Terrible channel as defined here https://videosift.com/terrible

Channels are so broken (assigned according to how defined) and have been broken for years with no interest in fixing them. I really don't think it matters one way or another how they are used.

*kill im sure you will all see it one way or another.

And blacks in the west start miles ahead of blacks in Africa. So where do we draw the line? Equal opportunity and equal treatment are the very best we should be able to expect in this world because as soon as you put your thumb on the scales, one way or another, someone is going to feel cheated. That will, in turn, become resentment, fair or not, and the cycle will continue.

You trace back every persons family tree and you'll end up with both ancestors that had the boot on their neck, and ancestors who wore the boot. If we carry the sum of the sins of our forebears, then there is not a single person alive today that isn't guilty of some horrid event. A million monkeys with a million typewriters will eventually write Mein Kampf...

I agree with most of what the Governator said, and noted the things he didn't say eg. he didn't say it's okay to physically attack someone expressing a hateful idea.

More importantly, I think Daryl Davis has the solution:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a74895
96.html

Or Martin Luther King: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

Which is why you don't destroy history, you don't shout down people expressing hateful ideas, you do not dehumanise them and in not doing that, you do not become the monster you are trying to fight.

Careful, if @bobknight33 sees you saying that he'll respond with some pretty harsh criticism. I'll pull quotes from his profile to simulate what he would say.

"Cuba citizens live as long and pay less? That Communism is better? That Cubans live shit life's but have live as long? Sign me up for that stuff... Then I 'll build a boat out of trash bans and float 90miles to tot the USA for a worse life. Sign me up for that stuff.

Every group that a has money at stake are trying to influence the people / governments one way or another in their favor.

All those hard line [prices] are only starting negotiating positions.

Trump is punking the shit out of liberals. Too funny. No real evidence or facts. just "sources" for liberal media false hype to continue its 24/7 anti Trump narrative."

Every group that a has money at stake are trying to influence the people / governments one way or another in their favor.

I do believe that temperatures are changing but to say man is mostly at fault -- I don't buy it. Even those promoting man made warming concede that even the Paris accord will not truly change the doomsday course we are on.

Al Gore's Inconvenient truth movie has the planet basically dead today -- but we are all here. Kind of the boy crying woof.

@SDGundamX

The idea that anyone would chastise(rebuke or reprimand severely) someone they don't know, who were engaged in a normal private conversation (your example) seems insane to me. I find people like that completely offensive.

I've told many an acquaintance (someone i have SOME relationship with) why i might find a term they used ugly/offensive, but NEVER would i "chastise" them. It's unnecessary and usually accomplishes nothing or the exact opposite of what i can only assume ones trying to achieve. I find people who "chastise" as a way to go about it are generally high horse types who think they are better than others in one way or another.

I guess it's possible he lost his ability to read later in life. He's quite old, and possible has health issues with his eyes, or perhaps more seriously has had a few strokes which is not unusual for his age. And a stroke could have impaired his ability to read.

I hope we find out the truth one way or another, because this is scary.

I was about the reply to Bobknight - to say basically the same thing.

Unfortunately, a lot of us who are "liberal" can't understand this. There is truth to it, I'm not going to say that it isn't batshit crazy but for instance, I worked 5 days at a design temp job (before I quit and got the job of a lifetime a week later) and the owner was an older lady. She listened to FOX news ALL DAY long, totally in the box and in the zone for the alt-right mentality.

She, as a small business owner, who probably has other "conservative"(extremist) friends on the Chamber of Commerce (of which she was a part of) really believed that Trump as a "BUSINESS" person would be a great president in creating a better economy for"business"(tax loopholes everywhere, YES!!! No living wage or minimum wage increases, YESSS!!! fucking dicks the lot of em). I had to listen to this shit for those 5 days, but yeah - people really believe(d) it. There are business people out there, who aren't Bobknights eating doritoes in that wheel-less, rusted, mobile home in the trailer park waiting for the next tornado to plop down on tornado alley and give them the ultimate ride to the otherside, that believed in having a business person in the white house a good thing (fucking capitalists and terribly ignorant poor people IMO lol).

Media is in a real shithole these days. I mean, I still listen to Democracy Now! & NPR... but everything is slanted one-way or another...

Trump. The great uniter. One way or another.

Am I the only one who thought that the test where they showed the little girl a lineup of different colored children and asked her to point out the good one and the bad one seemed a little messed up? Is it even possible to give an answer that wouldn't be disturbing in one way or another? What if she chose a white person instead of someone of color?
Sorry, but that test just has WTF written all over it.

Nailed it for me, but that's kinda the point. Humour is subjective... As much as the comedian uses techniques to deliver his comedy, it also requires an audience that is receptive.

You could go off at this point and make all sort of assumptions about the person I am, and vice versa I could do the same re: you. Ultimately though, it doesn't really matter because we aren't all required to get the joke. We are allowed to be entertained, and we are allowed to be offended.

Though I'm not sure how "once rape isn't something that is filmed" makes a difference one way or another because the comedian isn't personally responsible (to the best of my knowledge) for standing by and allowing a rape to happen while he films it.

And I don't see why you'd duck out of the conversation because your opinion on this matter cannot be wrong. It's your point of view about a subjective piece. It's not like it's a fact for everyone that the routine is funny.

You cut a definition from somewhere that doesn't fit common usage of the word. The common usage of the word defines the definition. Dictionaries record the common usage.

The statement the interview quoted, in the clip in question, was not bigoted.

The clip in question does not reflect your assertion. In it he says he only wants to disallow radicalised Muslims, allowing the rest to enter the country.

I'm right, but you're entitled to disagree.

I'm glad you're exiting the conversation. You show a deep disregard for facts and can't perform a nuanced analysis of a simple video clip. You have an evident loathing of Trump (whom I don't care for one way or another) and do not demonstrate objective thinking.

First off i'm not sure where anyone is planning on raising the min wage to 15hr immediately(I don't know one way or another for sure). Even if the California bill passes for a min wage of 15hr its rolled out over six years. I think the first bump is fifty cents(10 to 10.50). Arriving at 15hr in 2022.

I also think the way you raise wages for everyone is exactly this way. The pressure to pay more for more skilled positions comes from the bottom.

(edit)
On another note. Ive never understood the attitude that if im not going to get more, then others shouldn't get more. Also a few of the people i hear saying there shouldn't be a 15 hr min wage are people who make quite a bit of money themselves($75,000 and up). They are so quick to judge others work value. It boggles my mind how workers will argue against other workers getting a bit more. The powers that be(owners) have duped you into doing there work for them it seems to me.

@greatgooglymoogly

Thanks for taking the time to watch it.

Like I said in my previous comment, this talk needs to take a lot of shortcuts, otherwise its length would surpass anyone's attention span.

So, point by point.

By "balanced budget", I suppose you refer to the federal budget. A balanced budget is not neccessarily a bad thing, but it is undesirable in most case. The key reason is sectoral balances. The economy can divided into three sectors: public, private, foreign. Since one person's spending is another person's income, the sum of all spending and income of these three sectors is zero by definition.

More precisely: if the public sector runs a surplus and the private sector runs a surplus, the foreign sector needs to run a deficit of a corresponding size.

Two examples:
- the government runs a balanced budget, no surplus, no deficit
- the private sector runs a surplus (savings) of 2% of GDP
- the foreign sector must, by definition, run a deficit of 2% of GDP (your country runs a current account surplus of 2% of GDP)

- the government runs a deficit of 2% of GDP
- the foreign sector runs a surplus of 3% (your current account deficit of 3%)
- your private sector must, by definition, run a deficit of 1% of GDP, aka burn through savings or run up debt

If you intend to allow the private sector to net save, you need to run either a current account surplus or a public sector deficit, or both. Since we don't export goods to Mars just yet, not all countries can run current account surpluses, so you need to run a public sector deficit if you want your private sector to net save. No two ways about it.

Germany runs a balanced public budget, sort of, and its private sector net saves. But that comes at the cost of a current account surplus to the tune of €250B. That's 250 billion Euros worth of debt other countries have to accumulate so that both the private and public sector in Germany can avoid deficits. Parasitic is what I'd call this behaviour, and I'm German.

If you feel ambitious, you could try to have both surplus and deficit within the private sector by allowing households to net save while "forcing" corporations to run the corresponding deficits. But to any politician trying that, I'd advise to avoid air travel.

As for the "devaluation of the currency", see my previous comment.

Also, she didn't use real numbers, because a) the talk is short and numbers kill people's attention rather quickly, and b) it's a policy decision to use debt to finance a deficit. One might just as well monetise it, like I explained in my previous comment.

Helicopter money would be quite helpful these days, actually. Even monetarists like AEP say so. If fiscal policy is off the table (deficit hawkery), what else are you left with...

As for your question related to the Fed, let me quote Eric Tymoigne on why MMT views both central bank and Treasury as part of the consolidated government:

"MMT authors tend to like to work with a consolidated government because they see it as an effective strategy for policy purpose (see next section), but also because the unconsolidated case just hides under layers of institutional complexity the main point: one way or another the Fed finances the Treasury, always. This monetary financing is not an option and is not by itself inflationary."

MMT principle: the central bank needs to be under democratic control, aka be part of government. The Fed in particular can pride itself on its independance all it wants, it still cannot fulfill any of its goals without the Treasury's help. It cannot diverge from government policies too long. Unlike the ECB, which is a nightmare in its construction.

Anyway, what does he mean by "one way or another the Fed finances the Treasury, always"? Well, the simple case is debt monetisation, direct financing. However, the Fed also participates by ensuring that Primary Dealers have enough reserves to make a reasonable bid on treasuries. The Fed makes sure that auctions of treasuries will always succeed. Always. Either by providing reserves to ensure buyers can afford the treasuries, by replacing maturing treasuries or buying them outright. No chance whatsoever for bond vigilantes. Betting against treasuries is pointless, you will always lose.

But what about taxation as a means to finance the Treasury? Well, the video's Monopoly example illustrated quite nicely, you cannot collect taxes until you have spent currency into circulation. Spending comes before taxation, it does not depend on it. Until reserves are injected into the banking system, either by the Fed through asset purchases or the Treasury through spending, taxes cannot be paid. Again, monetary financing is not optional. If the Treasury borrows money from the public, it borrows back money it previously spent.

Yes, I ignored the distribution of wealth, taxation, the fixation on growth and a million other things. That's a different discussion.

Edited propaganda, but thanks for the general warning.

Anyhow, either we can protect our borders or our way of life will soon end. Mexicans dont want to destroy the USA. Black people in the USA just want to live a normal life. Muslims definitely appear to be set to destroy our society one way or another.

What I do not understand is why they (muslims) want to do this (besides being batshit crazy religious people). Most refugees run from something bad to a better place, adapt and do their best to live happily ever after. These morons run from a horrible place with the aim of making another area just as bad or worse than what they run from. Strange people.

American natives were (are) not very happy about how america was colonized. If we cant start doing a better job of protecting our interests we will end up much like they have - a minority living by the rules of a foreign religion. And any jewish people left will be ****ed, again.

RedSky: 1) we (Europe, specifically Sweden, Germany and France, also Belgium, possibly others) are not managing the situation and have not been for a couple of decades, the situation is well out of hand in many city boroughs. One can not integrate people who dont want to be integrated.
2) extremism is not a solution, that is part of the problem.
3) the only way forward is to start doing what we were meant to be doing from the start, protect "Schengen" borders, throw any country that does not comply with "Schengen" rules out of "Schengen" immediatelly and let it keep any refugees that want to stay. Of course we have to help countries that already have more refugees than they can handle (even though they invited them and now they complain). Obviously we want to help war refugees but we cant possibly invite them all.

No sane person in Europe wants more illiterate muslim economic refugees - no economic sense, no national security (public safety) sense, and no humanitarian sense - they dont want our help, they want our income level and they want us to be muslims. If we do want to help these people can we please help them to try to live better in their own countries?

Political correctness and NATO interest in Greece and Turkey are not insurmountable obstacles, after all we still have democratic elections every 4 or 5 years in most european countries. People rarely vote that stupidly but right now anything is possible.

"Southern look" is incredible newspeak.