>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^lantern53:
Atheism is really the most awful thought, I don't know how anyone can possibly entertain it. Life is so short, what is the point if there is nothing after death.
You may not want to believe in a higher power, but for your own sake or curiosity, do a little research. I recommend studying near death experiences.
Or not, no skin off of my nose if you have no curiosity about the greatest questions of all time.
Fortunately for the wave, the ocean will eventually re-absorb it. Just because the wave doesn't believe in the ocean, doesn't mean the ocean will reject it. The ocean doesn't give a good crap what the wave believes.

Leaving aside the greeting-card level of philosophy on display here, what the fuck does that have to do with this video?

Somewhere in Topeka, KS, a young toddler with unknown, preeminent psychic abilities freezes Roker during a live telecast after inadvertently looking into TV and thinking: "Staring contest, ready, go!"

You're saying you can't buy it out because the price is too high. Government Insiders, etc. etc. etc. I hear you and I agree. Which is why I'm saying these groups are pointless.

We either have to organize ourselves, all the small business owners in America, the middle class, blah blah blah, etc etc etc, and put our money together to do it.

Or hope some radical benevolent dictator military movements seizes control and then doesn't go mad with power and turns it back into a democracy.

Frankly I unfortunately don't think either are likely.

Occupy Wall Street got tons of Money but they didn't' do anything with it. I feel that was a great catalyst for more liberal people and it was squandered.

>> ^DuoJet:

These people aren't "participating in the system" because said participation requires great wealth. Those with great wealth have no interest in such an agenda.
Conversely, the Tea Party was an inadvertently pro-corporate movement quietly backed by millions of corporate dollars. That is why it worked. Ever seen footage of police quelling a Tea Party rally? There is no equivalency between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.

These people aren't "participating in the system" because said participation requires great wealth. Those with great wealth have no interest in such an agenda.

Conversely, the Tea Party was an inadvertently pro-corporate movement quietly backed by millions of corporate dollars. That is why it worked. Ever seen footage of police quelling a Tea Party rally? There is no equivalency between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.


>> ^Darkhand:

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think you are misunderstanding my point.
The problem is from what I have seen the people trying to enact change don't actually participate in the system. So other than marching, and banging on drums, and protesting they aren't actually accomplishing anything.
The Tea Party might not be the most successful group but it sure as hell worked in a lot of their endeavors. I haven't seen the Liberal Version of the tea party yet and I don't think I will.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^petpeeved:
The revolution will not have a permit.

There will never be a revolution because the only people who seem to be upset about anything are hippies and hippies are non-violent.
Occupy Wall Street was the biggest let down because when asked if they planned on sponsoring any political parties they said "we don't recognize the system so we don't sponsor anyone" or some shit like that.
Unless this "revolution" is going to burn our current system to the ground, or actually get involved in politics nothing will happen.
Feel free to shout and bang your drums if it makes you feel better. But that's not a revolution it's just a mosquito buzzing in the ear of our capitalist government.

You seem to think that only violence can change the system at this point? I honestly don't know if there is any hope of reforming the government via policy and procedure but I doubt violence would change anything for the better either.
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
If there is one thing we should socialize, it's the political process itself. We have spending caps on pro sports teams; we should have spending caps on political campaigns as well. Give all the major candidates free television and media coverage during the election season. Eliminate corporate contributions entirely etc.
We just need to turn politics into a job that attracts people for the right reason: public service, as opposed to the reason most seem to get involved these days: personal aggrandizement.
Romney's fundraisers are aiming to raise a billion dollars to win this election. I'm sure Obama's are aiming for as close to that figure as possible too.
This is the root of all the problems we face as a nation, imo. It's all about the money needed to buy an election.

Reading the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder for AF447 might be enough to put you off flying for a while.
The inexperienced co-pilot inadvertently did exactly what he needed to do to drop the A330 into the ocean. The senior pilot and co-pilot could have easily saved the plane but a lack of effective communication kept them from realizing what was happening until it was too late.

I seem to recall that a potter, creating a pot would inadvertently transfer any vibrations- speech etc- through his fingers to the rings created whilst working, and that these could be "played back." Imagine being able to listen to someone discussing life in, say, ancient Rome, Greece, etc. I only hope I didn't just dream this.

Excellent example of how music can really make a trailer (and how the Sift can cause one to discover great things inadvertantly). The song is This Bitter Earth by Dinah Washington, rearranged for the ost of "Shutter Island":

Hey ant... I inadvertently duped this vid using this title.

"Dormouse with Sleep Apnea - where are snore strips?"

If you are bored with your title, I bequeath you mine. I rather liked it and was sorry to lose it.

So.... tis better to let someone "dupe" your vid rather than "kill" it. The votes transfer automatically and any comments are linked, so sifters' brilliant ruminations aren't lost....

I'll go transfer my vote to the dupe.

@criticalthud, you wanna go vote again? It's a great vid!

Inadvertent dupes happen to all of us, auger. Just part of the thrill.


>> ^Auger8:

kill sorry I seem to have the worst luck with dupes lately I searched every colbert super pac vid here I thought and didn't see this. Oh well. I did think it odd that someone hadn't beat me to this one though guess I just need better sift experience.

I inadvertently go to channels - think I'm clicking on one thing and end up stuck in a channel. Took me awhile to figure out how to get back to videosift "home" -- I used to have to leave the site and re-enter.

And yes, I'm not very observant or computer literate.

I find channels annoying more than anything in terms of navigating the site. I use advanced search when I am trying to find something, and the channel designations are helpful for winnowing down the choices.

Took me forever to find advanced search, too. Sigh.

Hi, Hartley9588

You may have seen the discussion on your video:
http://videosift.com/video/Clean-Up-Crew
Here are the rules that may apply (note emphasis added)

Please do not self link.

While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If your post is not a Sponsored Video (the only allowed way to promote your own content) and any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.

If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

Finally, submitting a video that is considered spam falls within our definition of a self-link. If you create an account solely to post a video for whatever reason, but do not actually participate in VideoSift in any other way before or after, you may be considered a spammer/self-promoter and your account is subject to banning.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

Yes, but that's exactly what friendly fire is.

No, it's not.


Friendly fire is inadvertent firing towards one's own or otherwise friendly forces while attempting to engage enemy forces, particularly where this results in injury or death. A death resulting from a negligent discharge is not considered friendly fire. Neither is murder, whether premeditated or in the heat of the moment,...

Only a dogmatic right winger could say that with a straight face. And in the later sentence you proved it. You're so convinced it couldn't have been the free market, you are willing to accept any explanation for the economic collapse that pinned most of the blame on the government.

And it's categorically absurd. Yes, absolutely, the gov't played a role, but the overwhelming majority of the collapse was due to derivatives and CDOs. The only conceivable explanation for the gov't being the primary root cause is either they didn't regulate as they should have, which actually ends up being the antithesis of your argument because it advocates gov't taking a much more involved role from here on out, or it's because of initiatives by the gov't to increase homeownership by giving loans out to people who had little chance to pay it back. Of the later, the simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of the subprime loans were given out by subprime lenders, not Fannie and Freddie, before Fannie and Freddie entered into that market. Even when considering in the end all subprime loans including Fannie and Freddie, the odds of default on subprime loans were several fold higher with subprime lenders than Fannie/Freddie.

And why did CDOs containing subprime loans get pushed up into investment vehicles that could be purchased by retirement programs like 401k, etc., which fueled their growth? Fannie and Freddie backed loans and non-Fannie/Freddie backed loans were both in funds rated AAA by ratings agencies that were not regulated by the US gov't. Instead, they were paid by the investment houses that gave them the investment funds to rate in the first place. No gov't agency put a gun to their head and made them slap lipstick on those pigs.

Absolutely, Fannie and Freddie helped to legitimize subprime lending, but the simple fact of the matter is Fannie and Freddie were late to the subprime game. They even thought that they almost had to in order to, survey says, COMPETE THE MORTGAGE MARKET! Oh yes, that's right, they were compelled to enter into these dangerous loans because they were losing market share to the Countrywide's of the mortgage industry. While gov't certainly liked the idea of the result in increased home ownership rates this would cause, no gov't agency put a gun to their heads to issue subprime loans specifically. They chose to jump into those waters.

The Great Recession is in the end more about what happens when the free market, particularly the financial sector, isn't regulated effectively. I don't blame the financial industry for inventing derivatives and CDOs. Both instruments can be used to reduce risk for all parties involved, and potentially to the entire system. But they inadvertently created a system that led to its own collapse because no entity watched over the system as a whole. How could the investment banks have known they comprised entities that should any of them fail, they would cause the entire system to collapse because of the intricate web of these CDOs and derivatives? How could they possibly know AIG was overextended on derivatives? They simply aren't equipped or structured to know this. But some entity should have, and the ONLY possible answer is the gov't. I'm even sympathetic to the view the gov't as is cannot possibly do this, but that means we need to fashion a gov't that can. It's the only answer.

>> ^lantern53:

Now Wall St. may have fouled up but it was the US gov't which was holding the gun to it's head. Only a gov't could foul things up this badly.

I love the inadvertent head spasm right as she admits to pooping... she aint lyin'

@heropsycho
Re:war on terror as religious crusade
dismiss, ignore, ignore, deny, dismiss. You're not going to dismiss/deny the other two examples?

Re:Obama and Christianity
Obama claims to be Christian, that's the standard you use for Breivik.

Re:Obama is not intentionally trying to kill civilians
False. It's accepted collateral damage. Raining down hellfire missiles leveling apartment buildings, assassinating entire wedding parties, etc. is terrorism.

Re:Terror bombings in Tripoli
Sorry, everything we are doing in Libya violates U.S. and international law. It's irrelevant what the mission is. Bombing civilian areas and doing fly-overs for hours is done for one purpose: to incite fear into the civilian population i.e. terrorism

Re:"It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large."
It's pretty silly you believe that garbage.

Re:Extreme progressives
So you admit that "progressive" is just another hollow label? What's the difference between regular progressives and "extreme progressives" say...5 years ago? There wasn't. But now it's progressive to illegally bomb other countries.

Thanks for making my point.