search results matching tag: tug of war

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (23)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (4)     Comments (41)   

Oliver Stones thoughts on why Putin invaded Ukraine

eric3579 says...

If you haven't seen it , this doc may interest you.

"Ukraine on Fire"

Across its eastern border is Russia and to its west-Europe. For centuries, it has been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and access to the Black Sea. 2014's Maidan Massacre triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president Viktor Yanukovych and painted Russia as the perpetrator by Western media. But was it? "Ukraine on Fire" by Igor Lopatonok provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions in the region which lead to the 2004 Orange Revolution, 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow of democratically elected Yanukovych. Covered by Western media as a people's revolution, it was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by nationalist groups and the U.S. State Department. Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies have emerged since the 80s replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad.

Can watch here if interested https://youtu.be/fCWBRg6_VsM

noims said:

I'm suffering from serious confirmation bias on this because it agrees with a lot of what I heard around the 2014 revolution and since.

...

Tool: Right In Two (fan-made music video)

MilkmanDan says...

Lyrics:

Angels on the sideline
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.

Don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly old monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it
Right in two

Angels on the sideline
Baffled and confused
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose.
Monkey killing monkey killing monkey over pieces of the ground

Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade, and where there's one they're bound to divide it
Right in two.
Right in two.

Monkey killing monkey killing monkey over pieces of the ground
Silly monkeys give them thumbs, they make a club
And beat their brother down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.
Repugnant is a Creature who would squander the ability
To lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here

Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two

Fight over the clouds, over wind, over sky and
Fight over life, over blood, over air and light,
Over love, over sun, over another.
Fight for the time, for the one, for the rise and

Angels on the sideline again
Been so long with patience and reason
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end

Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Cut and divide it all right in two
Right in two
Right in two

Poland Came Up With This!

artician says...

I used to do just this all the time as a kid. My friends and I would throw my inflatable raft into the pool and we'd battle it out, (or rather: 'paddle it out'? har!) tug of war style.

Poland Came Up With This!

bareboards2 says...

Immediately thought of this entry in "City of Dreams", a Wiki-like book of facts about Port Townsend (PT) WA:

"Centipedes"

The Port Townsend Centipedes (PTC) were a ten-man team who, on July 27,1977, thrilled some 10,000 Seattle Kingdome spectators by winning the Seafair World Championship Tug-of-War. They not only brought home the laurels but also a winner-take-all check for $10,000. The PTC's success story was an object lesson in strategy. By adding art, ratiocination, strategy, and what might best be called a strange brand of PT spirit, they essentially redefined the sport. One reporter described their tactics as a "gumbo of hatha yoga, marital arts, intense dedication, and communal discipline." They proved that tug-of-war can be a little man's sport. Their average weight was less than 150 pounds. On the evening of their victorious tug in the Kingdome against the Montgomery Loggers of Cle Elum, Washington, authoritative bystanders noted how much more muscular the opposition was and predicted an easy victory for the Centipede's opponents. But, as one of the Centipedes said, "We are one being when on the end of a rope." They chose their name as one indication of their strategy: traction. They reasoned that if they could get ten sets of arms and legs working in perfect unison, they would have an advantage over those who tugged with fewer, larger bodies. They were right.

They also practiced rhythm, which included not only coordinating their breathing, but also pacing, the use of the "standing arch," and allowing some members to rest at given times during the tug-of-war. The Centipedes developed their own mythology and terminology: their "house of pain" was a technique of prolonging the tug-of-war in order to exhaust the opposition before administering the coup de grace.

[Not noted in this article is the rules stated that the each team had a weight limit, not a number-of-people limit. The PT team chose to spread the weight over more people.]

Poland Came Up With This!

Poland Came Up With This!

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'poland, pool, rowing, row, boat' to 'poland, pool, rowing, row, boat, tug of war, aquatics' - edited by lucky760

dannym3141 (Member Profile)

enoch says...

so i woke up this morning,grabbed my coffee and started my routine of seeing whats happening on the sift to be greeted by your comment.

thank you my friend.
it brought a smile to my face.
and brought me back to earth with a giant dose of getoveryourself.
my comment had a certain..shrillness... that,while unintended,was very evident with a reread.

i would love the assistance to get to the truth of the matter.i would not even know where to start.the articles i found for/against seemed to be a tug of war between vegans and big monied interests.

i think everyone here would benefit from your talents.

i guess i just find it ironic that one video has 24 votes,while mine is left floundering,yet both are basically saying the same thing.

grant you,the related video if far more entertaining.

anyways,thank you for bringing me down to earth my friend.
/tips coffee
and have a great morning! (or afternoon/evening)

Questions for Statists

enoch says...

@chingalera
no conspiracy,
no anger,nor shame or guilt.

the community has spoken.
the discussion is over.
yourhydra self-posted.

you are my friend but your rage is mis-directed.
what does it serve to call names to those you disagree?
what will be the end result in this constant tug of war?
and whom are you tugging against?
who is on the other end of that rope?

is it @chicchorea?
is it @dag?
is it me?

WHOM are you railing against?
/hands his friend a mirror

be at peace.
there will be another day and another opportunity my friend.
this chapter is over.

Orang Utan steals T-Shirt and wears it!

mintbbb (Member Profile)

rottenseed (Member Profile)

mintbbb (Member Profile)

Walmart on strike

Stormsinger jokingly says...

>> ^rottenseed:

Those are all good points. No "but" they're all just good points >> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^rottenseed:
Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.
This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).
It's sad really...
I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it
I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.
Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.
First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.
Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.
If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.
But overall, you're probably still right.



Damn! That means I still need my quota of argument...and it's time to go to work. Look out office!

Walmart on strike

rottenseed says...

Those are all good points. No "but" they're all just good points >> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^rottenseed:
Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.
This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).
It's sad really...
I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it
I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.
Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.
First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.
Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.
If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.
But overall, you're probably still right.

Walmart on strike

Stormsinger says...

>> ^rottenseed:

Why do people shop at Walmart? Because it's cheap.
Why is it cheap? Low manufacturing costs, bulk purchase power, low wages and sub-par benefits
What happens if they increase wages/benefits? It won't be as cheap any longer
What will happen to Walmart? They'll have to downsize
What will happen to people that work at Walmart? Many will be laid-off or have hours cut.

This tug-of-war cannot be won by anybody working at Walmart. I'm sorry, I know in many cases people feel it's the only way they get work, and I am very happy that these are people willing to work rather than collect welfare without even trying, but there is no win for those employees (other than the rare case that one of them moves up the ladder).

It's sad really...

I know some say the solution is for Walmart to cut their profits, but as a publicly traded company they have a duty to maximize profit for their shareholders (see the downfall of facebook). Unionizing would drive the price up, but again Walmart has to make money and a union might lead to the potential of a mass exodus of employees which would mean a huge loss. The only chink in the armor here is that their jobs aren't very skilled. Meaning, anybody that wants a job can pretty much do it

I think the only real solution is consumer-side. Don't shop at Walmart, drive them out of existence, and give these small-business owners the ability to flourish again.

It's hard to disagree with much of this. But, being the intense competitor I am, I'll try.

Actually, there's only a couple of relatively small points.

First, Walmart is publicly traded, but it's wholly controlled by the Walton family...if they decide to pay livable wages and to change the culture of worker abuse, it can be changed. There is no conflict with any duty to maximize profits. Unless you're an investment bank, there really is no such duty. Even if there was, it's not unreasonable to consider a move like investing in your employee relationships to be a long-term method of maximizing profits. Especially when public sympathy for the company has been dropping for years.

Second, they used to operate on a much lower margin, they sold mostly made-in-the-USA products, and somehow still managed to make enough money to become huge. So it seems like they -could- share a tiny portion of the profits with those who make the stores run. Costco manages to pay significantly better and offer most of its employees insurance, and yet still be competitive.

If they don't stop offloading their employment costs onto the rest of us (remember that less than half of the employees at Walmart have health insurance, even now), society is well within its rights to charge them for the welfare the company gets, one way or another. It's probably better for the company to offer at least minimal cooperation with a union than to be at the mercy of public perception.

But overall, you're probably still right.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon