Greed knows no specific political affiliation, nor does charitability. We should all insist on policies that do more to help those in actual need of it, and to reduce rampant profiteering at the expense of human suffering. Squeezing your captive customers just because you can is a pretty universal "dick move." Imagine if we had solid policies in place that actually encouraged giving a hand up to those who've encountered misfortune, rather than treating them as suspicious and dangerous.

I think a big part of the problem, which I was sad to see go entirely unaddressed by the show, is that owning rental properties is such an appealing option for wealthy private investors. The long-term (and generally short-term) returns on real estate in the US have been absolutely bonkers for many years, and it's a much more stable investment than the stock market can prove to be. Professionally, I've been in a position to have an understanding of the finances of many wealthy people, and damn near everyone with net worth of more than a couple million ends up having quite substantial real estate holdings.

How about we instead find a way to award stable profits to those investing in schools, or public parks, or the arts, or... I don't know, anything else which doesn't ultimately take people out of their homes?

These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.

Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.

Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.

The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.

As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.

If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.

"The guys try durian(...)"

Someone brought one of those fucking things into our office once and the evacuation of the workspace and people's stomachs was epic. You can smell that shit all the way to the ISS and it's probably the reason aliens haven't invaded us yet. It's sorta like that movie 'Signs', only instead of making no fucking sense what-so-ever, the aliens show up, smell a durian, mutter "are you fucking kidding me?!" and then get back on their spaceship and fuck off to somewhere less malodorous. This is also what keeps Tacoma mostly vacated. Seriously, the reason WaDoT lowered the speed limit to 50 on the part of I-5 that has the misfortune of passing through Tacoma is that they hate everyone west of the Cascades and this is how they get back at us. Yeah, FUCK YOU -- Tacoma may stink, but Biden's still president!

Cunts, the whole fucking lot of 'em.

I understand the feeling, but sadly, ignoring the vitriolic bile people like her spout only allows them to go unchallenged, which they convince their naive followers is proof they're 100% correct, so correct even their haters can't contradict them....and it works.

I've always liked that Bill puts her, and other far right wingers, on his show to show his audience exactly the nonsense they're peddling so they can be well prepared to obliterate idiots that repeat it in public.

And yes, she has always failed to hide her schadenfreude at the misfortunes of the less fortunate and clearly derives pleasure from their pain.

I can only upvote this because they did finally help her out in the end. I was going to be very disappointed if they just laughed at her misfortune (though absurdly comical it may be) and left her to suffer.

@Stormsinger

i can agree with the intent of your comment but i think it ignores a far greater,and possibly more dangerous facet of this current election cycle.

look,
when the DNC began it's political play to nudge sanders out,and was changing the rules of application to keep laurence lessig off the ballot.it became obvious (to me anyways) that clinton was tagged for the run,and the DNC was attempting to steal sanders thunder,which was shockingly impressive,and redirect it to boost clinton.

but the DNC had failed to successfully execute this plan because they didn't understand the true nature of those sanders supporters.so their plan backfired.

the RNC did almost the EXACT same thing with trump.they hated the man,wanted nothing to do with him,but they saw how powerful his campaign was picking up steam and they attempted to play the long con.for a year they allowed trump to do and say whatever he wanted,with little rebuttal or regard.they watched as trump got bigger,and bolder,and more brash.they watched his numbers climb consistently..and they waited.and after a year,they attempted to step in and steal trumps thunder by offering a more "reasonable" candidate.

ok ok...enough with the trump.
you want cruz?...nope.
how about ben carson? he is a sweet guy and BLACK....nope.
marco rubio?he is spanish with immigrant parents...nope
john kasich?...nope

because the RNC didn't get it either.they too,attempted to steal trumps thunder and their plan backfired.

liberals didnt get it.
conservatives didnt get it.
corporate media didnt get it.
political pundits,who get PAID to get it,didnt get it.
pollsters didnt get it.
suzy mcprettyface who reads the teleprompter didnt get it.

but the americans who lived in those dead midwestern towns got it.they may not understand neoliberalism,but they could see the effects by the boarded up stores,closed banks and the only jobs to have were the night shift at the one fast food joint left in the entire town.

these are the very same people who may not fully comprehend what the bank bailouts meant,or how austerity affected them,but they understood that the biggest industry in their town was no longer coal,or steel,or fishing but production of meth.they saw small shops close and crumble under the weight of a walmart superstore,and chains of pill mills.

they watched as construction jobs dried up,and private prisons expanded.there are some towns in texas and florida that literally survive on the incarceration of other americans.so they may not have fully understood that the "war on drugs" is actually a war on people,but they certainly could see the after-effects.

and these people were being told..everyday..that the economy was doing great.
that unemployment was at an all time low.
that the american dream was still attainable.
and at the very same time they were also being told that if you were on food stamps you were a loser,and a leech.
that if you lost your home it was YOUR fault.
that if you couldnt find a job you were lazy.
and if you DID happen to find a job,but it paid minimum,well then you should have gone to college or made better choices.

and since when did it become a virtue to exploit the hopeless and the desperate? to take advantage of someones misfortune and pay them pennies to do a job,but god forbid someone actually demands what they feel they are worth,because then you are accused of being a rip off artist!

when did THIS tactic become and american ideology?

and that really is the core nugget of this tale.
the ideology of america.
the amercian dream.
it was dead,and those people finally got it.
and there is NOTHING more fanatical or zealous than a defeated idealist.

so you can judge them for voting trump,but i think we should also understand WHY they voted for trump.

chris hedges wrote a truthdig piece that is far more eloquent and illuminating than anything i could ever put to paper.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_are_all_deplorables_20161120

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

I agree that compassion is a better word to end with, but only because the word pity is a victim of some of the concepts touched on in this video, when we are pitied we interpret it negatively, we think it's patronising or demeaning, which may be feeding an unconscious fear that we're seen as feeble.
Pity: "The feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the sufferings and misfortunes of others"

We have the enormous misfortune in the UK to live in a democracy; how could it not? As more people from, effectively, the past enter the country the progress we've been making will be slowed or reversed.

Western, or probably more specifically north-western europe is that special region in the world where religion is actually dying off. More people in the UK are non-religious than religious. Christians in this country finally have the decency to be ashamed of their faith, and any extravagant public expression of belief is met with contempt from believers and non-believers alike - look at the minor scandal created when Tony Blair admitted to being a catholic, and engaging in such outlandish behaviours as prayer.

Orthodox christians from easten europe, and refugees from even less civilised areas, haven't had the opportunity to develop the same attitude. As they settle in their nasty little insular communities, the danger is that they're in a position to act as voting blocs that damage public policy.

Anyway, I'm sure it's heartening for eric to discover that basically none of us has any idea either.

In my non-expert opinion the only way to really help Greece at this point is to release a significant amout of debt and set the interest of the rest to zero. (Instead of trying to keep on profiting on their misfortune)

And I fear a Grexit will inevitably lead to the worst case scenario for both Greece and the EU, hyperinflation in an european country.

Edit:
After having read some more stuff about Greece and monetary shell games aka economics I've come to the conclusion that zero interest debt would not actually help. Interest for goverment bonds has been declining worldwide over the last decades, yet government debt has increased proportionally.
Why is that? Well, if you, as a politician, can borrow more money for the same amount of effective interest to fulfill your election promises in order to stay in office for as long as possible then why the hell not? Some day you won't be in office anymore and the higher government debt isn't your problem anymore.
So in the end, lower interest rates may not be 'helpful' for the greek government to balance their budget.

I don't fear the black, yellow or other taking my job because of race? I don't freaking care. May the best candidate get the job. I have had many jobs in my life and would find another if I needed to.

Do you think I would hire a black? not in a million years? You would be wrong at that. I had 1 opportunity to hire 1 candidate. I picked the best educated person that would fit the job and he was a black man.

You think my wife and kids are Lilly white. You would be wrong at that also. My family is so mixed that I am the lone token white.

You have any other falsehoods you wish to inquire about? Go ahead I answer them too.

Bottom line I don't care what "you" are. All I care is that you are trying to get ahead in life and that you are a peaceful neighbor.

I have little sympathy for those who desire to stay at the bottom out of convenience, leaching off our tax dollars and blaming others for their misfortune. I not bitching about those given a shitty hand in life or those needing a helping hand. We all need a helping hand at times. But not decade after decade. The nation spends about 3% on social needs, Fine make it 5% or something. Just don't waste it on looses and government bureaucracy.

You would probably make a fine neighbor and work colleague.

You asked me once how old I was and I answer 53. So out of curiosity how old are you?

Gotta admit, they made a bad choice with the last video. Of the bunch, watching someone's total misfortune is bad form in front of an obvious audience. I can see that if the first three didn't do it, the last one wouldn't.

Plus it wasn't really that funny.

The Krankenwagen takes you to the Krankenhaus because you are krank. Simple and logical.
"The ambulance takes you to the hospital because you are sick" on the other hand... now that you should not like the sound of. With a little etymological magic this becomes:
The walker takes you to the guesthouse because you are sick.
That's just silly.

@ChaosEngine There are even more words for fluffy, but I heard the english language doesn't have a word for the happyness you feel when a person you dislike encounters a little misfortune or the place you send your kids to before they are old enough for school.

That's odd. I thought a conversation through comments where my position was explained clearly, then yours was WAS a discussion....what do you call it?
I'm still waiting for that one example where the 'joke' is at no one and nothing's expense.
Explain why an object can't be the object of ridicule...or a fictional character.
You didn't read...I wrote it's at the expense of the stick, being compared to a turd, AND the reader/listener, who can't tell the difference.
What's black and white and eats like a horse IS a riddle, just a bad one. Explain how it's not if you don't think it is. If you didn't understand my explanation, that's not the same as me not offering one. Read again please.
Because you are complicit in fooling yourself does not make you less the fool. I say you ARE laughing at your own expense, at your foolishness for being misled (so easily, even intentionally by yourself).
Magic isn't shadenfreude, but laughing at the bad magician is. Clowning is ALL about shadenfreude.
Wow, you are bending over backwards there...you ARE certainly laughing at the expense of the clown...because he wants it that way. It's still laughing at his looking the fool. Because he accepts the expense (of being foolish) doesn't mean it does not exist. You're arguing ridiculous semantics and missing the point.
I have still not seen anything that doesn't meet my definition, things that make you laugh are at something's expense (even if that thing accepts the expense freely). You may not see it, but I think that's because you won't analyze it beyond the surface.
I did say essentially that, read again please.... I said "As I see it, all humor is schadenfreude (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone (or something) else. )" Your lack of empathy for other's points of view does not make it less so to me, and you have yet to convince me otherwise. I even gave a popular reference for that way of thinking, 'stranger in a strange land'.
When I first read the stick 'joke', I laughed at MYSELF for being duped...same with ET...I laughed at the mathematician poking himself in the asshole (in my mind) and myself for the thought. In the final analysis, the joke was on ME for most of those 'jokes'...and I'm fine with that, not offended, that was not what I said. I said the joke is at "x's" expense, sometimes that "X" is the listener. EDIT: sometimes the expense is infinitesimal and barely or not noticed.
Wow, you really don't understand humor? It was a joke, at your and my expense, about your statement "I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"" That would make sense if the asker was under water, no? It was meant to show why someone might say that, and how the misunderstanding could be on either side of the 'joke'. Too 'deep'?
EDIT: And why you gotta talk crap about my face?!? I can't help how I look!
(have you somehow convinced yourself that your comments weren't snide?)