So the smiley-face is supposed to excuse ad-hom, bunny-man?? You could have called him a 'cunt' 'asshole', 'dipshit', any of these would be in violation of civil rules of decorum.

Could this obvious hypocritical double-standard applied to users who disgust you speak to a fundamental personality flaw which makes you just as anti-social as you accuse others of being?

Could pushing the rules of the sift to the brink indicate a personal loathing of anyone who has an opinion other than your own that you then personally deem 'unworthy' of your time when it could have been a springboard for another direction in this thread?

Maybe not, you gave Yogi time enough to label him 'twat' (which I suppose isn't so bad since 'twat' is socially acceptable in jest, etc. in certain countries.

Use that term with reference to a woman in America and see how long it takes your nose to flow red.

How about ya go feed yer bunny and who cares why people of faith bother you so much, sounds like a personal malfunction. Perhaps everything really is, all about you.

@RedSky
that is not entirely accurate to state that it was friedmans economic policies that gave rise to chile.

i will agree to an extant that the original groundwork could be attributed to friedman and his economic plans but those plans were not all sunshine and rainbows.it was the chilean government who began to enact and implement solid policies to turn that state around after pinochet.dismantling much of what friedman had started.i.e: private pensions,schools,water etc etc.

and @Yogi does have a point.friedman is quoted often as saying that in times of crisis,it is a perfect opportunity to exploit that crisis in order to implement a policy that otherwise would have been rejected.

now we can argue just how responsible friedmen is in regards to a government who uses/abuses this tactic,but it does not change that fact that friedman was the author of "shock doctrine".

just as in this video,and one of those rare times i agree with friedman.the information should be public and governments only role in business should be that of "fraud police".it comes down to who is responsible.

which brings me to my final point.
economists are the charlatan snake oil salesmen.they consistently get it wrong,almost always.

economies are creations by and for people.
the human element seems to confound these intellectuals.
what plays out brilliantly on paper almost never does in real life..or at least for any protracted period of time.

which is also why i find friedman to be an insufferable cunt.
if there ever was a spark of humanity in that man,i have yet to see it.

Moving this video to Yogi's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Invocations (quality) cannot be called by Yogi because Yogi is not privileged - sorry.

Indeed Yogi, the term African American should refer to anyone who can claim total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. I believe there's already terminology which everybody can feel comfortable with, with which to refer to, 'everyone'.

If you wanna blame someone for for having to hear the term, blame Jesse Fucking Jackson. You wanna blame someone for the word nigger or negro, it's time to start pointing fingers at the fucking Spaniards, and we have only pussies and assholes to blame for political correctness.

I'm with @Yogi.
Not a fan of F1 (or any sport for that matter), though I enjoy the technical aspect of it. It's a sport first, but also automotive R&D second.

Moving this video to Yogi's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Meh, everyone is either agnostic, lying or mad. As @newtboy said, gnosticism means "knowing". No-one knows for certain that there is or isn't a god. Therefore, everyone is agnostic.

Which makes it a fucking boring position to take.

Gnosticism at least has the virtue of being interesting. You know there's a god? ok, why? Ahh, you've heard voices.... right. Just slip on this comfy jacket... yeah, the arms are kinda long, but don't worry.

The question is almost never "do you know there is or isn't a god", it's "do you believe". And in that sense, almost everyone has an answer one way or the other. You may choose to believe in a god because you feel that things like compassion, rainbows and the majesty of the universe are evidence of his/her existence. Or you choose not to believe because you feel that these things are evidence of group altruism, refraction and some really amazingly weird ass physics.

Yeah, be humble and admit you could be wrong, but FFS, make a choice.

Oh and @Yogi, I wonder how kindly you'd feel toward religion if you had a well funded organisation who had dedicated themselves to discrediting your life's work (and with the most trivial nonsense as well).

And that is why we have "atheist evangelists". Because experience has shown that if you don't push back, certain theist elements will gradually start to encroach on things that are important.

@Yogi, @enoch, Consider the fact that, had the American colonies not seceded from England (not unlike what the Confederates attempted to do from the Union, eh?), the British Crown would have ended slavery in the American Colonies without war and far sooner than it did. So, for those who say that it was right to "end slavery now no matter the cost," was the American Revolutionary war a good thing, given that it prolonged slavery for as long as it did?

The Civil War cost ten times what it would have cost the Federal government to simply buy all the existing slaves and free them. Already at that time, importing new slaves was illegal in all of the states, including the South. So that would have been the end of it. What if, say, 6 southern slave owners refused to sell no matter how much money they got (doubtful, but let's say they were crazy)? Would the Civil War have been worth it because of these six guys?

It would not have been worth it to either the North or the South. Their own neighbors would have set them free.
And southern legislators would have changed the laws to free them. If history shows us anything, it shows us that all politicians have a price.
The US bribes governments all over the world (it's called 'foreign aid'). Do you really think the southern governors would have been any different than all politicians throughout history?
Even now, do you prefer to bribe and threaten "rogue" countries or engage in so-called 'necessary' Iraq-style invasions?
The likelihood falls clearly on the 6% of southerners who owned slaves to take the money and retire rich rather than having to go to war.
Even explaining some math to them may have moved things along, like how hiring low wage worker was cheaper than the cost of keeping slaves.

Gee, @Yogi. Did you expect the state to work on your behalf?
That's not what the state does! The state is a tool that those who control it can use to impose upon those who don't. I suspect that you don't control much of it at all. So you don't get to impose. You get imposed upon. That's how it works. The first lady (who you seem to think is somehow being mistreated) on the other hand, is being handsomely rewarded, if her tax returns are any indication... but whatever. Believe what you want. However much you rant against it, you won't change the intrinsic nature of the state.

You can't do anything about those who control it, so you seem to feel like you have to take it out on me, as if what I post made any difference whatsoever...

If you want Australia's healthcare system, why not take your issue to your "representative," or to the President, and see if they care about what you want.

(But somehow, I think you realize how powerless you are, and so you're trying to get some satisfaction from complaining about what I post. You'll "destroy" etc. But, honestly, what can you really do that has any impact?)

i voted for this video if only to see it dissected for the hack piece it is.

do we really need to point out the infantile logic of using michelle obamas comment of "knuckleheads" and conflate it with a 300$ bottle of water?

come on..seriously? thats pretty dumb.

but obamacare is not a failure.it is performing exactly as it was designed.
written by the heritage foundation.
it is basically a gimme bailout for big pharma and the health insurance industry.
and it is functioning perfectly.

if obama truly wanted a universal health care.we already had a system in place that,as @Yogi already pointed out,would have saved money and the infrastructure was already in place.
single payer would have been an easy implementation.
covered everybody.
and saved money.

but that was never the goal.

socialism for the rich.
capitalism for the poor.

For all your ranting about "The First Lady is subjected to this shit and she wasn't even elected," @Yogi, the same can be said of Tom Perkins, and David and Charles Koch, and the many many others who aren't elected and yet they're subjected to all kinds of attacks and sleights for what they say or don't say on or off the record.

In this instance, Michelle went on national TV for political purposes and she said something stupid, if not downright condescending or truly insulting, and she got backlash.

So chill out dude, don't stress out over this... live up to your "yogi" namesake, (unless, of course, you're trying to be more like Yogi Bear.. in which case, get the FUCK away from my "pic-a-nic basket!").

Sorry you feel sick, but tough. Get used to it.

"the only people who can get elected are over-calculating douchebags."
(for many other reasons besides public scrutiny.)

Ah, you're quite the Sherlock Holmes.
(At least we have some area of agreement here.. even if we attribute this to different causes.)

"The First Lady is subjected to this shit and she wasn't even elected."

She never asked for it! That's why she goes on national TV to lecture people, and call people knuckleheads. And yeah, she never even got elected. No one wants her on TV telling people what to do. So why does she? Or do people actually want this. Some may, I guess, like you!

"They're terrified of offending anyone and everyone."

Yeah, that's right.. The politicians are the victims. The poor politicians. Such a thankless "job".

"Shut up with this bullshit and talk about how Obamacare is stupid"

That's beating a dead horse. At this point, only the most fanatical don't accept the ACA as an abject failure. Even Democrats know it. Even Obama knows it.

(Not to mention everyone who knew it would fail from the beginning!)

"the richest fucking country in the world have a problem with free healthcare
when poor ass countries can do it better?"

Because many in "the richest fucking country in the world" would like to keep it the "richest" and not turn it into a "poor ass country" with "free" healthcare.

Your failure of imagination is not my problem, @Yogi.

That's ok. Everyone has off days and more imaginative ones. Other people can imagine why I posted it.

What's up with the Australian health care system?

@VoodooV

what strawman?
if you are going to accuse someone of using a deceptive tactic at least understand the terminology bubba.

and you are correct.
i did just make a statement and did not clarify my reasons.
so let me clarify:

you compared the imminent threat of hostages who are in danger of physical harm or death to a possible dissident who may..or may not..be plotting harm in the future sometime as somehow being similar.

this is a logical fallacy.
your analogy is flawed.
and it does not stand.

i didnt feel i had to point this out due to the fact that @Yogi had already given you an example of executive abuse of powers.

i mean really..how do you surrender to a drone?

i apologize if i stepped over some imaginary line,or if you think i am attacking you in some fashion.

i am not....but ill refrain from engaging with you in any fashion if that is your desire.

@VoodooV
worst...analogy...ever.

@bcglorf
how does your analysis of the situation in pakistan defend or excuse the execution of american citizens abroad?

@Yogi made the clear example of Anwar al-Awlaki,an innocent 16 yr old american citizen living with his respectable grand-parents,who was executed by a drone strike.

are you suggesting we should just trust the executive branches decisions to murder citizens because the political/religious situation in a certain country?

i am trying to understand your correlation between a political climate and abusive executive powers.