Just admit it Quantum. Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

In some ways they are, in others they ain't. There's enough differences to vote.

Do you sincerely think all these Republicans are just gonna give up their power and stop funneling tax dollars toward corporations that "donate" to re-elect them?

No. But why would you assume that only Republicans are in bed with corporations, and only taxocrats care about the "working man?" Corruption is the grease of democracy.

If you're gonna be angry about the left you HAVE to be equally as angry about the right.

That's where the Tea Party originated; anger about both sides being corrupt in their own ways. A few States should threaten to secede. The federal mafia is too big and too stupid to correct course, assuming they're even trying.

Dems are playing minor league ball compared to the GOP.

No, they're probably about the same. I've observed that there's more prosperity when taxocrats are out of power than in power. I'm disappointed when republicans fail to live up to expectations, but livid when taxocrats exceed theirs.

wow...just wow. If I could make this into a political cartoon, I'd draw some Christian dude sliding down a steep grassy incline towards a cliff. He'd be holding onto a TV that was jammed into the side and the TV would be labeled with this movie.

Or like...some thing where Christianity is leaking everywhere somehow...and he's using a TV with this movie playing to try and stop it but it's not working.

Man, I'm good...also, this vid totally deserves 10 =\

I noticed you'd checked out my latest sifts and voted on them (thanks :>) and I thought I'd have a nose around your videos to see what you've been sifting, but I've just been stopped mid-browse as I've noticed your astronomical 'votes cast' count. Now how the devil did you manage that?! You must be one diligent sifter!

Keep up the good work man, I like having you around.

Ahh, but messenger just said 'successful' comedians. I wasn't vouching as to whether I find them funny (Wanda Sykes for instance I really don't like)... and on the attractiveness front I know many who do find Want attractive. So they were just examples.

For the most part I don't like any comedian who has 'a bit'... as in, they have a particular thing that they do their comedy about, be it that they're a woman, or of different ethnic decent, or are short or fat etc. etc. The truly great comedians just tell stories... and those stories are hilarious.

In their prime, Robin Williams and Billy Connolly were superb examples of this. Connolly especially with his ability to go off on a seemingly random set of tangents for a long, long time (making you laugh hysterically all the while), and yet coming back to his original point after it all, long after you might expect him to have forgotten where he started.

They both have lost their edge these days (probably that issue of once you have money and comfort and power you loose the connection with the 'working man' comedy that you began with... or something). I find Ross Noble to be one of the best at doing this style these days. (I had tickets to see him a couple of weeks back with my wife.... and then my son kinda got his arm broken on the trampoline thanks to me so we missed out... doh)

If a woman comedian can do the same, or can just tell jokes that span a wide gamut of topics. One of my favourites at present is Kitty Flanagan.

It's like 1984 meets Minority Report on acid. Nice work, man

In reply to this comment by choggie:
Hey king candy-I made a new one-take viddy over to the youtube site....go check it out if you dare or care.....I am rather proud of it in a Roger Corman sorta way...

"The key to good film-making is in the star, the couch, and a schedule at least no more than a few days time from screenplay to the can" -Choggie Kendall

Not really, I've worked man-shier jobs at bestbuy and a couple other retail stores, the reason you sign the card isn't for proof of ownership, you're supposed to check the signatures.

Most store clerks don't really care or check, but sometimes when you're signing, look up, odds are they're watching you sign your name very closely to see if there's anything abnormal about it (For instance, If a name starts with a big grandiose letter on the signature on the card, but they just quickly dashed it off, then that's considered suspicious)

A couple of times I had to decline the card because the person signing used a different signature all-together, it was a spouse of sorts and they shared a joint account but you have to use your own card, you can't sign your name when using your spouses card, in that case they have to sign.

There's actually a lot more to the signing then people think, it's one of the reason's i'm against having the chip cards. People have been able to find peoples pins out for years, but your average crook won't be able to copy someones signature that they've been working on for their entire life.

However, showing I.d. instead of a signature is just as valid as a signature in my mind, just so long as there's one or the other there.

>> ^Fade:
signing on the card is completely meaningless since you keep possesion of the card.
A signature is a representation of your person. If you are there in 'person' then a signature is redundant.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'working mans band, 60s' to 'working mans band, 60s, kinks, the kinks, ray davies, dave davies' - edited by therealblankman

Great work man. If only spoco1 was here to see this . Oh well, he's enjoying himself on that "big farm"...

>> ^spoco2
I'm not in a position to really state whether any of that is true, but if it is, and the Republicans have been in power for the last 8 years... then surely it'd be stupid to vote in more of the same leadership?
No? And if you're going to try to suggest that all the problems are because of a democrat being in office in the 1930s... please, respectfully... f ck off.
If your chosen part has been in power for the past 8 years and has done nothing but help your country sink into its own financial abyss, then have the bloody balls to accept that, don't pull some shit about someone 70 years ago causing the trouble now.
That's some serious blinker you have on there.


Though it sounds like quantum doesn't really understand what he's parroting, to those learned libertarians in world who understand the problem, he's actually kind of right and it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. It's entirely a matter of socialist big government policies that have been building over a long period of time, just waiting for someone highly corrupt to abuse them. Are you aware of the benevolent dictator argument? The idea that just because it's possible to have a benevolent dictatorship for a certain period of time, the costs of that system ultimately catch up to it because as long as those highly centralized powers EXIST, they WILL be abused by an eventual regime change and destroy the country. This is why we embrace constitutional limits on government and a system of inefficiency in which it is (supposed to be) extremely difficult for any political group to do this. Those limits started to get ignored at the turn of the 20th century and are almost all violated in some fashion today. It doesn't matter how convinced you are that your candidate is telling you the truth, some powers shouldn't exist. The system should not come down to who can pick the best dictator, and then being left with the consolation of "I told you so" when the people finally screw up and elect the wrong guy. Because there are actually two ways to do harm: through stupidity or through deceit. It's perfectly possible to be a well-intentioned, charismatic guy that is just plain wrong or ignorant how to best solve a problem. It's also possible for someone to promise to do one thing to get elected, and do the opposite once elected. People on this forum are educated enough to see #2. They're not seeing #1.

Bush is a highly corrupt individual, no question about it. But to restrict the debate to a choice between liberalism and neo-conservatism is to restrict the debate to socialism, because that's exactly what both of them are with minor differences. This population needs to understand libertarian principles, and fast. Because make no mistake, these socialist enablements and crises and scandals have plagued politics in general over the years and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later. We are in the late stages of socialism, there is nothing "regulatory" that can be done about something that is inherently fraudulent or corruptible. You simply have to understand that markets are merely individuals making mutually agreeable transactions with one another. Government's main functions are very simple, it is to make sure rights are not infringed with police/fire/national defense, and to provide a system of courts for recourse and the settlement of disputes. It is not to have its hands in every part of the market to regulate "greed," this is a nonsensical statement that assumes politicians with privileged power to forcibly appropriate money are not themselves greedy. This is the kind of idealist thinking that enables lobbying, corporatism, etc, and it's stunning that people haven't figured this out yet. The only way a person or a company can turn a profit, without infringing on people's rights, and without colluding with government-specific powers that they do not have (see:below), is to create a product/service that people will want to improve their lives with. That's it. It doesn't matter that the primary goal in a business venture is to make money in a truly free market, because the only way to make money in that system and keep it is to meet the demands of someone else. The EFFECT is that both parties benefit, even though the goals are both driven by self-interest. People are also very generous and are more apt to give excesses to charity under this system, charity was at its highest in America in the late 19th century. Because we didn't have inflation and we didn't have an income tax. Here is a short list of things that have brought us here and Ron Paul was the only one talking about any of them.

1. Centralized price fixing of interest rates by the Federal Reserve System: sends the wrong signals to investors to prevent politically inconvenient recessions, incentivizing massive misallocations of capital investment. Enables catastrophic insolvency, market scapegoating and further socialist interventions. This is THE root cause of the two market bubbles which are now collapsing, as well as the bubble that formed in the 20s and crashed in 29. This one spanned both Clinton and Bush presidencies, started with the easy money policies of the 90s that led to the tech stocks collapsing, then the inflation was filtered into real estate by Greenspan's 1% artificially low interest rates in 2000 (he also egged on the market for years, completely oblivious to what he was doing), and finally the inflation is coming home to roost in basic commodities. Borrowers are walking away and banks that invested heavily in the housing mania with are now left with mortgages that are nowhere near worth the price that they could actually sell the home. The housing market mania was so intense that people were buying homes to flip them to other people who were buying homes to flip them, until eventually, all that was left was speculative sellers with no one buying to LIVE in them other than idiots with bad credit who bought with no down payments.
2. An unconstitutional, non-market determined money: easily manufactured at no labor or material cost by the banking industry that controls it, transferring purchasing power from those who have to work for them to the recipients of this free money in wall street and in the government without asking the working man. Morally reprehensible and enables bailout legislation to deal with the insolvency that #1 causes.
3. Fractional Reserve Banking: government enables the banking industry to fraudelently loan out credit many times what it actually has in reserves and earn interest off of it. The effect cascades as a result of successive deposits of this phantom credit between banks and enables bank runs and extremely unstable leverage, creating an environment that all but necessitates an FDIC and central bank to be lender of last resort in the event of a run, which of course leads to the creation of #1.
3. Heavy subsidization: enables corporate lobbying for government handouts of forcibly appropriated money as an anti-competitive advantage
4. Income-taxation, a direct tax on production, very difficult to enforce without intimidation tactics, enables special tax credits as an anti-competitive advantage
5. Anti-competitive regulation: who's regulating the regulator? Idealist FDA powers to ban products from being chosen on the market have led to anti-competitive bans such as Stevia, resulting in health repercussions unbecoming of an agency that is supposed to protect it. Special legislation such as NAFTA, a 100-page "free-trade" agreement acting as a pretense to lower tariffs to get the WTO to raise tariffs
6. Nationalization of industry: enables predatory anti-competitive takeovers for the largest institutions of smaller institutions, enables government monopoly in industry financed by forcibly appropriated money.
7. Medicare, SS: Unsustainable, government run ponzi schemes purporting to be welfare measures. New investors paying old investors in real time, continually increasing tax rates to prolong solvency, continually changing rules about retirement age to prolong solvency. Trust fund anually tapped by congress to spend the excess by replacing them with government promises of future dollars (bonds). CPI-adjusted payouts, allowing government to underpay by understating real inflation.

And after listing all of this shit, it should be obvious to see why I'm so incensed by simple little quips like charliem's that get rated up: "unethical" loans. You want to talk about ethical lending? You think the government doing the things above under either party gives one bloody shit about ethics? Lending money is a gamble, it's a gamble you implictly allowed that bank to take by giving them your money to gamble with. Banks aren't a free storing house for money, they immediately take the money you give them and loan most of it out to someone else at interest, that's how they pay YOU interest for keeping it on their books when you could otherwise put your savings in a lockbox for a fee. But seeing as how people are cheap, ignorant bastards that have no idea how fraudulent the current system is, they will continue to ask politicians to coo-coo them with "ethics reform" and other nonsense that do nothing to solve the fundamental problems.

And let me make this dirt simple if I haven't already: you can't "regulate" or "oversee" these activities any more than you can "regulate" or "oversee" murder. It is fundamentally fraudulent to loan out something you don't have, price fixing of interest rates creates shortages of capital when people otherwise would save it, and an easily inflatable currency is nothing more than legalized counterfeiting for government and anyone who colludes with them. Wake up already.

Nice work, man! Congratulations!

Lyrics found at http://www.lyricsdownload.com/leadbelly-where-did-you-sleep-last-night-lyrics.html

My girl, my girl, don't lie to me
Tell me where did you sleep last night

In the pines, in the pines
Where the sun don't ever shine
I would shiver the whole night through

My girl, my girl, where will you go
I'm going where the cold wind blows

In the pines, in the pines
Where the sun don't ever shine
I would shiver the whole night through

Her husband, was a hard working man
Just about a mile from here
His head was found in a driving wheel
But his body never was found

My girl, my girl, don't lie to me
Tell me where did you sleep last night

In the pines, in the pines
Where the sun don't ever shine
I would shiver the whole night through

My girl, my girl, where will you go
I'm going where the cold wind blows

In the pines, in the pines
Where the sun don't ever shine
I would shiver the whole night through

My girl, my girl, don't lie to me
Tell me where did you sleep last night

In the pines, in the pines
Where the sun don't ever shine
I would shiver the whole night through

My girl, my girl, where will you go
I'm going where the cold wind blows

In the pines, in the pines
Where the sun don't ever shine
I would shiver the whole night through

>> ^JAPR:
Also, it's great how the vocals on rock band sound NOTHING like Geddy Lee


Yeah, they're not nearly as screachy and terrible.

Sorry, Geddy gets on my nerves. I like the rest of the band, though.

Nice work, man!

piss off

In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by raven:
correcting a librarian on grammatical issues is never smart...

And gwaan, keep up the good work man, clearly there are many in the western world who need to better understand your chosen faith.

split infinitive - for shame.

In reply to this comment by raven:
correcting a librarian on grammatical issues is never smart...

And gwaan, keep up the good work man, clearly there are many in the western world who need to better understand your chosen faith.

split infinitive - for shame.