>> ^residue:

No upvotes for you! It's a dupe of this: http://videosift.com/video/Techno-Cat-Barf though currently dead...


If you're sure then call it. A quick youtube search reveals there's a few different vids with the same music but different cats.

No upvotes for you! It's a dupe of this: http://videosift.com/video/Techno-Cat-Barf though currently dead...

In the case of these two, somebody SHOULD let the dawgs out [Barf, barf barf] =oI

0:32 Would be my barf point. Can't handle being upside down, too much blood floating around inside me.

My dog used to do the same thing. The pinned back ears; smiling expression; constant yawning; doggy whining and general restlessness. Then five minutes later she would barf.

Dog doesn't look scared, it looks car sick.

>> ^criticalthud:

the only person who cracked a smile during the whole thing was the drummer, after puking his guts out.
i often wonder why so many people learning to play music have such a hard time finding joy in it.

Because you know what the music should sound like but you can't make it sound like that.

>> ^00Scud00:

On the plus side, those butterflies in his stomach are most definitely gone now.


From the look of that load, so is everything else.

Barf

Hehehe sorry, but in an OCEAN of old ugly fat white guys in suits, he's extraordinarily "cool". He's young, black, thin, tall, he bumps fists with his fashion-savvy young wife, has a smooth talking bassy voice, walks shirtless in Hawaii and gets papparazzi photos of his pecs...

Admitting that doesn't mean you like him or his policies or want to make out with him, but to deny this fact would be just silly. The man has a level of "cool" not often seen in politicians. Clinton had a bit of that swagger, too.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

He's nowhere NEAR as "cool" as Obama and voters totally love "cool".
Totally disagree. Obama 'cool'? Since when?
The man looks like Soupy Sales, but with even bigger ears. He's a scrawny, pencil-necked gooney bird who looks less 'cool' than a white guy trying to bust a move.
Obama isn't cool. He's cold. The man is condescending, insulting, and unsympathetic to anyone he meets who doesn't fall over themselves to kiss his butt. The second anyone says anything that disagrees or contradicts him, his face tightens up and you can just see the daggers stabbing out his eyes.
Obama 'cool'... Barf. Could not disagree more stridently on this point.

He's nowhere NEAR as "cool" as Obama and voters totally love "cool".

Totally disagree. Obama 'cool'? Since when?

The man looks like Soupy Sales, but with even bigger ears. He's a scrawny, pencil-necked gooney bird who looks less 'cool' than a white guy trying to bust a move.

Obama isn't cool. He's cold. The man is condescending, insulting, and unsympathetic to anyone he meets who doesn't fall over themselves to kiss his butt. The second anyone says anything that disagrees or contradicts him, his face tightens up and you can just see the daggers stabbing out his eyes.

Obama 'cool'... Barf. Could not disagree more stridently on this point.

Like I said, PROVE it

Sure.

Step 1: Take RR's "crap I pulled out my hinder" arguments
Step 2: Say the exact opposite.

Boom. There. I've given you as much "proof" as RR did in his stupid 164 second waste of time.

For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).

I could go on, but there's no point to it. Prog-Libs have a mantra they stick to in the face of all facts and evidence, and all it takes is a bearded moron reinforcing the dumb ideas they believe to convince them they have 'proof'. All RR ever does is barf up typical left wing talking points. Nothing new here. He pukes up the same bologna, opinion based interpretation of the world every time he opens his piehole.

The government forced them to create CDO's? to bundle up non-AAA holdings and sell them as AAA? to extend themselves beyond their ability to cover their loses?

In a word - yes - the government forced the issue. Before the government interfered, lenders had actuarial tables and KNEW with 100% certainty who could and couldn't afford a loan the second they walked in the door. Mortgage rates were in the 8% to 10% range. Banks 'made' money on loans with the interest. People who earned less than 30K a year had a tough time getting into a house because (DUH!) they didn't really earn enough money. It was common sense. People that were POOR couldn't just go out and buy houses willy-nilly.

Then the government came along. They wanted people to get loans cheaper and more often and entirely for political reasons. But banks aren't charities and if they can't make the money on the interest (which you can't with sub-prime) then how do you make money? Hmmm... Oh yeah - let's get rid of this little thing called "Glass Steagall"! Now let's use the Fed to jack around interest rates until they are below 5%. Now you banks are commanded by government to make your profits by bundling the loans as derivatives. Now it is almost impossible to survive as a lending institution without doing what we tell you. Oh yeah, you banks? When it all blows up down the road it is YOUR fault... There you go banks!

That was government meddling with the market. They changed the rules so Barney Frank could tell voters that they had "UFFODUBBLE HOW-SING!". It was true left-wing, neolib stupidity on parade and it screwed up the entire planet. They were the ones that changed the laws. The private sector had no choice but to react to the rules that government barfed up.

The system that GOVERNMENT established turned the housing market within a very short time from a staid system of "moderate loans paid off by interest" into a crazed gold-rush of "cheap loans for everyone paid off by bundling". Banks had no choice to play that game because that was playing field that GOVERNMENT created. Any bank offering a SANE loan at an 8% interest rate and making its profits over 30 years was getting clobbered by lenders handing out loans at 2.5% ARMs that were making a bundle on the back end. Banks knew it was crazy, but those were the rules that GOVERNMENT set up and they didn't have any choice but to operate within that rubric. But government said, "Hey - if the loans blow up don't worry about it! We'll cover those bad loans with Freddie/Fannie and you won't be on the hook for it..." Government.

You see, that's what that happens when government interferes with the market and picks the winners and losers by changing rules, laws, and policy. The whole thing would have been impossible without a corrupt government starting the ball rolling for political purposes.

Everybody on the planet learned after the Great Depression that having an 'environment' where bundling and other such investments could exist was not good. That's why Glass-Stegall was created. It stopped a BAD investment practice and it worked for over 50 years without government being "involved" in a single, bloody thing. That's what !good! government does. It establishes a simple, basic set of rules and then STOPS INTERFERING. The reason for the housing failure was not because government WASN'T regulating the market. It was because the government WAS regulating the market in a terrible way.

Reinstate Glass-Steagall - a common sense law - and then ban the government from EVER interfering with the housing sector again. Things work just fine when you set up a simple, transparent system and then forbid the government from coming within a million miles of it.

>> ^lsue:
Does anyone else feel bad for the snake?... It looks pretty uncomfortable to barf up a small mammal. Poor thing.


Almost as uncomfortable as being swallowed whole by a snake?

Does anyone else feel bad for the snake?... It looks pretty uncomfortable to barf up a small mammal. Poor thing.

I posted this from an article about a t-shirt that read "I'm too pretty to do my homework so my brother has to do it for me."
>> ^blahpook:

There's a little girls' t-shirt that says, "I don't need to learn math, because I'm already a 10!" barf