OK, Chrysler went bankrupt and had to be bought out to survive - I may be corrected (and that's fine) but my point has still been made. Obama didn't make them go bankrupt (he kept people employed) - Obama did what he could to stop them from dissolving altogether. He could have done nothing and watched every Chrysler employee loose their jobs, from the factories, to the mechanics to the sales teams, to all the little companies that manufacture parts.

A few years back, we had a factory in my town as well. White Western Star. They manufactured diesel trucks and they were the largest employer in town.

They were bought out by Freightliner (a US company - a foreign company) a subsidiary of Daimler Trucks, (A German company - also a foreign company).

The factory was shut down when Freightliner acquired them. Putting half the town out of business that catered parts and services to the factory. Times were tough and we are still recovering.

My point is, I know how it could have gone in the US and on a much larger scale. Obama didn't let this happen. But Romney is making it look like Obama was the one at fault here - which is pure lies.
>> ^deedub81:

Chrysler DID go through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A foreign auto manufacturer bought the majority of the shares from the U.S. (Fiat) and the new chairman of the newly formed Chrysler Group, LLC has said that they will be moving "Jeep output" to China as demand rises. >> ^Sagemind:
"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy" WTF - Obama bailed them out so they wouldn't go bankrupt.
Most people were against it but he helped them out anyway to keep them afloat and their workers employed. So how does this attack make any sense?

Chrysler DID go through Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. A foreign auto manufacturer bought the majority of the shares from the U.S. (Fiat) and the new chairman of the newly formed Chrysler Group, LLC has said that they will be moving "Jeep output" to China as demand rises. >> ^Sagemind:

"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy" WTF - Obama bailed them out so they wouldn't go bankrupt.
Most people were against it but he helped them out anyway to keep them afloat and their workers employed. So how does this attack make any sense?

"Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy" WTF - Obama bailed them out so they wouldn't go bankrupt.
Most people were against it but he helped them out anyway to keep them afloat and their workers employed. So how does this attack make any sense?

>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


But who are you chastising? The people who vote democratically for it or against it (and they seem to vote for it), or the people who post it for it to be voted on?

I can't watch cenk, i think he has a great mind for doing this kind of thing, but until he can siphon out the 30000 miles per hour hyperactivity and fluff and deliver it in a good way, i can't watch. But videosift will continue to sift up whatever is popular and sift down whatever is not!

I get sick when i see the 3 billionth pomplamoose video being posted on the strength of having a very plain/oddly pretty girl with her face 3 inches from a webcam, but that's just what people like. I think this has a lot more content than that at least; there's a lot worse things you could get annoyed about first.

>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


Nah, not all

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.

Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??

Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

>> ^kevingrr:

@Yogi
I'm sorry my fellow sifters advocate "offing" these guys. These guys work seven days a week and they work to make a profit - just like every other business.
J.P. Morgan Chase was the go to entity to take over Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual when they failed. Why? Chase was strong enough to bear the burden.
Regarding TARP money Chase never wanted it or needed it. Link
The Dodd Frank and Consumer Protection act is a poorly written gargantuan hydra of a bill. I know this because the small community bankers I know are saying they are not going to be able to stay afloat.
My companies president - someone who I know for a fact has voted as a democrat for over 40 years - told me yesterday he will vote against Obama in the upcoming election. Why? We work in real estate and the paperwork needed to finance a project has multiplied - and with it the number of lawyers and legal hours required - that is if we can get something financed period. Good for lawyers - bad for anyone who might want to work building a new shopping center(architects, tradesmen, engineers, etc) or working there in the future.
Make the rules simple, make them fair, and enforce them effectively.


Oh Yay! Another lying apologist Fuckhead.

@Yogi

I'm sorry my fellow sifters advocate "offing" these guys. These guys work seven days a week and they work to make a profit - just like every other business.

J.P. Morgan Chase was the go to entity to take over Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual when they failed. Why? Chase was strong enough to bear the burden.

Regarding TARP money Chase never wanted it or needed it. Link

The Dodd Frank and Consumer Protection act is a poorly written gargantuan hydra of a bill. I know this because the small community bankers I know are saying they are not going to be able to stay afloat.

My companies president - someone who I know for a fact has voted as a democrat for over 40 years - told me yesterday he will vote against Obama in the upcoming election. Why? We work in real estate and the paperwork needed to finance a project has multiplied - and with it the number of lawyers and legal hours required - that is if we can get something financed period. Good for lawyers - bad for anyone who might want to work building a new shopping center(architects, tradesmen, engineers, etc) or working there in the future.

Make the rules simple, make them fair, and enforce them effectively.

@Boise_Lib

My first answer is definitely wrong because it assumes that the increased displacement of the boat due to the anchor's mass is equal to the displacement by the anchor's volume when it enters the water. This is demonstrably false, as a 5kg lead anchor would cause a boat to displace as much water as a 5kg iridium anchor in the same boat, but the lead anchor would displace about twice as much water as the iridium anchor when thrown in the water.

Let's say my anchor is iridium, and is massive enough it almost sinks the boat. The boat is now displacing much more water than the anchor will when I throw it overboard, so the answer is the water will fall. In my thought experiment, I now decrease the density of my imaginary anchor and increase its size such that the boat is always just barely afloat. When I toss the anchor overboard, the water will fall less and less, but as long as the boat is floating (not much of a boat if it doesn't float) and the anchor alone is denser than water (not much of an anchor if it's not denser than water, I believe the anchor will always cause the boat to displace more water in the boat than outside the boat. I'm sure I could use limits to prove this, but I'm just going to assume I'm right without doing the calculus. So my new answer is: the water will always fall.

Thanks for the mental exercise.

(How did I do?)

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.
I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.
Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.


If the car were newer it'd be illegal to sell it. If you made one for your own use, there shouldn't be any legal recourse for the company to follow. It's been a long standing tradition that reverse engineering is allowed, only broken with the digital age and "no bypassing of countermeasures".

SCO is patent law, but they were selling licenses to "guarantee" people they won't be prosecuted once they won. They were selling something they hadn't even proven they owned yet...another aspect of the digital world that's broken. People without the legal rights claiming they do and infringing. Businesses do it all the time by taking other people's pictures and using them in their ads. Even Congressional members have been caught doing it....they don't understand why it's frustrating for a "normal" person who can actually be sued when it happens.

The publisher argument was to show that the traditional way of publishing is no longer relevant in the digital market. They are trying to muscle in after the fact, in spite of customers and in spite of self published authors to dictate what everything should sell for and how it should be sold. They are failing overall, but it doesn't change the fact that they are trying. They are also going after the libraries and trying to undermine the lending system the libraries have, after they've already sold them the goods. So here, the publishing houses are using their wealth and power to attempt to stop distribution channels they don't control much like the RIAA. NYT won't acknowledge self-published authors on their best seller lists, because of it's ties to publishing, in another attempt to discredit non-publisher affiliated authors.

The law is there to protect people, not the people who have corporate backing. A self pubbed author makes 70% of book sale price on Amazon, less than 15% if it's through publisher. The self-pubbed author pricing is usually less than 5 dollars...something around 3 dollars usually. And the publisher authors usually sell for hard back prices, 15 dollars or so. They want to force everyone to sell books at the 15 dollar mark, when self-pubbed authors have found that under 5 bucks gets them the most coverage AND money. So despite the evidence, the big pubs are attempting to influence the market and infringing on the rights (not necessary their copyrights, but I believe they are by attempting to prevent them from distributing it as the people want and the author wants) of the other authors to sell their works as they see fit by attempting to take over the market places.

The future of publishing houses looks like they will have to become small electronic based outfits that provide the author with an editor, cover artwork (relevant and beneficial to sales of book), and possibly facilitate audio book deals and other countries markets so the author can continue writing instead of marketing. For a 15-20% percentage of sales so they have an incentive to do it right and sell quantities at the popular pricing schemes instead of taking the lion's share and scooping up all authors so they get enough to stay afloat despite the content creators getting crumbs. But it still doesn't mean they should be attempting to prevent non-affiliated authors from being noticed and selling books as they see fit due to deals they make on behalf of all "book sales" they control or not.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


Your armchair analysis is pretty thin.

One of your main premises is about how Israel occupies a bunch of 'worthless desert'? And you then believe that is a strong driver in Israel's interest in Iranian oil reserves?

Middle East politics goes a lot deeper than that. The 'worthless desert' Israel occupies is BAR NONE the most sought after and fought over piece of land in the entire middle east over the last century. You can not ignore the importance of the cultural and religious pressures in the region that make up the complex relationship between Israel-Iran-Saudi-Syria-Egypt-... and on and on.

Survival is still Israel's driving focus. Iran openly and proudly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and their attacks on Israel. If Israel even suspects that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, that is a very short path to a very legitimate concern for Israel to be taking very seriously. Sure, it's 90% likely that Iran isn't foolish enough to give a nuclear weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah, but that remaining 10% is still understandable enough cause for Israel to be nervous and considering their options.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.

But, let's look at some geopolitics.

In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.

Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).

So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.

Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.

Obama has been pushing this idea that rich people are evil, he supported the Occupy movement until someone shit on a police car, then he backtracked a bit,but then he sends taxpayer money to keep Wall Street afloat...it's all very confusing.

Mitt may sound like a robot but at least he has accomplished something in the real world of finance,unlike Obama who was a community organizer and a Senator for a couple months, he won't release his grades so we don't know if this guy is really smart or just sounds smart, or is it his teleprompter the smart one? There are only 50 states, you know.

Obama is trying to keep the country afloat but now our debt is like 15 trillion and he's spent more money than every other president in history, the unemployment is still way up there and we have all this money to repay.

It really doesn't look like his plan is working. If someone has a better idea, please give him a clue.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Those are some damn good ones. Let's see who does better. As for December 21st, @Boise_Lib - I predict that nothing will happen å la Y2K, but some people will still freak out and the media will fan the flames. There will be a big anti-climax let-down feeling when January 2013 rolls around. But there will be a large natural disaster in early 2013 that will be ascribed to the Mayans. By crazy people.>> ^longde:

1. The Koreans will start a kerfuffle that will define the 2012 elections like the Iranian Crisis defined the 1980 election.
2. The Chinese economy will contract, adding tension to the growing US/China trade war.
3. Putin will attempt to increase the autocratic controls in Russia, because next year's Russian elections will badly weaken his party.
4. To keep the Euro afloat, the EU countries will move closer to a federal system.
5. Mugabe will die. The western powers will attempt to install a figurehead and let foreigners confiscate the land.
6. There will be a major terrorist attack within the 3 months leading up to the US election. It will be instigated by domestic terrorists.
7. If the election starts to looks like a blowout weeks early, like last time, Obama or his family will be attacked on the campaign trail by domestic terrorists.
8. The Amazon tablet family will erode Apple's market share. Amazon will announce a smartphone.