I have not seen Hurt Locker, but I'm not sure it's a movie I would be ecstatic about.

Avatar was very, very pretty. Best VFX for sure, but it's not that great a film. Seeing it on the small screen diminishes the experience quite a lot. Was great in the theater in a "big summer movie" kinda way

Up was a very sweet movie and it would be way up there, except in the end it goes a little too far with the action packed old guy jumping around on an airship. It was a great movie still though, don't get me wrong.

Inglorious Basterds was a great movie in a campy sorta way. There was more comedy in it than I had expected; the basterds were more fun than gruesome, although some of the scenes were a bit icky. It was also much more of a talkie than was let on, but well, we know Quintin Tarentino... they're all talkies. Very good movie, I thought, but the french sub/main plot was a bit weaker I thought.

District 9 was a fantastic movie. It used its mane effects shots better than Avatar by keeping them so understated and bound to our own world. I also loved that they weren't afraid to blow some people up.. good stuff. And Wikus was a good anti-hero; a real person, flawed and all. So, District 9 gets my tip of the hat.

>> ^BoneyD:
That's got nothing on this...
Yuck! Video of icky poo toads


While visually revolting, this is no different than a kangaroo.

Fuck that. A vagina by itself is a beautiful thing. Anything that smells like beer, fish and vinegar at the same time is gross. If portia de rossi's nipples tasted like fertiliser and ten week old brie.... well I'd probably still go there but I would be thinking "this is icky"

>> ^gwiz665:
Icky CNN embed won't work for me.


Doesn't work for me either. Is it blocked maybe?

Icky CNN embed won't work for me.

What DFT means to say is feminism is putting your sticky in their icky. And skeet and skeet and skeet.

yeah, me.


In reply to this comment by Lann:
>> ^inflatablevagina:
eewww... why are boys so icky???
Why do we have to get dry humped all the time??


I can think of some girls that dry hump guys...

There could be a little green in it for ya. From rottenseed.

Yea, some good ol' Cali sticky icky

>> ^gtjwkq:
That's a good point: If 100% socialized healthcare were ever implemented in the US, it would be better (less worse) if it existed at the state level as opposed to federal. That would institute a faint glimmer of competition between the separate systems, and people would be able to "vote with their feet", which is terribly ineffective, but better than being completely helpless.

This is something I have discussed before in other places, and on other forums. Both with Americans and Canadians. If you look at Canada's federal health act, it comes down to a whopping 24 sections or so. That's it. When I started reading the American one, and hit section 100, I thought that the guys in Washington were insane.

The whole point of the Cdn. federal health act is to say: Hey, we don't know how the provinces operate, we don't know what the people need, and we sure don't know where you need the resources or where. You deal with it, and if there's budget shortfalls come let us know and we'll pick up the cost, by taking it out of the general revenue fund(or equalization payments). We'll make sure it's spent properly(oversight), and make sure that it's running smoothly, and if the system needs help, we'll do what needs to be done. But if people are dying because you can't provide care, you and I are going to have a big talk. Fed to province.

End of story.

Now, sounds pretty good. There's other issues in Canada on this. But the reality is, Canada and the US in forms of government aren't that different at a state/provincial level. Both are highly independent, and both want the federal government to piss the hell off. So if you want this to happen, that's what I'd suggest and people should be telling their congressmen the same as well. To make it work, it may require one of two things. Either nationwide tax(icky), or each state will be required to pay a 'health coverage' surcharge or levy(akin to a tax) excess funds are then dumped to a general health revenue fund for all states(offlimits to anything else), and states which come up short can with oversight get money from it to cover deficits. We have something similar up here for it as well. Again long drawn out thing that I don't want to yammer on about right now.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no evidence that a socialized medical system improves health care. There is also no evidence that it supplies more people with more care than a private system. When you boil away the rhetoric and start actually drilling down into the facts, socialized systems accomplish very little in terms of medical care output.


Generally the more that people get healthcare, the longer they live. The longer they live, the longer and more productive members of society they are. Generally when someone goes to the hospital when they don't have healthcare, it's because it's do or die. That is, they're about to die. They're not ready, so better off to live. Unfortunately, that's a rather huge burden to place on the system, compared to say treating the underlying cause the first time a round.

An example: A man goes to his doctor, finds out that he's got an ulcer. Get medication. Ulcer goes away.
Flip it around: A man doesn't go to his doctor, ulcer keeps going, becomes peptic, nearly kills him. Spends 3-8 weeks in the hospital in recovery, may have lost their job that they couldn't afford to lose in the first place.

Now depending on the province, not all medications are covered. However, a lot of doctors do swing things on the by-and-by to get you what you need for next to nothing. They're generally pretty good folks, and walk in clinics will help you out the same with pharmacies. Now if you look at the NHS in the UK where it's more-fully socialized including medication. It's a non-issue unless you're dealing with idiots who believe that treatment will kill you(luckily for them stupidity isn't considered a psychiatric disorder, because you can get treatment for that too).

^ Here's another article where he more definitively says no, and explains a bit on why.

Mostly it's the fact that Congress has the power of the purse, and only TARP really gave the Treasury Secretary funds he could direct. I suspect that Geithner actually could do it according to the legislation. TARP was a gun meant to be handed to a Republican, and the bill didn't change much from the original ransom note draft it was based on in terms of putting restrictions on what the money could be used for.

I don't think it'd be smart for Democrats to use TARP funds to rescue California from its budget crisis, politically speaking.

It's a really icky game of chicken they're playing right now in California, and I don't think the Federal guys wanna get involved if they can help it.

>> ^inflatablevagina:
eewww... why are boys so icky???
Why do we have to get dry humped all the time??


I can think of some girls that dry hump guys...

eewww... why are boys so icky???
Why do we have to get dry humped all the time??

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I will always try to err toward benevolence- but absolute power will eventually corrupt absolutely.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
As true as it is written, I guess the discrepancy will always lie in what those standards are. I guess we've never had a problem with it before. As much fun as it is to show contempt towards authority, my love for the site will always reign, and I have to question these decisions. Thank you, and although I don't agree with your decision I respect it and you're within your rights to exact what you feel is just.

In reply to this comment by dag:
As you know - the community abdicated the right of Siftquistion to a supreme sovereign. Also, the "P" stand for probationary- I think it's OK to hold them to a minimal standard of conduct.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
hmmm...interesting. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems so icky to ban based on tastelessness. I agree he or she wouldn't get the biggest heartfelt welcome on every comment they left but I didn't see anything over the line. Ignorant maybe, but still within our rules. Maybe something so fringe should go to siftquisition? I think that's the proper forum for deciding a punishment for a member that just doesn't get it. I think if they realize that we take this seriously, they might go from youtube troll, to Socratic pupil. Call me an idealist, but sometimes people could use a fair shot.

But it's your call, you the boss (even though I'm 1 higher than you in rank )

In reply to this comment by dag:
Expressed will to "fuck shit up" plus history of crappy comments:
http://www.videosift.com/video/McDonalds-Little-Sister-Comercial#comment-786323
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-know-God-exists#comment-785032
http://www.videosift.com/video/Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-Gold-lion-london-live#comment-783632

Led me to believe this is a member that VideoSift can do without.

Heil Siftler



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't know if I can agree with you on this one. I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe I don't know all dimensions of this issue, but I think that this was an extreme punishment for somebody that didn't understand the rules clearly (not to mention didn't even do anything wrong).

The fact of the matter is, once somebody puts the time into getting 100 gold stars, I doubt their primary objective will be to "fuck shit up".

Secondly it costs 1 to 2 power points to promote a video, the chances of him/her having the amount needed to fill up a page are slim to none. Plus if he did accumulate that much, he may just deserve it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
No you won't. See- we practice a kind of community eugenics on Sifters. Goodbye.

In reply to this comment by nerbula:
WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.

As true as it is written, I guess the discrepancy will always lie in what those standards are. I guess we've never had a problem with it before. As much fun as it is to show contempt towards authority, my love for the site will always reign, and I have to question these decisions. Thank you, and although I don't agree with your decision I respect it and you're within your rights to exact what you feel is just.

In reply to this comment by dag:
As you know - the community abdicated the right of Siftquistion to a supreme sovereign. Also, the "P" stand for probationary- I think it's OK to hold them to a minimal standard of conduct.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
hmmm...interesting. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems so icky to ban based on tastelessness. I agree he or she wouldn't get the biggest heartfelt welcome on every comment they left but I didn't see anything over the line. Ignorant maybe, but still within our rules. Maybe something so fringe should go to siftquisition? I think that's the proper forum for deciding a punishment for a member that just doesn't get it. I think if they realize that we take this seriously, they might go from youtube troll, to Socratic pupil. Call me an idealist, but sometimes people could use a fair shot.

But it's your call, you the boss (even though I'm 1 higher than you in rank )

In reply to this comment by dag:
Expressed will to "fuck shit up" plus history of crappy comments:
http://www.videosift.com/video/McDonalds-Little-Sister-Comercial#comment-786323
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-know-God-exists#comment-785032
http://www.videosift.com/video/Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-Gold-lion-london-live#comment-783632

Led me to believe this is a member that VideoSift can do without.

Heil Siftler



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't know if I can agree with you on this one. I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe I don't know all dimensions of this issue, but I think that this was an extreme punishment for somebody that didn't understand the rules clearly (not to mention didn't even do anything wrong).

The fact of the matter is, once somebody puts the time into getting 100 gold stars, I doubt their primary objective will be to "fuck shit up".

Secondly it costs 1 to 2 power points to promote a video, the chances of him/her having the amount needed to fill up a page are slim to none. Plus if he did accumulate that much, he may just deserve it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
No you won't. See- we practice a kind of community eugenics on Sifters. Goodbye.

In reply to this comment by nerbula:
WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As you know - the community abdicated the right of Siftquistion to a supreme sovereign. Also, the "P" stand for probationary- I think it's OK to hold them to a minimal standard of conduct.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
hmmm...interesting. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems so icky to ban based on tastelessness. I agree he or she wouldn't get the biggest heartfelt welcome on every comment they left but I didn't see anything over the line. Ignorant maybe, but still within our rules. Maybe something so fringe should go to siftquisition? I think that's the proper forum for deciding a punishment for a member that just doesn't get it. I think if they realize that we take this seriously, they might go from youtube troll, to Socratic pupil. Call me an idealist, but sometimes people could use a fair shot.

But it's your call, you the boss (even though I'm 1 higher than you in rank )

In reply to this comment by dag:
Expressed will to "fuck shit up" plus history of crappy comments:
http://www.videosift.com/video/McDonalds-Little-Sister-Comercial#comment-786323
http://www.videosift.com/video/Atheists-know-God-exists#comment-785032
http://www.videosift.com/video/Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-Gold-lion-london-live#comment-783632

Led me to believe this is a member that VideoSift can do without.

Heil Siftler



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't know if I can agree with you on this one. I don't think I'm the only one either. Maybe I don't know all dimensions of this issue, but I think that this was an extreme punishment for somebody that didn't understand the rules clearly (not to mention didn't even do anything wrong).

The fact of the matter is, once somebody puts the time into getting 100 gold stars, I doubt their primary objective will be to "fuck shit up".

Secondly it costs 1 to 2 power points to promote a video, the chances of him/her having the amount needed to fill up a page are slim to none. Plus if he did accumulate that much, he may just deserve it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
No you won't. See- we practice a kind of community eugenics on Sifters. Goodbye.

In reply to this comment by nerbula:
WHAT the FUCK. how does that work ? a video thats been out of the loop for a year all of a sudden gets right bumped up to the highest honour of the front page becuase one single person says *promote ? what the fuck is up with that. is that how this place works ? no dissin here but if you get a couple stars you can run the front page like its your own website ? NEATO ! ima get my stars so i can fuck shit up.