Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

No, that wasn't my intent or message. Sarcasm noted BTW.

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument.

I can't agree with that assessment because conservatism factors in something liberalism doesn't: facts. For example, it's been fairly well proven that every time the minimum wage is raised, prices go up and businesses hire fewer workers and still fewer inexperienced workers, such as teens entering the job market. But the genius of liberalism is people are emotional animals. What graph or chart is as colorful or loud as one "activist" screaming about hungry children, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? So, the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and once again, the media can blame higher prices and unemployment on...well...whatever's handy at the moment.

Republicans have failed to properly emotionalize their arguments, and even if they did, they'll always have a harder battle to fight, because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Liberals don't believe that because they're selling what they believe to be permanent solutions.

Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You're young yet and will have to find your own answers, of course. Being raised in a Republican household might very well have been a handicap, because the family unit is communistic by nature and now you're out there, seeking knowledge for yourself as you make your way through life. Conservatism and other -isms are being cross-examined by you, put through your tests and yes, through the filters of your experience.

Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, and could probably match your laundry list of what's wrong with him. It's all ebb and flow, and there are going to be low points, for the party and the nation. Research what America was like during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

If the R's want to survive, they'll find a way to get back to what matters. Or they'll die out. It may take people like you leaving for greener pastures for them to wake up. Hell, maybe you won't come back. I believe that things balance out, eventually. The Soviet Union, as bad is it was, fell because it was beneath human dignity to live like that. Hopefully China will also lose the Red.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course).

If it could be proven 9-11 was an inside job, my first reaction would be to find out how the conspirators managed to keep the silence and complicity of thousands of people, many of them government workers that can't even deliver the mail (a line from Maher). The problem with conspiracy theories is that when there's no evidence, the theorists say, "That just proves how good the conspirators really are."

For the sake of fun, let's say it was a conspiracy. If so, it backfired in several ways. If Bush was seeking to become a tyrant, his perceived inability to protect New York was not an asset. People like me, already pissed-off at the size and power of pre-9-11 government didn't suddenly relax now that there was going to be more bureaucracy to protect us.

Second, if Bush was seeking the tyrannical power that the left claims he has now, he failed to go far enough. There was no mass censorship or government seizure of media and Homeland Security did not suddenly have thousands of stormtroopers at its disposal. The message was, "Live your life like always, in spite of the attacks."

Lastly, Bush united an opposition that, if they agreed upon nothing else, could blame Bush for everything. He was still in trouble with leftists before the attacks due to the 'stolen' election, and he couldn't placate the left fast enough spending OUR money.

That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

True on all counts. Thus my new policy. There's enough going on at VS not to bother with it anymore.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

The American form of government is unique in world history and remains one-of-a-kind today. The 3 branches make it extremely difficult for any one individual or group to consolidate too much power, too quickly. It "survived" Bush and if Obama gets in, democracy will hobble his efforts at trying to change things overnight.

The creation of an "Other" for government to consolidate power is a given throughout history. However, when there are not imagined barbarians at the gate, there are real ones.

Our opinions differ on the war. I happen to think history will show taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but no, I can't "prove" it any more than scientitians now can prove with climate models that global warming is man-made.

I get the subtext of your message.

We all like to believe that the people who disagree with us are unread, inexperienced, missing obvious truths, buying into lies, etc. It's simply not so. There exist people on every side of the issues that are intelligent, well-read, etc. But being human, we will be biased toward one side: ours.

It all goes back to Patrick Moynihan's timeless saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Ancora Imparo.

"I've spent so much time with spiritual advisors, so much money on crystals and weird drugs. To think Cthulhu had been living in Hollywood Hills this whole time. He's saved my career."
--W. Axl Rose











In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument. Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine. Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course). Most political arguments are just that... heated arguments which lead to nothing. True debate is almost nonexistent because usually one person or both are just completely incapable of objectively examining someone else's viewpoints. That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

I'm thinking about the psychological makeup of the submitter. Let's go inside their head: they've just posted yet another lopsided fake newsman like Colbert or Maher or the despicable Keef Overbite, bashing Bush or criticizing the war in unproductive fashion. The same 5-10 kudos arrive and everyone's in agreement.


Liberals take their worldview very, very seriously, to the point there are no other valid points of view. So, I says to myself, I says, even if you're trying to "educate" among the fun-poking, none of these people signed up to hear from you. And so I says to myself, "Self, you're right."

And that's where we are today. I don't expect anyone after these few comments to even bother. Another month and no one will know I was there. There's enough music and tech and stuff not to bother with election '08 and beyond.

I'm still around and my views remain the same. But just as I wouldn't walk around Target or the (hated) Wal-mart telling strangers what I think of Bush or Colbert, now it has its place. That's all.

This is an outstanding examination of the abuse of keywords in the political system.. the only problem I have with this is that they simultaneously present "Democrats and Progressives" as the heroes of all that is correct and just in the political system when this is definitely not true. There is good and bad on both sides... the far left is just as corrupt as the far right.

What about the Libertarians... the Utilitarians, the Centrists? There was absolutely no mention of them.

Overall I agree with the message of this video however the grass is not greener on the other side. Some would say that there are forces at work using both sides that works from outside the public eye. This must be considered by everyone otherwise any efforts to fix a purposely broken system is futile.

Haha, what a load. Nothing like using sweeping generalizations to guide your life. A "geek" can be just as much of a self centered prick as a "jock" can. And as was comically pointed out people don't always go for what they say they want. I think that's part of the "grass is always greener" phenomena.

jeeeeez, I can see why the whole, internet bully thing is an issue for some folks....from the looks of the last 5-7 comments, it's apparent that most of the roasters here, have struggled with self-esteem most of their short, extremely white lives, as well as potty-training in those very early years, until at least the age of 7-And sad to say for your sake karaidl, it seems they have reserved some of the least inspired, sophomoric, and anemic remarks for this 3rd and what let’s hope, final, anal-expulsion, shit, cock, balls puke, and fuck fest.

If you will peruse some of the inspired ejaculations karaidl has graced this site with, you will see that he is not afraid to speak his mind, unlike the bulk of the most outspoken here on the sift, who can’t stop speaking Other People’s Minds, with control “C”, and control “V’, as their only hedge, between themselves, and a career stint in the fast-food industry, animal hospice care, etc. Give most of these cretins an opportunity to pen some creative musings, and it’s straight to the men’s restroom at an interstate rest stop…..what I wrote, who I called, and how much it produced or stunk.

About the only thing bad about having the awareness of a thousand lifetimes, crammed into a plump, chronologically challenged being, is how bitter and disillusioned he is bound to become when at age 30, the witless boobs to follow his generation, will provide constant irritation, and the nagging temptation to, slay, skin, and smoke. He will have left Las Vegas after making sure his Mother is well-cared for, by his harem of whores, professional gamblers and grifters, and of course, his dealers-all wondering what they will do, when Master Teat, moves on, to greener pastures, and hairy bush.
At 20, he will turn down scholarships to various trade schools and mining concerns, and turn all his energies towards entrepreneurship….Celebrity Bobble-Cock Dolls, and skin-care/massage parties.(I can get clients and do scheduling, man)

Humble beginnings will lead to noble effort, and drug and fork abuse.

Your children will start coming to find out who their real daddy is after seeing their mother’s reactions to how many swinger’s blogs have posted user comments and photos, some of which have them standing in front of their mirrors, wondering, “Why is MY mom is so much older than the other kids’ moms?”

Seriously now, waist-down naked, and boyish charm will get you as far as the back door, before you smell the aroma from ma’s kitchen….and before you know it, you’re young again…at 36, with a lot less hair, and a breech at every stitch in yer sweatsuit.
I see a future of service to the community……a neighborhood kid’s bike and sporting goods equipment collection, and monthly garage sales, proceeds going to your favorite cause, ample paper products in all baths and computer/game-station rooms.

Growing up coddled, unparented and sensory-enriched by cathode-ray addiction, subjected to pathetic primary and secondary educations, with a sense of arrogance, entitlement, and privilege, having attended even worse colleges and universities, has afflicted most of the users on this site, but you Karaidl, have the ability and distinction, of being in a similar situation, and actually using it to your advantage, and attempting the unending process of self-awareness…..unlike your some of your elders here, who couldn’t wrangle a stray thought after a blow to the skull, much less work to become more in tune with themselves.

Salute to you Karaidl, we need more like you here, and less like these others, most of which I would not trust to call me a fucking cab, should I ever have the dis-pleasure of meeting them in person. You know who you are, at least if you think you might, the sentiment is appreciated……

grass is always greener on the other side

Bye, insect friend.

"I talked to Ladybug, she's decided to move on to greener pastures." --http://femme.videosift.com/talk/Hey-Girlzzz-Its-Double-X-Delurking-Day#comment-268936

I talked to Ladybug, she's decided to move on to greener pastures.

"Because it requires that I vote for someone that I do not think would do the best job."

NO. It requires that you vote for the person you think will do the best job AND CAN GET THE JOB!!!

"As for the arguement you used, I am not even going to bother with it. It uses the assumption that there is only two possible choices for election. I whole-heartedly disagree with that."

It most certainly does not. It relies on the assumption that there will only be two candidates that have a chance to win. These are very different assumptions (I thought you assented to this upthread when you said "Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates"). Besides, my argument was EXPLICITLY structured to offer THREE choices. This is not a subtle point, and it's a rather cheap dodge of you just to dismiss the whole post like that.

That Nader will lose is a cold, hard fact. Do the math. He couldn't even win if all the Greens and a full 1/3 of the Democrats turned out just to vote for him. If you think otherwise, you are in for a serious disappointment. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that somehow there are millions upon millions of voters just waiting for a new, exciting 3rd party candidate who is ideologically independent. There aren't. Most people either agree with the Democrats or Republicans. That's how they got to be the 2 major parties in the first place (how they kept that status is a different story).

"Surely, you know there are better people to choose as president than those of the two major parties. Forget who everyone else is voting for. Who do you really think would do the best job?"

Putting aside the fact that it's a gigantic strategic error to "forget who everyone else is voting for," I will admit that there are much better people to choose as president than the frontrunners. But in my opinion the best candidates are still members of the 2 major parties (e.g. Kucinch, in whose campaign I held a position the last time he ran). Nonetheless, I have no intention of sacrificing the good for the perfect. There are some people who are worse than others, and I'll not use a protest vote so I can knowingly help Republicans commit war crimes.

"Trust me, there are much greener fields than those of whom we are told to vote for. Think for yourself."

Now you've pissed me off. I just took the time--FOR YOUR BENEFIT--to offer you a relatively sophisticated argument (for an internet comment thread) against your position. It was based on Choice Theory, and invoked the standard definition of rationality, as well as the principle of transitivity. Yet somehow I'm "not thinking for myself." Don't assume that just because I reach the same conclusion as the status quo that I'm some sort of drone. Sometimes, conventional wisdom is just that: wisdom. In those cases, independent thinkers often reach the same conclusion as most other folks.

Go ahead and beat your chest and cry "Democracy!" as you vote for Nader. But you won't get any congrats for doing so--at least not from anyone who understands the concept of rationality.

"It makes perfect sense; you've just misunderstood the point. You don't end up with someone worse than the 2 candidates. Rather, you end up with the worst of the 2 candidates that have an actual chance to win, and the one farthest from your optimal outcome. Nader can't win, whether you vote for him or not. Hell, SP, he couldn't win even if everyone who was a true Green disregarded my advice and voted for him TWICE. There just aren't enough people as yet who support his ideas.

Given that fact, a vote for Nader is a vote to facilitate making the world more crappy (by your own lights) than it is right now. It purposely endorses the worst outcome--a Republican victory--over a better outcome, where the outcomes are ranked only by reference to your own values. Worse, it does so out of a misguided belief that somehow that's what the "meaning of democracy" requires. How is that NOT irrational?"
Because it requires that I vote for someone that I do not think would do the best job. Surely, you know there are better people to choose as president than those of the two major parties. Forget who everyone else is voting for. Who do you really think would do the best job? I have seen too much of both of the major parties to think that they could offer up the best canidate. I really just wished people would stop looking over their shoulder to see if their vote matters. It already does. The only thing that has stopped us from getting a decent president is this countries acceptance of the lie that we can only have two choices. Trust me, there are much greener fields than those of whom we are told to vote for. Think for yourself.

As for the arguement you used, I am not even going to bother with it. It uses the assumption that there is only two possible choices for election. I whole-heartedly disagree with that.

_{"People see what they want to see."}

"Look who's talking."
Tell you what, you can say that and when I actually start being closed-minded, it will actually mean something. Until then, its is simply all sound a fury, signifying nothing. I am open to opinions other than my own. If I only saw what I wanted to see, I probably wouldn't have watched this video, no? Take a look at some of my comment history. I do not shy away from opinions different from my own. Nor do I ignore them.

_{"Some just want another reason to bash religion."}

"Look who's talking 2. And some are just looking for any opportunity to proselytize.
The same can be said of any video here that promotes atheism. I am not doing anything all together different than what has already been done here. The only difference is the subject. Atheist can proselytize as well.


As for comment concerning religion bashing, I said that because I highly doubted that someone posted this to help raise awareness of intolerance. There are much better examples out in the world. Perhaps I assumed too much of the intention of this video and for that I apologize. I have simply seen too many videos that do nothing but bash Christianity because of the actions of a few. But from the way some of the comments were heading, this was definitely about to become a religion bashing fest, no?

@tjs989 notes: "Think about it, when someone needs cancer treatment, or heart surgery where do they go? To the United States because we have some of the most advanced equipment and best doctors."

OK, I thought about it. Maybe I am the first of the two of us to do so.

Your point is that Americans are better off because prohibitively expensive health care keeps less privileged citizens out of the queue, thereby making more room for rich foreigners to purchase time from American doctors. Your global altruism is commendable, but why do you value the interests of rich foreigners above those of your fellow citizens, and quite possibly yourself?

I live in Europe and know of zero examples of people traveling to the US for any type of medical treatment. Many do travel within the EU (often to Germany) when equipment, expertise or capacity is not available locally, with costs funded by their domestic national health. Of course, I might not have researched this as much as you have, but I suspect I have researched it exactly as much (not at all).

Chilaxe notes, sarcastically I assume, "I'd rather ... wait on line a year for an appointment with a doctor!" I am unaware of anybody waiting "a year" for a doctor's appointment, but I do know that I could have a doctor here, at my house, today (it's Sunday), in half an hour, for free. Or go to the emergency room at any time. For free. My regular doctors keeps office hours, but I am sure I could be in to see him some time tomorrow if I needed to. For free.

Don't get me wrong, there are many problems and shortcomings to our health care system here. For example, there _are_ waiting lists for advanced procedures, especially for non life-threatening (yet possibly still quite unpleasant)conditions, and preventative care often gets deprioritized in the face of so many actual fires to put out. People who are especially worried about this can and do buy private health insurance which builds on top of the public one (this should give relief to anybody worried that rich people might not be able to buy extra privileges for themselves just because public health insurance exists). And I say "for free", but of course I actually pay for it through taxes forwarded to the national health insurance scheme. It must be possible to draw a line across the income scale somewhere in which the average persons earning over this line would get cheaper or better health care via private insurance or even per-visit payments, while all below would get it cheaper via taxes because their tax contributions are lower than their actual medical costs. I suppose you could find your score on this scale and decide your position on this issue based solely on whether you are above or below this line, provided you have no social consciousness at all. But this same game lies behind all insurance schemes and also depends on how sick you are. At least in a public system, you will not be denied treatment due to "preexisting conditions".

People love to point out that public services are generally less efficient than private enterprise, but the US system also suffers heavy bureaucratic overhead from insurance company marketing and their convoluted attempts to pay as few benefits as possible. According to Princeton economics processor Paul Krugman, this overhead in the American system is much larger than that experienced in most real-world public systems. See, for example, his editorial, Health Economics 101.

I've not seen Mr. Moore's film yet, though the clips reveal a huge "grass is always greener" problem in his argument--but, hey, it's Michael Moore. I do think, though, that Americans should take a more serious look at existing systems of health care throughout the world and consider how their own system could be better. It looks like this film attempts to do exactly that. American ought not allow a two-word argument ("Socialized Medicine") conjure up outdated images of 4-hour bread lines in Eastern Europe and stop them from considering a nationalized system for health care.

Americans like to talk a lot about freedom, so consider this. How free are you when your boss can hold not only your job and income over your head, but effectively the health and survival of some or all your entire family? Doesn't that make you a bit more willing to sacrifice some personal freedom and put in a little more extra, unpaid overtime?

<RantMode ="Off"> (sorry)

Yemen is south of Saudi Arabia, across the Red Sea from Ethiopia and Somalia. Given the kinds of terrain I think of when I think of those 3 countries, Yemen is a great deal... greener... than I would have expected.

There really was no secret to Nirvana's message....the lyrics of their collected works, and the dissonnant chords and off-tempo beats speak tombs to the mental state of the composer/writer.....in other words

music to eat a shotgun by.....
really dug the unplugged version of Bowie's "Man who sold the world" though.....fer crissakes, folks should know that music and heroin only work for a short while....and who wouldn't think of greener pastures in the form of a good ol' dirt nap having Courtney Love for a mate....EEWWW!

I kinda understand where Phillip Morris is coming from. I mean they know, and you know.. and everyone is on the same page on smoking being horrible, and they have pretend campaigns.

But I mean Exxon overloaded ad campaign saying they are making a greener planet. Now Dove is making girls LESS self conscious. Anyways, they sell BETTY CROCKER plastic playsets for toddlers. Corporations figured out brand recognition takes places at very young ages and are implanting the packaging colors into their brains. Think toddler product placement.

I will start off by saying that I am in fact racist, as is everyone other person who is alive. Everyone is racist, you will always make a decision based on how people look and where they come from. Every civilization known to mankind has shown racism. Its not a bad thing, it is human nature.

So what if they picked the white doll? It is dolls people, it has nothing to do with real life. I bet if you asked some young black girls who they would like to play with those dolls with, they would choose black girls. The fact that they picked the white dolls is based on a human archetype. The white dolls are brighter, and by extension cheerier and happier. Black is indeed a depressing color and I'm sure little girls don't want to be depressed while playing with toys.

Oh and people want to be light skinned? Yah tell that to every person in a tanning salon. The grass is always greener.

personally i long ago moved on to greener pastures, but still why must we have all our little piggies in every nations pie.