I don't see them as being any different than the Enron guys, or Lehman Bros. Powerful men who are smart and use that to do their evil deeds. People like that will be the downfall of humanity if we let them.

I studied English and Philosophy in school and have continued reading a lot of utopian/dystopian literature since. My familiarity with economics and economic history pales in contrast, but the close relationship with subjects I am interested in has caused me to spend some time and consideration learning what I can.

That said, when I see a video like this I lump it into the same pseudo intellectual/science/news that things like Bill O'Reilly, TYT, Kirk Cameron, Creationists and bigots bring to mind.

Why did I watch this? Well I'm open to listening to legitimate and informative critiques of socioeconomic systems. If they are particularly good it can lead to all sorts of follow up questions and inquiries. I get bored while i'm "slaving" away at work so I put things on in the background...

Then there videos like this. There are very few facts throughout the entire video. The analogies used are misleading. The terrible acts and downfalls of groups, individuals, or particular ideologies are often blown out of proportion entirely. There is no nuanced investigation, no insights, nothing but a self satisfied narrator with droll delivery.

Thanks for rummaging through my videos for dead links. I'll pass on using my downvote on this video.

*promote the reason behind the downfall of the Sheenster

What is helping with that though is that because the right keeps moving the goalposts, so many people who were once Republicans are now RINOs according to the extremists. Just like this video suggests, Will may be a fictional character, but he's describing exactly what a lot of moderate Republicans are going through right now. The right wing extremists have decided to pursue a personal vendetta against Obama and all the moderates in the party are going "wtf?"

Sorry, but that's the most basic sign of a downfall. when you keep purging your ranks for not having enough ideological purity, you're not exactly planning for long term success.

When all the big historical Republicans heroes like Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan, and maybe even HW Bush couldn't win a Republican primary in today's climate, you know you're losing touch

I dunno though, speaking more generally however, there's got to be some way of inducing politicians to not play games like this. The whole 10% approval yet 90% incumbancy rate should hopefully shock people into doing something. We've got a bill that passed both houses of congress, signed into law by the president AND upheld by the SCOTUS, and yet a small faction is holding gov't hostage over this.

I don't see how it's even legal to defund something that is law. If it's law, how is it legal to interfere with it like that? If you don't like it, pass a new law repealing it....that should be the only way to stop an existing law (other than Supreme Court of course)

I've heard this numerous times before from conservatives that we need to enforce the laws already on the books....well...ok. Let's do that.

Soul and R&B is in digression like most forms of popular music-The phenomena follows a pattern with the downfall of any great culture or society. World in decline = art in decline.

From lame-ass, base human experience lyrics like these to auto-tuning and other such overproduction designed to mask innate lack of talent, R&B has suffered the worst of the described decline. This song = complete, talent-free shit, but for those that have no reference, maybe it sounds what...Goodish??

It's the end of the goddamn world

Nice idea but those in charge are simply too rich to give a crap about the downfall of the US Empire. They bleed this country dry but in the end, like a Tick, they can move on to another host. You're dealing with super wealthy single individuals and corporations. They have control over they country but no liability towards it. The US government is just an investment.

And regarding Snowden? He should learn to sleep with one eye open. His civil rights are nonexistant at this point.

First of all, I am Canadian, not American.

1. Don't tout constitution. I don't care if some lawmaker wrote something down once or in this case, didn't write something down. I don't think government should have the right to film the people it serves.

2. It doesn't matter to me if some person films me in a public place. Or if I end up in the background of some photo snapped by someone else. That's not what I'm referring to. I don't think authority should engage in wholesale documentation of the populous whether through film, internet spying, mail scanning, phone tapping or otherwise.

3. I don't honestly expect that someone will charge me with something I did previously and unrelated. Use something to base a character judgement on? -Maybe. I don't put it past officials/government to use footage unjustly to make a case win in their favor.

4. Of course they can't store up all that footage. I know it's on a loop. And I know all about storage sizes. (don't insult me) BUT, some reels do go missing, get set aside, or get replaced. And many of them are reviewed. I've seen it done in retail stores time and again. (and I may ad that at one place I worked at, the owner would sit there for hours just spying on people and splicing out sections of girls on the film. If it can happen in the private sector, it can happen in the public sector.

5. The fact that people "Have No Right To Privacy" is bullshit. As I have stated, Just because some lawyer wrote something down, or didn't write something down doesn't give them any right over me and how I choose to live. Just the same as I don't have to respect someone higher up in a hierarchy just because they are higher up or make more money than I do. (Insert Grumpy Old Man Syndrome here). I don't trust lawyers, or at least the majority of them (especially corporate ones). I truly believe that they are the downfall of society.

That's all I'll say on the matter. Cheers!

Good points. Not that I agree wholeheartedly or at all, necessarily, but you seem congruent in quoting a text. Bibliography isn't stout enough for MLA standards, but I'll let it pass.



Here's what I don't get the most; out of all things you are not supposed to do according to the bible, it seems like homosexuality gets an "unfair" mention. Being that it's only condemned a few times. Now, I know if it's condemned once it might as well be condemned a thousand times, but I just feel that it's slightly coincidental that homosexuality—an act that can actually be repulsive to a non-homosexual or to a homosexual that's ashamed of his/her own feelings—that it is the one touted as the downfall of humanity. I mean there are plenty of ways to sin, why is so much emphasis placed on homosexuality. It just doesn't seem to be congruent with the amount of mentions it has.



Also, as a straight male, I've never had to make a decision in my sexuality. In fact, if anything I'd say it seems out of my control (not my actions but my tastes). So really, anecdotally, I'd say that sexuality is far from being within our conscious control. The problem, it seem, the religious have with that, is it seems to undermine parts of the bible. This, to me, is why it has become such a lynch-pin issue. To admit homosexuality is naturally occurring and against our control, would prove a part, even a small part, of the bible fallacious.

Instead of attacking homosexuality, however, I'd think that Christians would be better off focusing as much on homosexuality as is in the bible—which is very little.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.
Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.
This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.
Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.
Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.
even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.
Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.
God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.

That may be true of the various religions, but in Christianity you have near universal agreement on the foundational tenants of the faith, both today and going back to the early church. How you get saved and what God expects you is very well understood and agreed upon by nearly all Christians. Yes, there are differences..some people think baptism is really important, some not so much. Some people think speaking in tongues is important, others not so much. These are all peripheral issues to the heart of the fatih, which is the suffering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no confusion in the church as a whole as to how you get saved.
It's also not that God is a bad communicator, it is people are hard of hearing because they suppress the truth:
Romans 1:18-21
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
He gives everyone more than a clue that He is there and what He expects of them, but they harden their hearts to God because of sin.
And far be it from me to defend the WBC, but they have a point about sin. This nation (world) glorifies sin, but sin is what leads people to destruction. If you glorify sin to someone, it is like hating them. Where the WBC goes wrong, and that's to put it mildly, is the negative and judgmental way they present the gospel. This is what scripture says about sharing the faith:
2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I think they skipped over these verses when they put together their ministry. They've probably done more in recent times to turn people away from Christ than all the televangelists put together.

Those are all good points. No "but" they're all just good points >> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^rottenseed:
Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.
This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).
It's sad really...
I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it
I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.
Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.
First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.
Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.
If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.
But overall, you're probably still right.

>> ^rottenseed:

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.

This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).

It's sad really...

I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it

I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.

Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.

First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.

Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.

If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.

But overall, you're probably still right.

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.



This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).



It's sad really...



I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it



I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

This may be the case but it isn't what is going on here.

This initiative is buying distressed debt only, that is, the organisation who gave the loan has decided the cost of attempting to reclaim that loan or the chances of reclaiming a significant amount is futile. So they do sell the actual loan for cheap, to debt collectors, who employ more drastic measures than larger organisations want connected to them. (speculation, I'm not familiar with why these are more attractive to debt collectors).

Rolling Jubilee acts as the debt collector but doesn't collect, it buys the loan and cancels it. Then it hopes these people with cancelled debts, come back and donate a little, now that they have less burden.

That is the general idea, granted when people hear "loan", they think mortgage but this isn't the case here. Rolling Jubilee is unlikely (or never will) enter that area. They will be buying personal loans, medical loans etc. Smaller loans. It is already outlined how better performing loans, such as student loans, are off the table.

However from my understanding, it relies on the IRS remaining co-operative and for the regulations to stay within these bounds that keep it legal and charitable. So the cancelled loans are not counted as profit against Rolling Jubilee, at which point it all crumbles.

It has some merit but it also has a lot of downfalls and it also does jack shit to Wall St or banks, that is misdirected attention to garner support I gather.

(My understanding, could be incorrect)

P.S. Also it should be noted this is hardly for the 99%, it is for a much smaller percentage of the 99% who fail to pay their loans, good loans are not sold off. So really, this is the less troubled 99& bailing out the 99%'s further down on the scale. It basically boils down to a charity, it just abusing some loose regulations.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Granted, I know little about this and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're getting mortgages and mortgage-backed securities mixed up.
The mortgage is a loan. You owe 200,000 on the loan at 4% interest. This is debt.
The mortgage-backed security is a derivative; Theoretically it's a piece of paper whose value is derived based on that mortgage and the credit score associated with it. It's like stock in a company.
When they talk about doing away with debt, that's paying off the mortgage.
When they talk about buying 1,000,000$s worth of mortgages for 50,000$, they think they're also referring to the mortgage, but I'm pretty sure it's actually the leveraged mortgage-backed security. Buying those securities doesn't give you ownership of the loan. There is still 200,000$ that was lent by a bank out there. It doesn't just convert to 50,000$.

*promote to update the story

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8468864/

http://gizmodo.com/ashtonlundeby/

*edit

Oh, and to showcase my rant at the bottom of the thread, for all who were complicit in choggie's downfall besides choggie....who did it to himself by feeding the rabble....