Just click through to YouTube, it's right there:

The movie starts, "Sweet Emotion"'s playing in the background,
kids are smoking weed with Slater, man he's such a class clown,
all the cars are full of beer, Bacardi and liquor,
because tonight there is a giant house party at Pickford's,
it's the last day of school, Slater is trippin,
Tony had a weird dream and tells Mike he should listen,
in his dream he had a naked girl her boobies were decent,
but then the naked body's head belonged to Abraham Lincoln, whoa,
Don gives Randal Pink a pledge sheet for football that says
he can't do drugs while Benny's making a paddle,
Jodi begs the guys to not hurt her brother Mitch Kramer
but they still plan to, damn they're such assholes,
they breaking it down, for the football coach, "You have to use a substance?
Randal Pink you better be giving yourself an attitude adjustment,"
so they drive up to the middle school to make a big announcement
Mitchy Mitchty Mitchy do not run don't think about it
Mitch asks the teacher if they can escape through the back
"50 going on a mission, 25 aint coming back,"
school is over but they're gettng chased like fuck it lets be out,
Carl's mom pulls out a gun "but miss there's ruffians about,"
("AIRRAID YOU FRESHMEN BITCHES!!!!")
they're smoking weed in Pickford's room,
the beer man brought the kegs too soon,
the party's canceled, ruining the plans that were in store,
cuz if you go to Pickford's house and knock his dad answers the door,
Hitch is at his game hes pitchin and hes terrified
oh holy shit he looks up in the bleachers and right theres the guys
they catch him and the bend him over beat him til his fanny's pink
now he can hardly walk and so he gets a ride from Randy Pink,
they pick him up later like he's a foolish little kid
"you got a joint?" "no i do not," "well it'd be cooler if you did"
alright alright alright, theres Wooderson hes such a crazy fool
they go to the emporium to meet some girls and play some pool
you leave the dance, you can't come back
but fuck it those kids didn't care
they wanna walk around a bit but Herschfelder was "gettin there"
now they're gettin chased and they get licked by O'Bannon
wee wee wee squeeal like a pig oh my god they cannot stand him
now they're breakin mailboxes with cans that's meant for trash
get a gun pulled on em fuck this old man Pickford hit the gas
they get revenge on Obannon,with hardy laughter dude scours,
Wooderson plotted a beerbust, awesome party at the moon tower!
president George Washington was not a homosapien
ain't you ever heard that song? the presidents were aliens
Mitch and Julie hit it off, theyre prolly gonna get it on,
the beer is flowin nicely then abruptly everything went wrong
smells like someone's smokin reefer! i'm the one thats smokin reefer,
push him, sucker punch him, oopsie daisies put him in the sleeper
dominant alpha male mothafucker you fuckin disgust me i hate your guts,
he's kickin his ass hes punchin and kickin and killin him til they break it up
god damn it, he's lucky that he's still alive,
stupid mothafucka had to ruin shit and kill the vibe,
the party's over, keg is tapped, it's get up in the car time
lets go smoke a joint right on the 50 fuckin yard line!
break down! giggling! party in the hot night!
mustve been too loud or something theres a fuckin cop light
cops are talkin shit like they can smell beer and smell smoke
randy floyd is gettin high well wait til i go tell coach!
coach comes, mad as hell, randy pink, let's speak,
ditch your loser friends right now and sign your freakin pledge sheet,
sorry coach i got a speech for you it goes like this,
ya see i might play football in the fall but nope i wont sign this, peace!
mitch and julie making out until the sun rise,
mama grabs him by the ear you'reo ff the hook this one time,
mitchell are you drunk right now? heck no mom,
happy end mitch kramer goes to sleep with headphones on>> ^eric3579:

A promote to the sifter who can track down the lyrics to this song.

*discard

lovely peice of shit it is.... dont know what else I can say...fuck. cunt, bullshit, twat. flim winger,fanny wacker. tally wacker twat face fucktard... I duno.

I always liked Russell Brand's Bob Geldof joke:

"It's no wonder Bob Geldof knows so much about famine - he's been dining out on 'I Don't Like Mondays' for 30 years."

Oh, and...

Fanny's yer Aunt!

These borrowers knowingly made bad loans to people who didn't understand the contract

In the early 90s the banks were arguing AGAINST repealing Glass-Stegall. Politicians partnered with some big finaincal houses like AIG and started accusing mid-size & small banks of racism ala "red-lining" to grease the political skids for a repeal. In most instances there was no racism of any kind. Banks simply did not give loans to people that couldn't afford them. But poor, urban areas had higher percentages of minority populations - and so out whips the race card...

I lived in the 70s and 80s. I know how hard it was to get even a 30-year loan in those days. But literally overnight banks had to start giving out loans to people who traditionally would not qualify. Instead of making money on the interest of the LOAN, banks were expected to make profit by bundling & selling the mortgage. The government promise was that if things went sour on the borrower end, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would paper it over. It worked fine for about a decade. But you can't sustain a market when your only customers are poor people in homes they can't afford and property flippers taking out 2+ extra mortgages more than they can realistically pay for.

The bank's job isn't to be your daddy, or to lecture you about whether you should or shouldn't get a loan. If a person walks into a bank, then as long as they qualify under the rules which are established by government then the bank doesn't have much choice. When people qualify, the bank issues the loan or they open themselves to discrimination lawsuits. It's a Catch-22.

Your outrage should more properly be targeted at the government. Have them re-institute Glass-Stegall. Force them to tighten up the requirements on who can/can't get a loan. Make it so people who shouldn't get loans CAN'T get them and that banks aren't allowed to do it. Join the rest of us racist, evil, red-lining conservatives who think loans should only be given to those who can actually afford to pay them off. But prepare yourself for a tongue-lashing from every neo-liberal leftist group under the sun, because clearly your bean-counting logic is pure neo-con white hatred, right? Oh - and especially prepare yourself to get excoriated by guys like Barney Frank who was one of the principle engineers of this whole "UFFOWDABLE HOWSEING!" mess.

Whoa, I guess this explains one of the big US banks selling my mortgage to Fannie Mae. Should I be worried about that?

And I readily agree with you here. This bitch went too far. I was only disagreeing with you before because you seemed to be saying that all forms of corporal punishment (e.g. a good ol' fanny spanking) are abusive and will make the kids turn out to be abusive.

@Payback: You're right, I wasn't terrified of my mother. I sure as hell didn't want the spanking, but I knew she loved me even as she was introducing my ass to a wooden paint mixer. Please, don't think for a second that I think this bitch was anywhere close to right in what she's done.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I heartily disagree with your implied statement. It seems that you are claiming that anyone who received any corporal punishment as a child will surely grow up to be a dysfunctional adult. I assure you that I had my fair share of red marks on my ass from doing something I wasn't supposed to and getting spanked because of it. You can bet your ass I didn't do it again.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
It's so brave for an adult to frighten and humiliate a 5-yr old. And I'm guessing she's actually PROUD of her parenting skills. (Well, maybe a TV shrink will help her rethink this. But I doubt it.) Again, let us turn to the Bible for wisdom. Proverbs 23:13-14

23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

So see, she's not only within her rights to terrify her helpless little boy, but she's actually saving his soul from hell. As a bonus, she's also teaching him to be a cruel, sick fuck just like her, thus making the world just a little bit more miserable.
We thank you Lord for your blessings. Amen.


Not all kids who are struck or abused when they were children will become abusers when they are adults. However, when children who are abused grow up, they are much more likely to abuse their kids than children who weren't abused. Violence usually gets more violence, abuse usually begets more of the same abuse. It's just the way of the world.

This sure does feel biased.

It's almost as if this video is trying to conflate income tax with building roads and infrastructure. But we should know zero income tax goes to that.

The housing bubble was bad, but was it the fault of private lenders? The lenders take their cues from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which are both FEDERALLY SPONSORED! If Freddie and Fannie aren't lending, then banks don't lend. We also know the Federal Reserve create arbitrarily low interest rates that inflated the housing bubble.

This video brings up specious arguments.

her floor moves could use some work....

haha j/k that was cool. love the fanny pack.

@blankfist, since you seem to want my thoughts on this (but for some reason, wanted to edit the comment to look like you were just clearing your throat), I'll give you my rebuttal.

I'll take his three points in reverse order.

#3 about regulatory uncertainty is one of these universal conservative economic fantasies. There's no evidence that this really has any kind of macroeconomic effect. Certainly the usual conservative and business advocacy groups always get a laundry list of businessmen to all line up and say how they won't be able to function if they have to pay compensation to workers injured on the job, have to check to see if the products they produce are poisonous or otherwise unsafe, can't dump toxic chemicals into lakes and rivers, can't use slave labor, etc, etc. They always fight against efforts to stop them from being able to leverage negative market externalities for extra profit.

#2 The Yahoo Finance link itself debunks this, because what Schiff says is a flat-out lie. Here's what that link says:

In contrast to Schiff's warning, the law does the following, according to Reuters:

“The bill would set up an "orderly liquidation" process that the government could use in emergencies, instead of bankruptcy or bailouts, to dismantle firms on the verge of collapse.

“The goal is to end the idea that some firms are 'too big to fail' and avoid a repeat of 2008, when the Bush administration bailed out AIG and other firms but not Lehman Brothers. Lehman's subsequent bankruptcy froze capital markets.

“Under the new rule, firms would have to have 'funeral plans' that describe how they could be shut down quickly.”

Liberal critics also question whether the bill addresses "Too Big to Fail", but they're talking about limits on the overall size of banks.

#1 I've covered this fantasy of Schiff's about the nature of the crisis before. Here are two quick points I always make, which you never respond to: low interest rates don't create moral hazard, and Fannie and Freddie weren't even remotely the biggest players in the subprime mortgage-backed security space, much less the chief source of moral hazard.

All the moral hazard was created by the financial industry thinking it had found a way to insulate itself from the risks involved in bad mortgages using CDO's and CDS's -- without relying on government backing of any kind.

I'm happy to go into much more depth on #1 if you like, but you've never really demonstrated that you have any interest in listening to what I have to say on the topic with anything like an open mind.

Oh, and liberals agree that this bill doesn't really do enough in addressing the underlying problems that led to the crisis (the real ones). Basically, they say there's not enough rating agency reform, no leverage caps on investment banks, no Glass-Steagall separation of traditional and investment banks, no commitment to break up banks that grow beyond a certain size, etc.

In fact, from what I've read, the strongest part of this bill is exactly the part Schiff lied about -- it should prevent future Congresses from being forced to do taxpayer-funded bailouts. Instead, it'll be like the standard FDIC process for failed banks, only scaled up to deal with corporations of this size and complexity. Under that process, the bank shareholders, owners, and management get wiped out and fired, but the bank's creditors and depositors are made whole. The bank fails, but it doesn't take a huge chunk of the economy with it when it goes.

Where else is he going to carry ammo?>> ^laura:

I wonder what he needed the fanny pack for...

I wonder what he needed the fanny pack for...

@NetRunner
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-Only-the-Super-Rich-Can-Save-Us
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/myriam-miedzian/is-ralph-nader-on-to-some_b_298483.html
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-interviewed-by-Sonali-Kolhatkar

http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-Things-Are-a-Lot-Worse-than-We-Thought
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-talks-about-Barack-Obama-and-Hillary-Clinton
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-is-Obama-a-corporatist-like-BushCheney
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Fannie-Freddie-and-more
http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-And-Ralph-Nader-together-on-The-Situation-Room
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Real-Time-September-26-2008
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-makes-Tucker-look-silly-once-again
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Education
http://videosift.com/video/Nader-On-War-Profiteering-Eisenhower-Would-be-Proud
http://videosift.com/video/NADER-vs-O-REILLY-Pulling-Out-Of-Afghanistan-Another-9-11
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Organizing-Districts-for-Change
http://videosift.com/video/Why-the-Democrats-wont-Impeach-Bush-and-Cheney

Netrunner,
I'm not saying Republicans need the keys. I'm saying that Obama and the Democrats aren't exactly backing up the tow truck. Understand how we got in the Ditch? Let's see, Republican President throws us in War we don't want, need, or can afford to satisfy his Dad's agenda. Check!
Greedy banks and real estate agents lie and giving out loans to people that have no means to pay for them. Check!
Home cost to skyrocket only to imploded when the balloon payments go into effect. CHECK!
Then the banks sell the loans to Freddie and Fanny who are forced to buy the loans by the Government. These organizations then get stuck holding the bag for BILLIONS of dollars worth of bad loans. CHECK!
Oh yeah I got plenty of blame to sling around and I think I've got a pretty good idea of why we're in this mess. From what I can tell Health Care didn't have a hell of a lot to do with it. I'm glad we got it and I think millions will benefit from it, but now we need to focus on fixing our economy, and I don't hear anything from Washington except that we are going to wind up paying more. How much am I going to have to pay out of my check to fix other peoples greed? So don't take your holier than tho' attitude that I "still" don't understand. It doesn't take much to understand that my companies sales continue to sink in the toilet. 2 years in and Obama's still blaming Republicans. Democrats control the House and the Senate! Get a solution together and FIX THE DAMN ECONOMY! But that means creating jobs that aren't government jobs and I haven't seen Obama present a plan yet that does that. Oh wait, we can just extend unemployment! That's a great way to help the situation.

So do you know where the road is? Because I don't think bottomless funding of Freddie and Fanny is the way to go. So what's worse? That the Republicans didn't learn from their mistakes or that the Democrats didn't learn from the Republican's mistakes or even their own?!
Oh and judging from some of the polls, it seems more and more of the general population thinks so too.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-31-poll_N.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/republican-rise-doubts-obama-economy-abc-news-poll/story?id=9785572

Hmmmm...
Seems to me like the President is just trying to slide off the blame for an economy that is, at best, slowly recovering - at worst it's sliding fast. While his historic Health Care Bill goes into effect it really doesn't do much to combat a 9.9% unemployment, and worsening state and global economics. Freddie and Fannie continue to drain our coffers:
http://www.france24.com/en/20091225-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-unlimited-public-funding-2012-real-estate
and our government focuses more on social issues (like racial profiling and illegal aliens) than fiscal.
Granted that without a Democratic controlled house and senate nationalized health care would never have passed, but aside from Obama promising to focus on the economy like a laser beam - nothing has really happened to boost our economy in 2 years. All I've seen is the rapid printing of money to shore up fast eroding programs.

Now with businesses collapsing and federal/state tax revenue declining, we have to implement tax incentives that will create growth in both big and small business and cut back on the union pensions and social programs for the short term. This creates jobs, and revenue.
It took years but Gov. Schwarzenegger has come to this same conclusion in California.
http://gov.ca.gov/speech/15164/

But I have little hope that anything will get fixed as long as politicians remain in power.
Oh and go see waiting for Superman:
http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEf-vJZOj4M&feature=player_embedded

>> ^Psychologic:

I can see why the Tea Partiers dislike Paul... his speeches must confuse the hell out of them.
Free Market = Good
Corporations = Bad
Corporations -> part of the Free Market
More Regulation = Larger Government
Less Regulation = Stronger Corporations?
Medicare/Social Security = Bad?
It's much simpler to think that corporations are the victims of big government and that the budget can be cut significantly without touching entitlement programs.


You and several people in this thread seem terribly confused about his viewpoint, so maybe a libertarian like myself can help you. The "free market" is a term tossed around a lot. What we mean is essentially mutually agreeable trade between producers and the right to make contracts. We believe in courts to adjudicate disputes, penalize and deter fraud, enforce (not interpret) the constitution, etc.

The key oversight for most Dems I talk to is that they want to police/regulate effects rather than eliminate the policy that is producing those effects. I despise "goosing" laws that attempt to reward/induce one legal behavior over another legal behavior, indiscriminately, across an entire populace. I also despise laws that offload one party's risk onto another. Most of the time, I think they're created by well-meaning people who think goosing the populace is their job only to have their goosing backfire. Even if they recognize it was their fault after the fact, a politician will always say the problem is not what they did, but what they didn't also do.

The best analogy I can think of is some cops throwing a bunch of candy on the street, then using the subsequent accidents to justify full-time crossing guards at every intersection. Those are unproductive jobs which can only exist at the expense of private ones. A libertarian sees that the ROOT problem is the policy of throwing the candy in the street, not the accidents it begets. Without a central bank price fixing interest rates well below where the market would have had them, the true risk of borrowing would have been realized, and demand which fueled creative lending wouldn't have existed. Banks naturally do not want to loan money unless they believe they are going to be paid pack, but the GSEs called Fannie May and Freddie Mac were buying and standing behind subprime loans on a massive scale from the commercial banks originating them. The whole concept behind those GSEs is based on the socialist policy that home ownership is more American than renting. That needing a downpayment and good credit before an institution will lend is discriminatory to poorer people. Which is just ridiculous, because that's prudent lending.

And what do they do after the whole thing? Another goosing. Bailing out the failed banks with money from everyone, including their small competitors who were looking to replace them. When you penalize good behavior and reward bad behavior, you create a self-fulfilling loop. I see people who voted for the heavily lobbied, popular, liar candidates and they are POed at CEOs of TARP recipients giving themselves huge golden parachutes. What did they think was going to happen when you gave these idiots MORE money? They are compounding the mistake, over and over and over again.

If you understand Paul's perspective, then you believe that most of our problems, our debt, our military empire, our recurring speculative bubbles, is not from a lack of government intervention, but too much of it in key places. No domestic currency is allowed to compete with the dollar, interest rates aren't set by the market, banks get blanket federal insurance on deposits so they don't have to compete on safety of those deposits. We have subsidies, a concept that presumes a politician spending someone else's production is more effective than the producer himself. We have different tariffs for different industries. It's not that companies are innately bad, it's that we have failed to create a constitution that could not be subverted by rogue judges. You can't be influenced into exercising a power you don't have. Once a judge interprets something to say "yeah, you can do that so as long as you say it's for the general welfare," then the government becomes a conduit for corporate welfare that it wasn't beforehand. People don't understand how powerful the government is. They literally have the power to take money from you by force. It's a necessary evil that they have that ability. That is why it is so god damned important to define and restrict its functions so that groups or businesses don't use it as a conduit to gain an unfair advantage, tapping into involuntary appropriations in what is supposed to be a free/voluntary marketplace.