>> ^RedSky:

Interesting choice of music. I'd be surprised if they surpass the Swedish version of the first in the trilogy but I think they've got a good shot of surpassing the second two.


RedSky is right! (RedSky is right!) (oh ho) (oh ho ho - oh ho ho ho ho)

http://videosift.com/video/The-Fixx-Red-Skies-Live-1982-Version

>> ^notarobot:

I'm sorry? Which "decade of darkness" are you talking about? Are you going back to the 1982 recession--which has nothing to do with this discussion--just to find a point to defend the Conservatives on? You don't even like them!


Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I agree that Mulroney's government didn't do a very good job balancing the budget, but it was their actions that set the stage for the balanced budget under Chretien and Martin. While the deficit was shrinking under the Liberals they were gutting the military. This period from 1993 to 2006 is what I referred to as the "decade of darkness" because, even with a budget surplus, the Liberals all-but-destroyed the Canadian Forces.

So far, only the Conservatives have made it clear that they wont let the same thing happen again.

As for the debt, while Canada has fared better than the rest of the west, we are still in a recession. Deficit spending is one way to improve the situation and end a recession. I don't like the debt any more than anyone else but ending all government spending, especially a program that is expected to provide around $5 billion US to Canadian industry is silly.

Anyway, I know we wont agree on this issue so I think we should agree to disagree. It was nice sparring with you.

I'm sorry? Which "decade of darkness" are you talking about? Are you going back to the 1982 recession--which has nothing to do with this discussion--just to find a point to defend the Conservatives on? You don't even like them! Even the Mulroney government didn't do all that well balancing the books...--what am I doing? Back then the Conservatives were progressive. It was a different party! It has nothing to do with our current discussion.



"The Liberals inherited a $40-billion deficit from the Conservatives when they came to power in 1993. So, talking today about 10 years of darkness, I don't think it's appropriate. I think it's highly political and I am very disappointed by it."


I will restate:

Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase.

Get this country back in the black and we can revisit the necessary equipment upgrades that our hard-working folk in the military deserve. For now, putting that gear on the nation's credit card is poor leadership and bad economics.

Until the debt starts going the other direction, I'm firm in my opinion here.

Canada's debt is currently 561 Billion and rising.

>> ^Skeeve:

Actually, no.
While the Liberals under Chretien and Martin took the credit for balancing the budget it was former Conservative finance ministers Michael Wilson and Don Mazankowski who undid the financial catastrophe created by the Trudeau Liberals. The Mulroney government's institution of free trade and the GST (as horrible as it is) are what truly balanced the budget. The Liberals, on the other hand, gutted the health care system - rolling back transfers to the provinces - and decimated the military to make short-term political gains with the "military is evil, peacekeeping is teh win" crowd.
There is a lot about the Conservatives I don't like (Matthu pointed out a few good ones) but, as it stands, their policies have ensured Canada has, arguably, the most robust economy in the world and is back on track to have a respectable military (one that is taken seriously abroad, something seriously lacking under the previous administration).
There are big problems with the "Harper Government" (and believe me when I say that I hate that term more than you do) but their stance with regards to the military is the only intelligent one put forward and as close to the best thing for Canada as our problematic system gets.

http://bit.ly/gNSnlb
says fluoride can act as an neurotransmitter in general, triggering neurotransmitter receptors, apparently all kinds of them.

in presence of aluminum fluoride (alf4-), a receptor-independent activator of g-protiens in cells.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Lost Interviews w/ cast of Star Trek the Wrath of Khan(1982). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Biography
Dr. Gerald Curatola graduated from Colgate University in 1979 and received his dental education from New York University College of Dentistry. After graduating in 1983, Dr. Curatola returned to join the teaching faculty in both the Division of Prosthodontic Science and Post-Graduate Department of Continuing Education from 1984-1995. Dr. Curatola also served on the hospital staffs of both New York University and Cabrini Medical Centers in New York City. As a researcher in dental materials and national lecturing clinician in the field of Restorative and Cosmetic Dentistry, Dr. Curatola has worked with many dental manufacturers including the Den-Mat, Kerr, Siemens, Brasseler, Colgate, and Oral-B Companies.

In a joint effort with the Jamaican Government and the Peace Corps, Dr. Curatola performed voluntary dentistry on the island of Jamaica, West Indies in 1982. He continued to volunteer his services to the Bowery Mission in New York City from 1985-1995. Since 1996, Dr. Curatola currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Pediatric Dental Fund of the Hamptons (PDF) whose mission is to provide voluntary dental services to indigent children on the East End of Long Island.

Dr. Curatola has maintained private dental practices in both Manhattan and East Hampton. In 1986, he established the Curatola Dental Group, a restorative and cosmetic dental practice in New York City. After settling his permanent residence in East Hampton, he founded East Hampton Dental Associates, a multi-specialty practice in 1999. Dr. Curatola continues to consult for several major dental corporations in the United States and Europe and lectures internationally on the techniques and benefits of new treatment modalities especially natural, therapeutic approaches to building dental health. He is Cofounder and Chairman of C.S.Bioscience, Inc., a dental biotech company which has developed and patented a nutritional- homeopathic oral care formula (NuPath TM Complexes).

Dr. Curatola has authored numerous articles on dentistry and health including a recent chapter on dental health for the book entitled, "Live Long, Look Young" by Lisa Trivell. Dr. Curatola is currently writing a book entitled "Smile for a Lifetime- An Integrative Look at the Role Your Dental Health Plays in Wellness and Longevity."

http://www.easthamptondental.com/curatola.htm

Canada nuked Slovenia in 1982 you idiot. Don't try to make yourself feel better just because you're the dick country whos lucky enough to ride on our spurs.

"Eye in the Sky" by The Alan Parsons Project - 1982
"Need You Now" by Lady Antebellum - 2009

Separated by 27 years. It's entirely possible it was a song from childhood that they re-created without realizing it.

But to be honest, I don't care either way. I like the Lady Antebellum just as much if not more. The lyrics and melody are different enough that they still feel like different songs, despite the obvious similarity when played together.

And here's the list of the scenes;

Sir Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: The Next Generation - "Hide and Q" - 1987)
Jeff Daniels (Gettysburg - 1993)
Iain Glen (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - 1990)
Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French (Coraline - 2009)
Frank Grimes (Britannia Hospital - 1982)
Robin Atkin Downes (Babylon 5 - "The Paragon of Animals" - 1998)
Richard E. Grant (Withnail & I - 1986)
Mitchell Ryan (Grosse Pointe Blank)

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

http://videosift.com/video/Airplane-II-Predicts-Todays-TSA-screening-in-1982

Quit sending me private messages from your sockpuppet accounts, choggie.

In reply to this comment by OmarBinHashishin:
How about sticking with this?
I am a new user who knows the member formally known as choggie, the same who created this account on his behalf upon request.
He described a scenario in which the actions or inclinations of a few douchebags on the site who for lack of administrative mandate or simply users with an opinion who otherwise tend to remain voiceless by withholding judgment for sake of spectacle or novelty, are suffered.
At first glance, and a second, I would tend to agree that some are not commandeering the cart for the sake of the passengers. Why then, would I be addressing you?

No problem with it, consider the matter "taken up" with dag or lucky.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Your use of pseudo-intellect reminds me of an old not-friend who liked to say the same thing. And this comment came out of nowhere, didn't it?

And how generous of you to give the 10th vote on choggie's last six videos that were published:

http://videosift.com/video/Bob-Andy-Marcia-Young-Gifted-and-Black
http://videosift.com/video/Judas-Priest-S-I-N-N-E-R-1982-Mid-South-Coliseum-Memphis
http://videosift.com/video/Bike-Tricks
http://videosift.com/video/Buzzcocks-Orgasm-Addict-Live-London-1989
http://videosift.com/video/Rasta-Gourmet
http://videosift.com/video/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-Confirmation-Hearing-Excerpt

I know you weren't trying that hard this time, choggie. Chic's working out pretty well for you, so why not stick with that.

Ban.

And as usual, if anyone has a problem with this, take it up with @dag or @lucky760.

Your use of pseudo-intellect reminds me of an old not-friend who liked to say the same thing. And this comment came out of nowhere, didn't it?

And how generous of you to give the 10th vote on choggie's last six videos that were published:

http://videosift.com/video/Bob-Andy-Marcia-Young-Gifted-and-Black
http://videosift.com/video/Judas-Priest-S-I-N-N-E-R-1982-Mid-South-Coliseum-Memphis
http://videosift.com/video/Bike-Tricks
http://videosift.com/video/Buzzcocks-Orgasm-Addict-Live-London-1989
http://videosift.com/video/Rasta-Gourmet
http://videosift.com/video/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-Confirmation-Hearing-Excerpt

I know you weren't trying that hard this time, choggie. Chic's working out pretty well for you, so why not stick with that.

Ban.

And as usual, if anyone has a problem with this, take it up with @dag or @lucky760.

Every time I see these Japanese robots, I'm immediately reminded of Gelflings. So let's see....1982....carry the one...so that means we're about 25 years away from them being completely realistic.

Speilberg directed the film. It was his baby. He was only uncredited because of contractual limitations. From the Wikipedia entry...

A clause in his contract with Universal Studios prevented Spielberg from directing any other film while preparing E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Time and Newsweek tagged the summer of 1982 "The Spielberg Summer" because E.T. and Poltergeist were released a week apart in June. As such a marketable name, some began to question Spielberg's role during production. Suggestions that Spielberg had greater directorial influence than the credits suggest were aided by comments made by the writer/producer:

"Tobe isn't... a take-charge sort of guy. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump in and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that become the process of collaboration."