I think their issue is probably based a lot of illegal immigrant workers, places using them can hold deportation over their heads, pay them a lot less, work them a lot more, and avoid minimum wage US workers.

Minimum wage is a useless tool if they can bypass it by hiring people who willfully don't seek it for one reason or another. Deportation even if they are a legal immigrant due to lack of job keeping them here on their work visa.


Then the other is the "taxes are so high" excuse, where your paycheck isn't broken down properly and they are taking things out that they shouldn't be and just blaming it on taxes. Or overtime goes unpaid because "We don't pay overtime, yet we'll work you 80 hours a week and never inform you of this." Or you work through breaks and lunch, but they subtract lunch/etc from your pay because they need to do so to appear to be meeting labor standards if anyone ever looks into them. So they can use the "He worked through lunch? We didn't pay him for it...why would someone do that? He must have taken lunch."

And people who can't speak or read english or have poor comprehension. They spend more effort on ripping these people off because whose going to listen to them? They can't communicate well enough with their employer to argue one way or the other. Non-English speaking is a huge bias in the US work force, and I can somewhat see it. But there's still labor practices, if you don't want to hire someone who can't speak English...don't. But it's easier to break labor practices and rip them off if you do, which is why they hire them.


And they get away with it because they are 1) Huge corporations or 2) So shady without seeing it first hand someone wouldn't know something is up because their reports are so full of lies. Both categories will also fuck with your unemployment benefits despite it not costing them anything to let you have them. Why? Because it makes other people in the company unwilling to risk quitting with cause and trying to draw unemployment while they pursue legal matters against them. If they can keep you poor and on the edge, you don't have the ability to do anything about...you'll be out on the street before anything happens. And it's pretty hard to do anything court related if you don't have a mailing address, plus all of the other things that will happen to you, your kids, etc if you choose to try to fight and lose your job over it.....like inability to find work ever again because you complained and they let people know you did. And good luck proving they are hindering your ability to find work or that you are on some sort of unofficial black list.


I don't doubt for a minute that what they say is 100% true. It's already taking place out in the open with CEOs and what not raking in money and driving down wages of everyone else or laying off major swathes of their work force while they post record profits. And no one in government is batting an eye at that display of greed and the questionable nature of the finance industry still dictating the terms of the economy even after they got bailed out massively and changed nothing.


Corporate corruption is going to be a bitch to handle when the government relies on it for it's donations/bribes.

I know the restaurant statistic was right I worked as a cook for the last 10 years until I shattered my ankle recently in a car accident. And in virtually every restaurant I've worked for (some very large chains too) I've had to deal with at least one of the following: no overtime pay, no overtime pay for working holidays(xmas/thanksgiving), no breaks, no lunches, missing hours, being hired at a certain pay rate only to find out I was getting less when I actually got paid, delayed checks(up to 2 weeks once), and at one place I got a paycheck advance and was forced to payback the sum I owed twice because the manager didn't write it down the first time and I was stupid enough not to get a receipt.(Granted the last one was sorta my fault but still they took me for $400 that time). And that doesn't even cover the horrid conditions at most of these so called high class restaurants many of which I won't eat at anymore.

>> ^Sagemind:

Oh, not to worry...., I kid - mainly because I know that pay is always a sore spot with teachers.
Teachers put in a ton of unpaid overtime for everything from sports, extra-curricular and even time at home marking.
Since this was a parody video, I assumed the sarcasm was implied
>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^Sagemind:
Hold it, Teachers make $800 a week? - I had no idea it was so much.
Time to re-think that pay scale.....

@Sagemind
I hope you're joking, first of all. Why do I hope that? Because teachers should be paid abundantly more for the work we put in. It's a hard job. If you want more specific, detailed, cited reasons why it's a hard job, I hashed a lot of that out on an old post here.
If you're too busy to pine over all of that information though, I think Donald Quinn nailed it on the head with this:
"If a doctor, lawyer, or dentist had 40 people in his office at one time, all of whom had different needs, and some of whom didn't want to be there and were causing trouble, and the doctor, lawyer, or dentist, without assistance, had to treat them all with professional excellence for nine months, then he might have some conception of the classroom teacher's job." ~Quinn
Finally, no, I've got 5 years of experience and make about $950 every 2 (that's two) weeks.



actually i believe most schools pay their teachers more if they're in charge of extra-curriculars. the highest payed teacher at my high school was a one of the gym teachers because he was in charge of so many clubs on the side.

Oh, not to worry...., I kid - mainly because I know that pay is always a sore spot with teachers.
Teachers put in a ton of unpaid overtime for everything from sports, extra-curricular and even time at home marking.
Since this was a parody video, I assumed the sarcasm was implied
In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
>> ^Sagemind:

Hold it, Teachers make $800 a week? - I had no idea it was so much.
Time to re-think that pay scale.....


@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sagemind" title="member since April 2nd, 2008" class="profilelink">Sagemind
I hope you're joking, first of all. Why do I hope that? Because teachers should be paid abundantly more for the work we put in. It's a hard job. If you want more specific, detailed, cited reasons why it's a hard job, I hashed a lot of that out on an old post here.

If you're too busy to pine over all of that information though, I think Donald Quinn nailed it on the head with this:
"If a doctor, lawyer, or dentist had 40 people in his office at one time, all of whom had different needs, and some of whom didn't want to be there and were causing trouble, and the doctor, lawyer, or dentist, without assistance, had to treat them all with professional excellence for nine months, then he might have some conception of the classroom teacher's job." ~Quinn

Finally, no, I've got 5 years of experience and make about $950 every 2 (that's two) weeks.

Oh, not to worry...., I kid - mainly because I know that pay is always a sore spot with teachers.
Teachers put in a ton of unpaid overtime for everything from sports, extra-curricular and even time at home marking.
Since this was a parody video, I assumed the sarcasm was implied
>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^Sagemind:
Hold it, Teachers make $800 a week? - I had no idea it was so much.
Time to re-think that pay scale.....

@Sagemind
I hope you're joking, first of all. Why do I hope that? Because teachers should be paid abundantly more for the work we put in. It's a hard job. If you want more specific, detailed, cited reasons why it's a hard job, I hashed a lot of that out on an old post here.
If you're too busy to pine over all of that information though, I think Donald Quinn nailed it on the head with this:
"If a doctor, lawyer, or dentist had 40 people in his office at one time, all of whom had different needs, and some of whom didn't want to be there and were causing trouble, and the doctor, lawyer, or dentist, without assistance, had to treat them all with professional excellence for nine months, then he might have some conception of the classroom teacher's job." ~Quinn
Finally, no, I've got 5 years of experience and make about $950 every 2 (that's two) weeks.

Thanks for the vote :-)

Any idea where your family came to the states from, by the way? Unless that's an Anglicised German name we're probably related! >> ^lampishthing:

I shamelessly bring this to your attention.
Chromeo - Mr. Overtime

>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (notdead) cannot be called by CheshireSmile because CheshireSmile is not privileged - sorry.


but.... it's not dead!

I shamelessly bring this to your attention.

Chromeo - Mr. Overtime

That was a horrendous interview all around, it...went...nowhere... Cenk is getting overtly irate at a Fat Cat Republican Congressmen who says that he read the 2011 Social Security release. Then Cenk has a large problem of "centering" himself, allowing himself to give the man who is talking enough rope to hang himself on it. He almost had him after the first part, but he got SO angry and overzealous in his pushing of the conversation that the conversation drowned in the ramblings of two pride filled men who couldn't stand to allow conversation to be heard or really go anywhere--with some sort of pint or reason.

Cenk needed to get this idiots ideas, all of them, onto the plate before pressing. When I say pressing I don't mean yelling. Cenk needed to allow this Congressmen to bring in his own "proof of fact" (with various sources for them to look at and then take him out strategically if he used them and the source is incorrect, biased, or useless--tell the public why this is so), so that when he said that the surplus was a short fall they could napalm him later for it. Of course a lot of these idiots read a few lines of facts before they go into an interview and try to use them--the fact that Cenk pressed him and he said nothing except to mumble his correctness and sit and smile, just smile when you may have erred--but you can NEVER be wrong. That lets us know that that may have been the case here. You can EASILY look on factcheck.org and quickly find out that Cenk was right, but there was a short fall too. That number was of course still large, but was clearly defined by MANY that it indeed was most likely the result of a terrible economy and recession.

BTW, when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security (slowly though, so you don't rebel all at once). I would assume anyway. After all, if we wished to really solve the problem we could SLOW DOWN life for ourselves. Work only 6 hours a day and only 4 days in a week. We get One month off in the summer, the nation splitting that break into groups the size of thirds or fourths of all of us. The Federal system could limit certain types of inflation and interest (and maybe one-day we could almost entirely kill off interest, but probably not rich men need their golden swimming pools). We could start to shape the way we pay people (as I assume most of you want your grocery store as much as your doctors and so forth). To move so much money from a business to help to pay people between a certain age range. Teenagers may have to take the bullet of the lowest wages, but it may secure their futures in the process. Then we could talk about re-managing the entirety of the Federal Budget and maybe one day we could get away from spending for a war machine that HAS NO WARS. BUT, this is crazy talk.

Instead... Are FICA and SS minimums will go up, thus we make even less, and our taxes will as well--unless you're rich. Your life will stay about the same and your affect upon the middle and lower classes will show your indifference to their demise or situation--unfortunately this seems to be something you learn by going through, what you know nothing of--it is the power and the price to having true empathy. Houses will tend to cost as much as a top scale middle-American could pay for one in half their lifetime. Gas will cost more, as hybrids get more efficient--until you never by it again they will try to make sure you ALWAYS pay the same amount. You work 8 hours a day but overtime is nearly mandatory everyday, somedays can get up to 10 hours, if you're a blue collar it might even go around 12. Then they want you to retire at 72. Medicare and Medicaid barely get you along, you HAVE TO buy a "jacket" plan now (such as AARP), this says nothing of dental or other medical concerns.

Or we stay a lot like it is now. I hope not, because I always hope for a brighter future.

I'll be blunt the Republicans are taking us FAR from that idea and Cenk doesn't help here. His audience must eventually try to grab every ear it can IF it, if we, are to be successful. Otherwise, a revolution may be coming--not now, but someday off in the future--maybe in my lifetime. I'm 35 and paid into SS.

/oops longer than I meant, hopefully not too much dystopia or utopia -- things in reach, for worse or better...

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to
be true.

I am commanded by God to do so. It's not optional.

That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that.

Okay..cool.

Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their
mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot
prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful
view of other people.

Again, I am commanded by God to do so. Although, in this case, I didn't start the conversation about God.

You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how
much you think you do. You don't. Period.

That's your opinion.
Go ahead and try to
convince them.

You can't argue someone into faith. Only God is capable of changing someones heart.

There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to
claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions
because they don't share yours.

Would it be immoral to tell a rapist that raping people is wrong?

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing
in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely
exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with
certainty god doesn't exist either

It doesn't really bother me. I agree though, it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs; God gives everyone freedom to believe whatever they want. I also see everyone in the image of God. Neither am I interested in arguing; I prefer as little drama as possible.

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint
on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated
spirituality to being right or wrong.

Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs
wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to
yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't
in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and
always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all
your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Rather than drag it out, I am just going to let this drop. I fully acknowledge atheists have valid opinions on morality and ethics.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not
debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how
to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others.
You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is
messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more
valid because you're Christian.

Since you're preaching at me about how I should conduct myself, I think it's only fair that you share what you believe in. I think it's relevent, in that context, to see if your behavior lines up to the stanards of conduct of your faith.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their
beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side,
here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and
understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap
about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people
spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the
Christian Golden Rule?

As a previous unbeliever and skeptic, I am very familiar with what atheists believe and why. Not only from a personal standpoint, but due to the fact that they tell me exactly what they believe all the time. You're really working overtime trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (and not responding to the substance of the conversation), when the point of fact is, there is nothing wrong with my sharing what I believe. If you can tell me I am wrong, I can say that I am right. But I am not even saying that. I am saying God is right, and I believe Him.

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter
disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word
of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you
re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone.
I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other
devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than
not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an
irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a
believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like
your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a
petulant 5 year old know it all.

What have I said that is so terrible? I'm far from perfect but your accusations are ringing a little hollow. You could try putting away the strawmen and ad homs and actually engage the substance of the conversation. Do you think messanger needs you to defend him? He and I are in familiar territory. Honestly, I am sorry if I have been rude in any way. Though, how is it that you chastise someone about being respectful when you yourself are being disrespectful, anyway? I'm not sure I understand that dynamic.


>> ^heropsycho:

Haha exactly, no one wants a cop around until they need one.>> ^probie:

Why do I get the feeling this is the same type of asshole who sues the police department for not being on his doorstep in 15 seconds when he really needs them?

Do you mean driving unlicensed or that they just don't have their license on them. If it's the former then good. If they're driving without a license they shouldn't be on the road.
>> ^longde:

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under a police baton.
How many people in Australia are in jail or prison? In the US, we lock up more people than any other nation, including China. So when even the smallest, harmless seeming provocation can land you in jail, you learn to be wary of police overtures.
It's not a question of if, American police have indeed abused such checkpoints. They routinely arrest people for non DUI offenses, because the stop gets their foot in the door, so to speak. They can drum up probable cause, search the vehicle, and even impound it. In fact, in many checkpoints the people arrested or fined for non-DUI offenses dwarf the actual DUI offenses.
Here's a recent example of the revenue motive in checkpoint abuse in california:
The revenue comes in two ways. First, $30 million in federal funds pays for police overtime and operating costs at checkpoints like these. And then the impounded vehicles provide a profit. After fines are paid to the city along, with 30 days in storage fees, a vehicle typically produces $2,000 in revenue, sometimes more if it is not claimed and then auctioned.
........
An analysis of records obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program shows that, last year, impounds brought in over $40 million in revenue, shared by tow operators and municipal governments.
And documents reveal that, for every one DUI arrest at these sobriety checkpoints, there can be as many as 60 people cited for driving without a license, 60 vehicles seized.

I'm glad you Aussies don't have this problem.>> ^liverpoolfc:
Some people just won't get it until it's their child under the back wheel of a drunks car.
What's interesting about this conversation and random breath testing is that there is no argument in Australia against it, it's a non-issue. Aside from drink-drivers themselves you'd struggle to find anyone here that thinks random breath testing is a bad idea or that you should be allowed to refuse to take a breath test.
We accept that we have rights as well as responsibilites to other road users, the police are there to ensure we follow those rights and responsibilities and protect the rights and responsibilites of others. Appears to be a big culture difference between the way law enforcement is perceived here and in America.>> ^EMPIRE:
this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.
Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under a police baton.

How many people in Australia are in jail or prison? In the US, we lock up more people than any other nation, including China. So when even the smallest, harmless seeming provocation can land you in jail, you learn to be wary of police overtures.

It's not a question of if, American police have indeed abused such checkpoints. They routinely arrest people for non DUI offenses, because the stop gets their foot in the door, so to speak. They can drum up probable cause, search the vehicle, and even impound it. In fact, in many checkpoints the people arrested or fined for non-DUI offenses dwarf the actual DUI offenses.

Here's a recent example of the revenue motive in checkpoint abuse in california:

The revenue comes in two ways. First, $30 million in federal funds pays for police overtime and operating costs at checkpoints like these. And then the impounded vehicles provide a profit. After fines are paid to the city along, with 30 days in storage fees, a vehicle typically produces $2,000 in revenue, sometimes more if it is not claimed and then auctioned.
........
An analysis of records obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program shows that, last year, impounds brought in over $40 million in revenue, shared by tow operators and municipal governments.

And documents reveal that, for every one DUI arrest at these sobriety checkpoints, there can be as many as 60 people cited for driving without a license, 60 vehicles seized.

I'm glad you Aussies don't have this problem.>> ^liverpoolfc:

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under the back wheel of a drunks car.
What's interesting about this conversation and random breath testing is that there is no argument in Australia against it, it's a non-issue. Aside from drink-drivers themselves you'd struggle to find anyone here that thinks random breath testing is a bad idea or that you should be allowed to refuse to take a breath test.
We accept that we have rights as well as responsibilites to other road users, the police are there to ensure we follow those rights and responsibilities and protect the rights and responsibilites of others. Appears to be a big culture difference between the way law enforcement is perceived here and in America.>> ^EMPIRE:
this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.
Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
So my understanding of the new overtime rules was that each team got a possession. Is the one exception if you run it in on the first play?

The exception is if a TD is scored.


Ya, I was doing some reading...its if a TD is scored on the opening play, or a any type of score is had by the defense. I think I read something about moon cycles and the galactic core, but those set of rules only come into play when you play on the 3rd Sunday of the winter moon.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

So my understanding of the new overtime rules was that each team got a possession. Is the one exception if you run it in on the first play?


The exception is if a TD is scored.

So my understanding of the new overtime rules was that each team got a possession. Is the one exception if you run it in on the first play?