>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


We prefer the dragged-out version maintaining mineral rights, gun ownership, and polygamy.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill maher, islam, south park, muhammad bear suit, controversy' to 'bill maher, islam, south park, muhammad bear suit, controversy, new rules' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, New Rules with Bill Maher -- 17 August 2012, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^pumkinandstorm:
If I'm expected to not use sources such as reddit to find videos and rely solely on videos from youtube channels I subscribe to, then you would all be enjoying a lot of banal cat video submissions from me. Which would you prefer?



You post videos without cats (or car accidents) ???


One thing that has always been true of videosift is that posters with more "street cred" than others can get their submissions sifted more often. I've used a number of sources like recent videos on break or liveleak to snag what I think (and often is) a top 15 video to get a bit of street cred now and then. It's really amazing how consistently that works. I've posted a fair amount of obscure videos from time to time, and invariably the weird stuff gets sifted if I've recently posted something more popular or widely accepted. I don't think there's anything different from sifting from redtits than snagging the latest "New Rules" from Bill Maher, or any of the Daily Show or Colbert vids, or most recent from College Humor, or grabbing Yahtzee's latest review.

I get what you mean about aggregators, but videosift is its own community - somewhat more focused.

This season has been excellent fun. There have been several rounds where just the qualifying was as entertaining as a whole race weekend from a few years ago.

I don't actually remember if it was Monaco where the qualifying was more entertaining than the race, but if not then it was easily close and there has been one round where that was the case.

The new rules have worked a treat.
In reply to this comment by Deano:
>> ^robbersdog49:

There hasn't been refuelling in F1 for years, and yes, a 4 second stop is considered pretty poor. Most are around three seconds, with mclaren leading the way with a 2.4 second stop last race.


Wot, no refuelling? No fun! I should watch a race and see what else has changed.

So Here are a few replacement links

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=72a_1274548606

http://www.movieweb.com/tv/TEgkfgknQb5kip/new-rules

I can't find a working embed though

>> ^heropsycho:

Pretty sure Occupy doesn't think the proper way to respond to honest constructive criticism is get pissy.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^heropsycho:
I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.
How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.
If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.
But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

No misunderstanding...just an unwillingness to explain. I don't care.



Me not wanting to make my case and not caring if you agree with me is not me being pissy. It's me acknowledging that it's useless and stupid considering I have a final tomorrow!

Pretty sure Occupy doesn't think the proper way to respond to honest constructive criticism is get pissy.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^heropsycho:
I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.
How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.
If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.
But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

No misunderstanding...just an unwillingness to explain. I don't care.

>> ^heropsycho:

I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.
How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.
If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.
But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.


No misunderstanding...just an unwillingness to explain. I don't care.

I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.

How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.

If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.

But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^heropsycho:
Speaking as someone who has some sympathies at least for their motivations but falls under the general political moderate group who's "got crap to do" and doesn't have time to actively participate in any political movements, I personally had forgotten Occupy existed for months until Maher brought this up.
You can blame that on a lot of things, but one conclusion you have to draw from this is they haven't been effective in trying to affect change for quite sometime. I don't pretend to have an answer on what they should do, but what they're doing so far hasn't worked.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Stormsinger:
I don't think he was actually recommending they "support the democrats", so much as co-opt the Democratic party. That's certainly a reasonable approach, if you want a chance to make an actual difference in less than 30 years.

They're already making a difference. The Occupy movement has been a really great success, just need some more time and clarify the message better. We don't need a party.


And you'd be wrong. Not according to me, according to Noam Fucking Chomsky.

>> ^heropsycho:

Speaking as someone who has some sympathies at least for their motivations but falls under the general political moderate group who's "got crap to do" and doesn't have time to actively participate in any political movements, I personally had forgotten Occupy existed for months until Maher brought this up.
You can blame that on a lot of things, but one conclusion you have to draw from this is they haven't been effective in trying to affect change for quite sometime. I don't pretend to have an answer on what they should do, but what they're doing so far hasn't worked.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Stormsinger:
I don't think he was actually recommending they "support the democrats", so much as co-opt the Democratic party. That's certainly a reasonable approach, if you want a chance to make an actual difference in less than 30 years.

They're already making a difference. The Occupy movement has been a really great success, just need some more time and clarify the message better. We don't need a party.



And you'd be wrong. Not according to me, according to Noam Fucking Chomsky.

Speaking as someone who has some sympathies at least for their motivations but falls under the general political moderate group who's "got crap to do" and doesn't have time to actively participate in any political movements, I personally had forgotten Occupy existed for months until Maher brought this up.

You can blame that on a lot of things, but one conclusion you have to draw from this is they haven't been effective in trying to affect change for quite sometime. I don't pretend to have an answer on what they should do, but what they're doing so far hasn't worked.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
I don't think he was actually recommending they "support the democrats", so much as co-opt the Democratic party. That's certainly a reasonable approach, if you want a chance to make an actual difference in less than 30 years.

They're already making a difference. The Occupy movement has been a really great success, just need some more time and clarify the message better. We don't need a party.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I don't think he was actually recommending they "support the democrats", so much as co-opt the Democratic party. That's certainly a reasonable approach, if you want a chance to make an actual difference in less than 30 years.


They're already making a difference. The Occupy movement has been a really great success, just need some more time and clarify the message better. We don't need a party.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Boise_Lib.