legal agreement waiving that right, and then only as long as the court feels like you gave properly informed consent.

Can Obama force you to go through the ICF? No. Can Obama take away your ability to seek damages in court? No, because of separation of powers.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


it just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims
You say the words GOVERNMENT RUN ESCROW and still no alarm bells go off in your head?

No! I have not been programmed to have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response where I wet myself with fear whenever the word "government" comes into play.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now Obama’s ‘pay czar’ is the one people bow & scrape before for redress – a guy who has no oversight, answers to no one, didn’t have a single vote by Congress, and doesn’t have to face an approval process. No chance for abuse there, eh?

All public servants are answerable to someone. Even Supreme Court Justices can be impeached. I'm sure there will be Congressional oversight of this -- as there is to most things the Executive does. Republicans will demand it, and Democrats have no reason to oppose it.

Then there's that whole thing where you can still just seek damages in court...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial
The president has no constitutional right to collect monies from private organizations of any kind for any reason - real or fancied, freely or begrudged. The president DOES have a constitutional right direct the military and defense of this country and that includes treatment of captured enemy soldiers. See the difference?

Wait, what happened to separation of powers? The President doesn't have to give people trials anymore under the Constitution? Read the 6th amendment again, please!

Plus, again, no legal authority is being exerted, BP is voluntarily agreeing to this, and is certainly within their rights to refuse, and most certainly within their rights to challenge the legality of the fund in court.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Just as a final note – I’m not saying BP should be ‘off the hook’. I’m of the opinion that when anyone screws up, they should take responsibility for their actions. When a company screws up, they should pay for the damages. BP has been cutting corners & playing dangerously to save cash and the mess is their fault. They should do the right thing and step up & fix it. That includes paying for legitimate damages and cleanup.

Good to hear. I'm sure you won't contradict yourself in the next paragraph...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That’s not the same thing as saying they should just write a black check and hand it to the government and walk away. There is certainly no onus on BP to pay all the lunatic claims that will inevitably result as the greedy vultures start circling over this 20 billion. BP isn't responsible for lower tourism revenues, or dropping home prices. The only people that should be getting money are people who have actual PHYSICAL repairs or clean up costs due to oil. All the other stuff is 'act of god' stuff and sometimes that just happens and you have to deal with it.

Ahh, so now you're defining down what constitutes a legitimate claim from what even BP says is legitimate? Good to know you don't want to "let them off the hook"...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Obama’s ‘BP stash’ is designed by nature to be an irresponsible, unanswerable, politically motivated vote-machine. Why should we believe Obama is going to run this clean when he hasn’t run a single ‘clean’ political effort in his lifetime? At what point has government EVER been a responsible entity for the distribution of cash for damages? Never. This is the tobacco settlement fiasco just waiting to happen again.

Ahh, and you close with a fact-free animosity-driven rant. Everyone is answerable. Obama can lose re-election, and he can be impeached. More meaningfully, he can be subjected to public pressure, and evidence of impropriety would certainly be a big story, so every media maven will be looking for some. There's also that whole "no one is giving up their right to sue" part of this, as well as the plain observation that courts are part of the government too...

Plus the specific, named, person Obama's looking at having manage the fund also managed the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, which by most accounts was handled well.

I don't expect to convince you to trust government agencies, but for God's sake, they aren't taking away people's right to sue. If they tried, you can count on someone suing over it!

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?

This. Whatever liability BP is on the hook for should be handled 100% through the courts, not by the Executive branch. There is a separation of powers for a reason.

it just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims

You say the words GOVERNMENT RUN ESCROW and still no alarm bells go off in your head? The executive branch does not have the power to do this. The Constitution plainly states you appeal to congress for a redress of grievances – not the President’s personally appointed toadies. Now Obama’s ‘pay czar’ is the one people bow & scrape before for redress – a guy who has no oversight, answers to no one, didn’t have a single vote by Congress, and doesn’t have to face an approval process. No chance for abuse there, eh?

but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial

The president has no constitutional right to collect monies from private organizations of any kind for any reason - real or fancied, freely or begrudged. The president DOES have a constitutional right direct the military and defense of this country and that includes treatment of captured enemy soldiers. See the difference?

Just as a final note – I’m not saying BP should be ‘off the hook’. I’m of the opinion that when anyone screws up, they should take responsibility for their actions. When a company screws up, they should pay for the damages. BP has been cutting corners & playing dangerously to save cash and the mess is their fault. They should do the right thing and step up & fix it. That includes paying for legitimate damages and cleanup.

That’s not the same thing as saying they should just write a black check and hand it to the government and walk away. There is certainly no onus on BP to pay all the lunatic claims that will inevitably result as the greedy vultures start circling over this 20 billion. BP isn't responsible for lower tourism revenues, or dropping home prices. The only people that should be getting money are people who have actual PHYSICAL repairs or clean up costs due to oil. All the other stuff is 'act of god' stuff and sometimes that just happens and you have to deal with it.

Obama’s ‘BP stash’ is designed by nature to be an irresponsible, unanswerable, politically motivated vote-machine. Why should we believe Obama is going to run this clean when he hasn’t run a single ‘clean’ political effort in his lifetime? At what point has government EVER been a responsible entity for the distribution of cash for damages? Never. This is the tobacco settlement fiasco just waiting to happen again.

Fixed! Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
private video = *dead

Download Adam Carolla's podcast of him interviewing James Nguyen here (though you'll notice by the URL they thought his name was John Nguyen): http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2010/04/11/adam-and-john-nguyen

If there are just three uncomfortable words I take away from that interview (which is unfortunately wrought with language and culture confusion), they are: vultures are scavengers.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
i really think i felt a sigh of relief that this was sifted. If i could just force everyone right into my queue....


In reply to this comment by enoch:
this needs to be sifted.
*promote!

thats where i found it.you have a lot of great vids and i love greg palast!

i really think i felt a sigh of relief that this was sifted. If i could just force everyone right into my queue....


In reply to this comment by enoch:
this needs to be sifted.
*promote!