I absolutely HATE the scam merchants who peddle this shit. Although I love being able to identify idiots in a quick and easy manner simply by seeing if they are wearing a powerbalance wrist band.

Thanks for the promote!
In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*promote

>> ^gwiz665:

He used to be in a secret society that mocked religion... doesn't that just mean that he's actually not an idiot, and instead - like most other politicians - just lies about his religion to have a chance to get into office?


It doesn't mean he's not an idiot, it just means he's a different kind of idiot.

He could easily say "I was an irreverent and confused young man when that happened, and now that I've brought Jesus Christ into my life, I beg for forgiveness for the things I did when I was younger."

Instead he calls Conway a slime merchant, and lawyerly refuses to contest the specifics of the accusation.

The former would've made Conway look like an ass, the latter is making it look like Conway has hit a legitimate nerve.

A lot of the idiot abroad series is tame compared to the podcasts and radio shows. Karl isn't putting anything on (except for the 5% hamming it up bit), but gervais is laughing extra hard because - well, he has to, he made a comedy tv show about it.

The china one was alright, the taj mahal one was hilarious, but the latest one at petra was really tame. But that's from the perspective of someone who knows him. Anyone who knows him will watch them all and find something to laugh at, people who don't mind not even see it as funny.

For example in the petra one, he was telling a story about getting blackmailed into going to church and getting kicked out for bouncing a ball in the aisle. On the podcasts, not only is it told funnier, but gervais/merchant are riffing off it and he goes off on tangents about the people in the story, whose stories are even more outlandish and weird than the first.

Some snippets of the stories he's told about where he lived:
His school used to make them correct travel magazine print errors for a little earner, making them think it was a class exercise
His neighbor had a horse that lived in their house (in the middle of a city)
His friend lives in a hole underground which he dug in a field because he 'wanted to live like in the army'
Woman who spoke to everyone through a mirror
Woman with a strange looking head
2 kids at his school who had very big heads and webbed hands
His uncle used to use a rubber dinghy as a bed
the list goes on........>> ^dag:

quality explanation. I don't always enjoy Karl as much as Ricky seems to. It does seem to be a bit put on at times.

@residue

Backstory is that karl pilkington has a huge cult following amongst people in the know. He met gervais and merchant working at XFM radio station (small local london station) which gervais did as a favour to someone who gave him a job early in his life.

Since then, gervais has mercilessly taken the piss out of karl. Karl is unique in that he's the only person in the world who's both the stupidest person ever and a complete and utter genius.

They made loads of radio shows and loads of podcasts, then they made an idiot abroad. The format basically goes like this: Karl says something rediculous, gervais and merchant take the piss out of him. They often ask him questions which he has no chance of understanding just to see what stupid things he'll say. He is fascinated by anything different (such as warrick, the elephant man, gay people, siamese twins, ANYTHING different to your average human), he's entranced by monkies and thinks that monkies are basically humans who can't speak properly.

He used to come up with pathetic game shows in which he'd come up with clues that he'd label cryptic (to gervais' chagrin) where he'd give a clue and a pair of initials, and you would have to guess what band or artist name he was referring to, it amounted to this;
"The jamaican fellow is swinging a fish around his head, DS"
-- Detroit Spinners (The trout spinners, in a jamaican accent - de trout spinners)
"I told the gay man that the grape tree was mine, MG"
-- Marvin Gaye (My vine, gay)

The radio show was an absolute shambles, it was barely even a radio show and more a case of 3 blokes having a chat in a pub with a microphone left running. And i will say with certainty that i have never laughed so hard or so much at any kind of comedy. I'd say gervais' BEST work is the podcasts and radio shows he did with pilkington.

During the course of the podcasts, pilkington has dropped MANY clangers and had many more catchphrases - gervais uses a lot of references to karl in his work. For example whenever gervais wants to play his 'arrogant jerk' routine he refers to a gay person he says "little gay fellow", because it's inherently condescending. That's actually something he got off karl who refers to EVERY diversity as "little <x> fellow" - little gay fellows, little chinese fellows, little gay chinese fellows, little disabled fellows and very particularly "little midget fellow".

So.....gervais introduced him to warrick. And they've talked about warrick on the radio show/podcasts before.

Edit:
Might actually post this as a sift talk so people know who the new guy on the sift is.

Thank you!

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
*quality

Tags for this video have been changed from 'natalie, merchant, poetry, poems, leave your sleep' to 'natalie, merchant, poetry, poems, leave your sleep, ogden nash, ee cummings' - edited by oxdottir

this is the same as the first 3.5 minutes of this
http://videosift.com/video/Portal-2-Gamecon-Demo-Now-with-added-Stephen-Merchant

You never answered my question. You've given me doctrinal bull, a list of fallacies, medieval times among other monkey dances, but you've yet to explicitly spell out a believable scenario in which the free market brings down a merchant monarch. This is now the 6th time I've asked and I've also given you two examples.

Can you do it or not? Can you give me a plausible scenario that I can't easily take apart in seconds.

You are asking people to accept a fairly radical, untested, political doctrine. If you want to change minds, you need to earn it, and to me, you could earn this by giving me a scenario in which freemarketology brings down a corporate dictator.

I'll set the stage: Ron Paul is elected as world dictator tomorrow, a minarchy is put into place, corporate welfare comes to an end, but so does labor protections, environmental protections, regulation and oversight. Hundreds of super-powerful corporations start making plays in the newly created power vacuum. The bigger ones eat the smaller ones, there are mergers, corporate mercinary armies are built up. The skies grow dark and it seems that all is lost until........

Win my heart and mind.

Okay, wait a second. First you claim I'm not answering some fundamental question which I clearly at least attempted to answer though you claimed my attempt was specious at best.

Then, you come at me with a theoretical Walmart scenario and ask me how free markets would "theoretically" solve that; when I reply with real FACTS how the corporate playing field for Walmart is tipped in its favor because of crony capitalism, gov't subsidies and intervention you claim I'm being "theoretical" and therefore my argument is debunked. Facts be damned, I suppose.

Then you throw a "China is a free market heaven" smokescreen at me, which I aptly debunk the position of your argument by showing you China as a state-capitalist system which is antithetical to free markets.

Then you counter with a misdirection by claiming I'm not answering some fundamental elusive question, and you claim I must have proof of a free market's existence otherwise it's all bunk. Fine. I gave you proof how the merchant class rose and started balancing the distribution of power between monarch and commoner, but then you counter with "but corporations are merchants!" WTF? It's like some juvenile circular logic game you're playing.

Look, I cannot be clearer than this. Yes, corporations are doing the jobs common of merchants and bankers. Yes, they're the ruling class. BUT, and I really need you to pay attention here: The merchant class were not corporations, because corporations were the cooperative charters CREATED by the government/monarch/nobles/ruling class to control the merchants, aka the working class, aka the majority of people. The same as it is today. They're your proof of a free market working to balance the wealth and control between government/ruling elite and the people. Corporations were created by government to control the wealth and industry of all people in the kingdom (or nation). To say they "are" merchants therefore they're bad on their face is like saying they also eat and shit like the rest of us so eating and shitting is bad.

It's history. Crack a book. Now, for something really smart ass: "I suppose we can chock this up to another failure of our public school system!" There's no bad blood here, brother. Don't read my tone as angry. Bemused? Yes. Angry? No.

But corporations ARE merchants and merchants ARE the ruling class. Who protects us from the merchant monarchy? That's my question. How many times will you avoid my question? I believe this is the 5th time I've asked, for the record.

Example: Zorloc is sick of the powerful Mars Mining Co abusing the Shnnarr'Ghol people and forcing them to choose between abusive labor in the Adamantium mines or starvation. So, after stumbling across an ancient alien artifact which is worth krillions of space credits, he buys the Mars Mining Co and pays the workers a fair wage, until the old Mars Mining Co opens up a new business, the Jupiter Mining Co. Zorloc cannot compete with Jupiter's wage slave labor and is forced to return his mine to old, abusive conditions. At first he feels bad, but eventually, after several protests from his former workmates, he grows to loathe them and feels entitled to what he refers to as 'the sweat of his brow'.

I think the Renaissance Faire is in town. Live the dream.

Wasn't expecting that vagina monologue. You could probably cut out at least half of that and it would still be saying the same thing. I didn't think you would protest the fallacies so much. Hmmm.

How much do you know about the Renaissance? Preceding it in the Medieval times, monarchs had large royal treasuries, so they maintained the power and influence. If you were born into a lower class, then that's where you stayed. Then the merchant class arose, and they created competing currencies, a way to trade amongst themselves, a way to create wealth for themselves, and eventually they developed influence over the ruling class.

It was the traders vs. the nobility. A major power shift was transpiring as royal treasuries were no longer sustainable because they weren't producing 'new wealth', however 'new wealth' was being created by commerce among the commoners. Effectively, the common families pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and created a new class (the middle class). This threatened the monarchs, so they decided to lay claim to the wealth created by the merchant class, they forced them to use a centralized currency, and they created these charters where the merchant class were granted permission to do various jobs. Eventually the monarch took the power back and the people were offered a chance to create wealth in trade for a centralized currency.

This shows how the free market was working and working well. It also shows how government, or in this case the monarch, created a centralized currency (Keynesian anyone?), laid claim to the wealth created by the merchant class (income tax, property tax, etc), and ultimately forced people to acquire permission to work by forming corporate charters (corporation/government collusion).

Today, if you want to start a business, you must file with the government and get permission to do so. Sure you can file as DBA which is less expensive than becoming incorporated or filing an LLC, but it's still asking permission. And you must use the centralized currency of the Federal government to trade and pay debts. And the government is entitled to your wealth, through property tax, income tax, sales tax, etc. And it becomes too prohibitively expensive to keep a business afloat unless you're part of the elite rich nobility that can afford to keep their corporate charter. See any parallels?

I wonder good sirs, and ladies if in BP's haste did they fail to follow state law? Inquiring minds are just dieing to know. I'm now reminded of Black-water in New Orleans.

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses/8902475-1.html

I'm guessing the laws in LA are lax, unlike the laws in VA, which require all Security Guards to display proper identification (license) at all times. See the section on Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_guard#United_States

Another tip, Armed Security Officers may make Lawful Arrests. Although the general rule was never make an arrest unless it was a felonious offense and you have concrete proof (Multiple Eye Witnesses, Surveillance Footage, or Someone's life is in danger). All other offenses were to be differed to Peace Officers. During my time, I never once saw a crime, except trespass.

Compliance with the provisions of this article shall not itself authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or exercise any powers of a conservator of the peace. A registered armed security officer of a private security services business while at a location which the business is contracted to protect shall have the power to effect an arrest for an offense occurring (i) in his presence on such premises or (ii) in the presence of a merchant, agent, or employee of the merchant the private security business has contracted to protect, if the merchant, agent, or employee had probable cause to believe that the person arrested had shoplifted or committed willful concealment of goods as contemplated by § 18.2-106. For the purposes of § 19.2-74, a registered armed security officer of a private security services business shall be considered an arresting officer.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+9.1-146

With all due respect, there are alot of feelings and opinions being expressed here. I sought facts and found this that may be read in its entirety at

<http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/05/31/was-israels-boarding-of-the-gaza-flotilla-a-violation-of-international-law/>

I like facts, especially when legality is at issue.

<According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.

Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.

Here’s the bottom Line:

* A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

* Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

* A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

* The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

* In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

* Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

* Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

* A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

* Note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

* Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel’s intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

* Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

* Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the “protesters” and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.>

You people realize that the proprietor of the market place reserves the right to deny services to anyone for just about any reason they decide? Usually that reason is because you have a big backpack, something happened in the store, or they just don't want to serve you.

This whole Idea that a private merchant has to serve a person is ridiculous. With that said; if they happen to be denied service and they think it is because they had been discriminated against then you can take up a litigious stance; boycott.

Edit: I realize this may not be the right video.