*related=http://videosift.com/video/Wolves-Interrupt-Traffic-Stop-Inside-edition

Wolves Interrupt Traffic Stop (Inside edition) has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'super mario, inside edition, wow i feel old' to 'super mario, inside edition, wow i feel old, bill oreilly' - edited by doogle

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Inside Edition Exposé On Mario Bros.. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I would have done the same thing personally.

http://videosift.com/video/Wolves-Interrupt-Traffic-Stop-Inside-edition

Update, here is an inside look

http://videosift.com/video/Wolves-Interrupt-Traffic-Stop-Inside-edition

Now if only people would give her some space. Christ, journalists aren't journalists anymore. Mainstream news has turned into tabloid press. It's like Bill O'Reilly actually DID win a Peabody, and now everyone's trying to emulate Inside Edition or A Current Affair, or whatever shitstain he was on before he had his own shitstain show.

I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.

Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.

The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.

Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?

The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.

Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?

The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.

Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.

Don't Americans already have these things?


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Yeah, straw men are everywhere already.

Mostly I'm referring to McCain's plan to keep tax breaks for oil companies, and other corporate subsidies in place, while promising a shallower tax cut for the middle class than Obama, but a huge one for the top 1%, while Obama raises taxes in that range.

As for taking from the rich to give to the poor...not directly. I think the rich should be responsible for subsidizing better public education, universal healthcare, and unemployment protections, among other things.

What was it Karl Marx said, "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? I think a little of that is a good idea for everyone, rich included (not that they need help).

I think government programs should most benefit those who have the least, and find the revenue primarily from those who're producing the most.

I'm not in favor of some absolute socialist setup, but I think there needs to be a "compressing" pressure on income disparity, and in the last 8 years the Bush policies have been aimed at removing that pressure, and it's driven income disparity to near record highs in less than a decade.

I think there should be a bottom limit to how low we allow people to sink in terms of poverty. I think children born into poverty should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, despite whatever failings their parents had.

I think there's more than enough money in the country, and more than enough money passing through government to do all that, likely without even raising taxes a dime, just by shifting what we use government for.

I think tax cuts aimed at the rich are redistributionary -- in the wrong direction, and that supply-side economics in a nutshell is to say "in order to best help the poor, give more money to the rich" which is on its face insane, and only gets worse as the explanation goes on. It's a policy invented by the rich for the rich, of the rich. The "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!" is what I think 90% of the people voting for Republicans are unknowingly saying with their vote.

That's more than you asked for, and more than I originally intended to write, but I go on a tear sometimes.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Which corporations does McCain propose to give your money to after he takes it away?

Do you believe that the government should increase taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the poor?

P.S. Just so we're clear, I dislike McCain. I just like to focus on the facts instead of propagating straw man arguements.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's a metaphor for the other problems with John McCain, such as thinking the economy is just fine, that tax cuts should be largely skewed to the highest income individuals, and that generally speaking we're better off than we were 8 years ago.

If we must boil everything down to money, shouldn't everyone vote for who will give them the biggest tax cut?

For 90% of the country, that's Obama.

A vote for McCain is to say "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!"

Yeah, straw men are everywhere already.

Mostly I'm referring to McCain's plan to keep tax breaks for oil companies, and other corporate subsidies in place, while promising a shallower tax cut for the middle class than Obama, but a huge one for the top 1%, while Obama raises taxes in that range.

As for taking from the rich to give to the poor...not directly. I think the rich should be responsible for subsidizing better public education, universal healthcare, and unemployment protections, among other things.

What was it Karl Marx said, "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? I think a little of that is a good idea for everyone, rich included (not that they need help).

I think government programs should most benefit those who have the least, and find the revenue primarily from those who're producing the most.

I'm not in favor of some absolute socialist setup, but I think there needs to be a "compressing" pressure on income disparity, and in the last 8 years the Bush policies have been aimed at removing that pressure, and it's driven income disparity to near record highs in less than a decade.

I think there should be a bottom limit to how low we allow people to sink in terms of poverty. I think children born into poverty should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, despite whatever failings their parents had.

I think there's more than enough money in the country, and more than enough money passing through government to do all that, likely without even raising taxes a dime, just by shifting what we use government for.

I think tax cuts aimed at the rich are redistributionary -- in the wrong direction, and that supply-side economics in a nutshell is to say "in order to best help the poor, give more money to the rich" which is on its face insane, and only gets worse as the explanation goes on. It's a policy invented by the rich for the rich, of the rich. The "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!" is what I think 90% of the people voting for Republicans are unknowingly saying with their vote.

That's more than you asked for, and more than I originally intended to write, but I go on a tear sometimes.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Which corporations does McCain propose to give your money to after he takes it away?

Do you believe that the government should increase taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the poor?

P.S. Just so we're clear, I dislike McCain. I just like to focus on the facts instead of propagating straw man arguements.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's a metaphor for the other problems with John McCain, such as thinking the economy is just fine, that tax cuts should be largely skewed to the highest income individuals, and that generally speaking we're better off than we were 8 years ago.

If we must boil everything down to money, shouldn't everyone vote for who will give them the biggest tax cut?

For 90% of the country, that's Obama.

A vote for McCain is to say "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!"

Which corporations does McCain propose to give your money to after he takes it away?

Do you believe that the government should increase taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the poor?

P.S. Just so we're clear, I dislike McCain. I just like to focus on the facts instead of propagating straw man arguements.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's a metaphor for the other problems with John McCain, such as thinking the economy is just fine, that tax cuts should be largely skewed to the highest income individuals, and that generally speaking we're better off than we were 8 years ago.

If we must boil everything down to money, shouldn't everyone vote for who will give them the biggest tax cut?

For 90% of the country, that's Obama.

A vote for McCain is to say "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!"

>> ^deedub81:
Yeah, 'cause the Obama residences is the standard of humility and discretion that all wealthy americans should look towards.
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/42182/view/?service=1


Geeze, I followed that link expecting another sprawling mansion, and I get... a largish residential house. Nothing overtly spectacular at all. Man, if you think that showing THAT compared to THIS being ONE of McCain's houses is going to make people think any better of McCain or worse of Obama you have just backed the wrong horse there.

One house of reasonably modest proportions compared several huge estates.

I know who I'd rather be making decisions about my country (not that I'm American or even living there)

Yeah, sorry. *discard

http://www.videosift.com/video/Inside-Edition-Expos-On-Mario-Bros

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser, inside edition, teleprompter, bill' to 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser, inside edition, teleprompter, bill, sting' - edited by deedub81

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser' to 'tantrum, obscenities, not mature, loser, inside edition, teleprompter, bill' - edited by deedub81

he is Soo adorable. It's as if he's got sand in his falafel. This little tidbit should follow BillO around forever -- to demonstrate his soft-spoken demeanor, lest there be any doubt about the Andrea Mackris lawsuit.

Wikipedia:

In 1989, O’Reilly joined the nationally syndicated King World (now CBS) program Inside Edition, a tabloid/gossip television program in competition with A Current Affair. He started as senior correspondent and backup anchor for British TV host David Frost, and subsequently became the program’s anchor after Frost’s termination.

EDIT: This infamous BillO video is just as good played backwards, as if he's speaking in German, with some interesting B-roll choices.