Amusant à regarder, mais le son est tout en français!

Yeah? I have always thought it pathetic the way the mob of arthropods here on this site that know the guys' jib give him such a fucking hard-time. SO the guys' a bit simple in his observations of world events, are not we all? I share his frustration with users here who think they have the answers residing somewhere between a self-induced hypnotic state and the aroma of their own farts.

Is it his remedial politics or his lack of a crispy wit?? Fuck political stances, anyone in my estimation who takes sides liberal or conservative, republican or democrats, are complete morons and everyone does not have the gift or command of succulent gab.

I give the maximum amount of credit for long-suffering the mob here an in the case of this offering in particular, after the dick-riders post-Bush and pre-Obama touted the current president cunt as the next best thing to string cheese well, look at the absolute shit that Hepatitis-shaded shill has done to ass-fuck millions of Americans.

Pretension ain't genius and Gaga's output rates mediocre at best.
Again, Trey Parker's voice adjusted to Cartman frequency produces a more pleasing rendition of "Poker Face" than the original artist formerly known as Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, who as far as I can tell is a little full-of-herself, Sicilian/Canadian narcissist whose upper west side Manhattan upbringing has spilled-over into her horrible taste and run-of-the-mill musical offerings.

Her wiki page touts her many self-labeled endeavors, all of which appeal to her sense of self as the center of the universe.

She's a hag.

Hipsters can't hi-jack that word (is that Bono in your avatar?) ulysses, they're only allowed to co-opt it...OH, and most of em look silly doin' the 2000's version, all the while reeking of ineffectual pretension touting sub-standard grooming and last-century literature! Oh, and if you're gonna call yourself a real hipster you'd better dig bebop and trad jazz, otherwise......POSER!!

..and please put-out the foul ciggy from Belarus, the shits' nasty and your teeth are mustard....Oh, and tell Betty there to shave her legs and you, TAKE A BATH!!.

Yes, insisting that diplomacy is likely to stop Assad's continued campaign of murdering his own people is a problem for me. Sure, maybe I should just accept it as naive and not malicious, but people are being killed while the world stands around yet again refusing to do anything, and that makes me angry.

I'm not trying to whitewash America's role in Iraq either. If anything I'd say my picture is a lot blacker than the people I disagree with the most. The only point I think I differ on is that I DO hold Saddam even more responsible for what he did than America or Saudi Arabia or any of his other backers. I see no reason to apologize for that. Read up on Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, his gassing of Kurdish villages was the least of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. Saddam had been destroying everything in Iraq the entire time he was in power, from the absolute repression that was everyday life, to the endless feeding of Iraqi bodies to into the Iran-Iraq war, to the genocide of the Kurds, to the genocide of the Shia, Saddam had killed millions of Iraqis and systematically orchestrated and encouraged sectarian hatred and divisions. All that time America continued to callously back him because America was happy to see Iraq and Iran bleed themselves out against each other. If I find some solace in finally, at long last seeing America change it's tune and finally opposing Saddam it's not for because I think America is some humanitarian entity. You list all the devastation in Iraq since the American invasion, but just what realistic alternative version of Iraq do you see could exist today if non-intervention had been held to? Iraq today would STILL be under Saddam's control today, and I would insist anyone wanting that alternative doesn't know what Saddam really was like. I also insist it must be known that the Iraqi people were NOT going to manage to liberate themselves without foreign intervention. The Kurds contemplated it once, and it ended in a campaign of genocide and systematic rape to breed the Kurds out of existence. The Shia tried it once, and it ended in genocide for them too. The Iraqi people knew exactly how opposition to Saddam ended and it was NOT going to happen without someone coming in from outside.

Maybe I just see the world as that much more awful and horrific a place. Just because things are bad and horrific doesn't mean they couldn't be a far sight worse, and in fact haven't been a far sight worse in the recent past.

I don't object to demands for caution and concern that getting involved in a conflict can lead it escalate. I object to defending dictators with impossible barriers and burdens of proof. The fact the UN teams have trouble getting evidence shouldn't be touted as reason to question Assad's involvement when he steadily interferes and endeavors to hinder the UN investigations. If we require concrete evidence before declaring Assad guilty, and Assad refuses the UN access until they have concrete evidence a problem has arisen, no?

Gotta give it up to her for being able to look Skeletor in the face standing so close. Once she started speaking with passion he was then compelled to turn his gaze from the floor to her face.....(cringe) I couldn't have met that snivelingly-sinister gaze as she did, YOW!


I'd imagine (and tout the idea constantly when people start bitching about being powerless in these situations) a most effective impact would be had in the form of protest through boycott:
For instance, the entire country buys no gasoline for a week, a month, etc.
Protest prison system woes and completely fucked drug laws by hitting more commodities, boycott cotton and coffee for six months and watch 'em squirm.

Week off Work protests stretch into month off work.
Laws violating the human rights of retail employees, the ethical treatment of squirrels in public parks, pick a cause and demand change through withdrawing your capitol and watch the cockroaches scatter!

Shut down the predictable meatbag habits and watch the shit change dramatically.

We are heading towards planet lock-down and we can make it easy for Babylon, or a pain in her ass.

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

I seem to recall dag a few years back touting the functionality of the VS on his Applefone-I'd think a buncha folks would care if the majority of them used their mobile devices for video viewing....I suspect otherwise unless the majority of our users are in Asiatic countries.
Whaddya wanna bet you get an admin answer that says, 'Iphone bad for mobile VS....?'

The incessant advertising does work y'know? The formulas' a simple one, been used-to-abuse for decades now.

24/7 media barrage touting food-like poison for over 30 years = nation(s) of obese, ignorant wage-slaves with bodies and minds unable/unwilling to break-out of a toxic-to-the-species, cycle.

Brilliant eugenics model, keeping the guilty and culpable free from responsibility and unable to function efficiently while the few sit back and wait for the rest to die-off.

Here are the Lyrics in French

Mon pote I think translates to my hommie or my buddy or dude.

[Flynt]
Mon pote c'est mon suisse même s'il a pas d'oseille
C'est ma ganache, ma gueule mais il me ressemble pas
C'est mon frère mais on a pas été porté par les mêmes bras
C'est mon srab, c'est sûrement pas lui qui me dénoncera
Mon pote c'est mon gros mais c'est pas Pierre Ménès
Il ne casse pas de sucre sur mon dos
Il peut supporter l'OM et si ça l'aide je mentirais à sa femme sans problème
Si mon pote vient d'loin, lui ou bien ses darons
Noir, blanc, jaune ou marron, ça fait d'moi un ignorant d'moins
J'attends pas d'toi que tu me cires les pompes
Ce sera pas à cause de ta franchise si je coupe les ponts
J'te mettrais pas dans mes embrouilles et si je faisais l'con
J'te demanderais pas de rappliquer avec une pelle en pleine nuit sans poser d'questions
Mais s'il le faut ramène-moi à la maison
Si je pars en vrille please ramène-moi à la raison
On peut être en désaccord, on peut se prendre la tête
Pourtant y'aura toujours une part pour toi dans mon assiette
Mon pote n'hurle pas avec les loups
On ne lave pas le linge sale en public mais entre nous
C'est pas toujours le bon vent qui amène mon pote
J'cautionne pas toujours la façon dont il se comporte
J'aimerais pas apprendre qu'il m'a trahi ou qu'il complote
Ça enterrerait nos relations même si elles sont fortes
J'ai pas scellé mon sort au sien, pour moi les choses sont claires
Mon pote c'est mon vieux mais c'est pas mon père
J'aimerais qu'il le reste longtemps alors j'évite d'immiscer
Entre lui et moi l'argent, les femmes et tout c'qui pourrait nous diviser

[Orelsan]
Mon pote a pas toujours été là
Trop longtemps mon meilleur pote c'était moi
Mon pote squatte à la maison, on passe des nuits blanches
On refait l'monde, on s'entend même dans les silences
Mon pote répond toujours à mes coups d'fil
Qu'on s'appelle toutes les heures ou toutes les douze piges
J'peux tout lui faire comprendre avec un sourcil
Au bord de l'explosion mon pote c'est la goupille
Où j'suis beaucoup d'gens mélangent potes et groupies
Mais j'ai compris la trahison depuis Rox et Rouky
Mon pote essaie pas d'plaire à tout prix
Fait pas semblant d'bouger la tête quand j'fais des couplets pourris
Fin d'soirée, toujours un coin d'canapé
Ma caisse est pas dans l'fossé parce qu'il garde la clef
Rien nous sépare même les grosses sommes
On élève pas les cochons mais on a soulevé quelques cochonnes
Mon pote rabaisse personne pour se mettre en valeur
C'est mon reflet, nous briser c'est risqué 7 ans d'malheur
Mon pote n'est pas une bête en chaleur
Et j'peux dormir tranquille le soir où j'lui présente ma soeur
Fidèle en amitié
Si j'ai plus les pieds sur terre mon pote me rappelle les lois d'la gravité
Toujours prêt, toujours le premier à rappliquer
En cas d'coup dur où pour une partie d'Play
C'est mon antidépresseur, mon lexo, mes amis n'sont pas tous des héros
En pratique on a tous nos défauts
Si un jour dans ma vie j'oubliais d'être réglo
J'réécouterais ce morceau comme une sorte de mémo

[Flynt & Orelsan]
C'est pour mon pote de 20 ans
Pour mon pote de maintenant
C'est mon pote dégueulasse et mon pote pimpant
Pour mon pote le plus vilain
Pour mon pote le plus con
Pour mon pote terre à terre
Pour mon pote sur Pluton
C'est pour mon pote tchatcheur et mon pote dyslexique
Mon pote à qui ma pote a dit non mais qui persiste
Pour mon pote chômeur, mon pote qui travaille
Pour mon pote kickeur, mon pote qui rappe mal
Mon pote boxeur, mon pote pianiste
Mon pote manutentionnaire, mon pote artiste
Mon pote crochet, mon pote Roger
Mon pote qui squatte chez un pote et qui a pas d'projet
Mon pote en costume, mon pote en coste-la
Mon pote qui vit à la campagne

By this logic Japan was justified in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, since the planes there were touted as able to burn Japanese cities to the ground.

You're right I did judge you a bit harshly I apologize, but I don't agree Israel is right here.

"Hey ladies, remember how good it felt down there when you were eleven?"

Thanks to internet porn, even your fucking grandmother trims the beaver hutch nowadays....Quite frankly, we miss the thigh furbies......can't stand stubble and ingrown hars down thars, OH, and tell me this ladies..

Does rendering your snatch hairless make that particular area of your anatomy more desirable or aid in her proper function? NO. Hairless beavers are tantamount to corsets and high heels-It's a discomfort endured, touted by horny douchebag males as a hip, new style. Not so thinly-veiled pedo-bear new rules....

Notwithstanding my personal tastes, some nappy dugouts are quite hard to regard with relish.....Maybe YOU should consider the laser, hon....

Oh yeah, still definitely is. I meant when they were touting motion controls for the first time, like this is jokingly doing, except Nintendo were serious.

Motion controls will always suck because simply put, there's zero feedback in what you're doing, and there is no precision at all. Anything that requires precision and timing, it's utterly worthless.

At a previous studio I worked at, we made a Wii exclusive game and had jump as shake on the wiimote, after attempts to try and flick in the specific direction you wanted to jump in. What a disaster that was. Then there was flick up, that didn't work either so in the end we went with random shake and even then it was pretty clear, pretty quickly that even this was annoying, but we left it in. In the sequel we had the option to use A as jump (by default), it was much kinder on the wrist.

Honestly, it's not that all news is bullshit, it's that most (all?) news outlets commit the same fallacious and detrimental information practices as always will happen in any system when experience is posited as "truth".

In the business world we are almost always working to change our perspective on how data flows and how best to store and distribute info; setting our educational bias aside when need be. One particular failed practice that does NOT get enough high level analyzing due to the nature of the bias in which the problem itself creates: Information siloing.

In this case, we have the American people silo'd (and if we don't have them silo'd, we actively seek to silo these "undecided" minds) as either liberal D or conservative R. Once you're silo'd, you now have the ability to be fed limited information, based upon limited experience, as the Truth. This is called a hook. A hook is exactly what you think it means and is not bad of itself, because hooks exist in all systems for better or for worse. Otherwise birds of a feather would not flock together. (They flock together because of hooks in their code and the world aka science around them which helps facilitate that hook.)

Now that the hook is in, we have separate news organizations that cater to the data bias you signed up for. You're a human with a blank slate, so don't you dare argue that your opinion is anything but inconsistent, even after education; because you assume that the patterns of existence taught as theoretical and scientifically posited "truth" scale in a reality based upon butterfly flaps of causation. Just accept it: You are fallible and the defects are inherent at every step of our civilization. (Algorithms of usefulness to engineers are only useful if they lessen the load on the user, otherwise we'd all be typing 1s and 0s; so the logic of simplicity suggests our systems are fucked and holding to them is an anarchy unto itself, where ultimate complexity becomes entropy -- LESSEN THE COMPLEXITY. That should be a rule for all government and economy.)

Liberals claim they cater to all sides and conservatives complain that if it wasn't for Fox, there would be no objectivity in the news. This further complicates the matter, but is itself a red herring because it's an argument that essentially says "YOU MUST GET YOUR NEWS FROM A MAJOR NETWORK." If you actually believe that these media giants are the end all be all to gaining information from the "truest" perspective possible, you are a dummy and you need to WAKE UP.

If you never made a thought pattern along these lines, you also need to wake up but I'm not mad at you. Information that deviates from a human's factory defaults (early family and life experiences in the form of fear induced bias) is difficult to objectively analyze. I fault you not, but your call to awaken is noted and will be remembered at the end of all (if you believe in any sort of karmic ending, Christians included). If you don't believe this, then your inability to rule the boundaries of your mind in the present is damning enough. Fuck you. And fuck your offspring. Subjective fear consume thee as your desperate and once nurturing stride for survival is abstracted into selfish, power seeking nihilism.

Information siloing creates tribal knowledge (which is information held by a select group, and then touted as negative patterns like nationalism and corporate thuggery), and tribal knowledge creates boundaries based upon a skewed perception of what the truth is; which in turn, creates subjective and often intangible competition within a system that should be making strides to improve its process via iteration.

MUD SLING AWAY. Or join me in narrowing the argument to its lowest common denominators and then objectively analyzing the system, starting at a generic starting point and building up to a truer understanding.

Hmmm, wonder if they go back to grub on their slow buddies....The color they tout looks more brilliant than silver itself-