Not on here I don't.

Typical woman.

Now I do.

I wish people knew what misogyny was and how it is different from sexism. The two are not synonymous. Merely referring to gender does not qualify as either unless there is some kind of value judgement behind it.

It's so easy for people who have received endless opportunity after opportunity to confuse the difference between somebody who turns down all of their opportunities in return for a cheap handout; and somebody who lacks opportunities.

To some people - ignorant and stupid people - the entire concept that opportunity may be a hard thing to come by, is not even considered.

They may even be ignorant enough to ask "I took my opportunities; why can't they?". And even in asking the question; when the answer is obvious, they are too stupid to recognise it.

A requirement of being a good leader of a country is to invest, above all else, in creating opportunity for its people. A person who does not even recognise this as a goal, and does not even recognise a lack of opportunity as a problem, does not qualify to be a president.

I tend to read what the writer has read into the comment. Hardly ever do I take any comment at face value, especially here on the VS. Agenda and world-view clashes make my dick hard, and it's a weak-minded thug who cowers at the occasional exercise in heated confrontation.

What has always pissed me off here and internet-wide, esp. after having been (and remain in the limited framework of many users minds) accused, convicted by kangaroo court and jury and labeled a troll???.... People using labels that other monkeys can grunt in unison to, should they face having to actually think and engage in discourse.

I have always here engaged in discussions at length either through PM's or offsite in chat(especially when someone has taken issue with my free-will exercized) here on Videosift.....I'd rather chat than offer back and fourth quips, and ANYONE'S ONE SENTENCE QUIP, hip or not, clever or not, qualifies as trollish behavior in my estimation.....YOU ARE ALL TROLLS LIVING IN DENIAL!!!


Popularity is an illusion, I come here for the infamy.

^@ bobknight33

Your 50 million is way off the # was 30 Million and that doesn't divide who can afford but choose not to get it and whose who really cant afford healthcare. (At least with the individual mandate those who can pay but choose not to are required to pay back into the system).

That # is reported around 12 million. (Where did you find this percentage i have yet to see it in an official report?).

Now is it worth you paying 2600 more in insurance just to cover 12 Million? (Covered below).

Amount of Deaths due to the absence of healthcare: More than 26,000 working-age adults die prematurely in the United States each year because they lack health insurance, according to a study by the consumer advocacy group Families USA, estimates that a record high of 26,100 people aged 25 to 64 died for lack of health coverage in 2010, up from 20,350 in 2005 and 18,000 in 2000. also 22,000 deaths nationwide in 2006.

"Lives are truly on the line," said Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack, who supports the reform law. "If the Affordable Care Act moves forward and we expand coverage for tens of millions of people, the number of avoidable deaths due to being uninsured will decrease significantly."

What is the republican healthcare solution?.

Source: Reuters, 6/20/2012 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47892292/ns/health-health_care/t/report-uninsured-americans-die-each-year/#.UEKmKdbiZO8.

the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation has analyzed census data to provide a closer look at the people without health insurance in the U.S. Its report, focused on people younger than age 65, found 45.7 million "nonelderly" uninsured people in the U.S. last year (including the elderly, the number of uninsured was 46.3 million). Low-income adults without dependent children — who generally do not qualify for government programs like Medicaid — were hit hardest. Despite heated rhetoric on the issue, immigrants are not driving the problem; 80% of the uninsured under age 65 are native-born or naturalized citizens. The uncompensated cost of providing health care to the uninsured last year was $57 billion, three-quarters of which was picked up by the Federal Government.

Most uninsured Americans work: Of those under age 65 without insurance, 8 in 10 are members of working families. Only 19% are in families with no one working. However, 62% of the uninsured have no education beyond high school, limiting their ability to boost their incomes or advance to jobs that may offer health care. The uninsured were three times more likely to have trouble meeting basic monthly expenses like rent and food.

Of those without health insurance, 11% reported being in fair or poor health, compared with 5% with private coverage. Nearly a quarter of the uninsured say they've forgone medical care in the past year due to its cost, compared with 4% who receive private care. As a result, the uninsured are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems.

Government programs are making a difference for children: Despite overall increases, the number of uninsured children last year fell by 800,000, to 8.1 million, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and state programs covering minors. (The total in 2006 was 9.4 million).

Young adults with no children are especially vulnerable: Programs such as Medicaid and Medicare insure millions of parents, children and disabled people. But low earners without dependent children are offered few resources when it comes to health insurance; they comprise 58% of uninsured Americans as a result. At 30%, those ages 19 to 29 have the highest uninsured rate. Racial minorities are also disproportionately represented; about one-third of Hispanics and one-fifth of blacks go without insurance, compared with 13% of whites.

Most people know that millions of Americans lack health insurance, but this report helps give that enormous group a human face. That many unemployed workers lack health insurance is not a surprise, but many of us may not realize that so many working people do as well — a troubling fact that lends credence to the reform efforts under way.

Source: TIME, Oct. 14, 2009 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1930096,00.html#ixzz25GkXZCFq

>> ^siftbot:

This post has been removed from the Skillful channel by channel owner Deano. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.


Deano, if this does not qualify as *skillful (this unsolicited observation having been made without reading the FAQ?!) then you might want to consider extricating whatever impacted in an orifice however clogged or otherwise impinged, assetera, ex-cettera....

>> ^renatojj:

@VoodooV I think "they" bash mostly socialist policies coming from Europe, but decriminalizing drugs would not qualify as socialism, quite the opposite, it's freedom of choice, personal responsability.


No, they bash things from Europe after being told that they're socialist policies. To determine whether or not they actually are socialist you have to look at logic and facts, but as looking at logic and facts is its self socialist/atheist (same thing), then questioning Fox/God/GOP/Limbaugh is socialist. And you don't want to be a socialist, do you? No. Then shut up and believe what you're told.

@VoodooV I think "they" bash mostly socialist policies coming from Europe, but decriminalizing drugs would not qualify as socialism, quite the opposite, it's freedom of choice, personal responsability.

>> ^BoneRemake:

nochannel
Wtf,
Sports
Happy
Russia
Defender of the kids channel !


Ok, so how exactly does this not qualify for the kids channel? Do Russian kids not deserve some attention on the Sift?

Some details TYT failed to mention:

After each TED talk, the live audience rates the speech. This talk received mediocre marks according to the link messenger posted above. Apparently because the point he was making, however valid, was not made well and didn't introduce anything really novel.

Also, only certain TED talks are published. They have always been selective, choosing to publish only the best. This one did not qualify regardless of any politics involved.

EDIT: Also, he hired a PR firm to draw attention to situation, essentially handing the originating source a 'hot' story.

@shveddy

""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""

Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.

""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""

When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.

""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""

God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.

Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?

You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.

Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.

God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.

""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""

Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.

Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.

What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation. Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.

Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.

Racism is clearly beside the point.

An unarmed juvenile who just turned 17 was shot dead by a 28 year old man who was not qualified to stalk or pursue people that he found to be suspicious.

This is ten years manslaughter for Zimmerman at the very least.

Considering Florida's "leniency" with criminals, I'd be surprised if he got less.

Let the scientists talk science. Scientists don't run around predicting automobile company stock prices, because they know they're not qualified to do so. So shut your mouth; you're out of your fucking league.

It is a tricky issue and she's pointing out the possible loopholes. Though she stands at the opposite end of my political ring, I do recognize the possibility of concern.

It's a bit difficult to decipher what point she is making exactly because she makes her point in between sentences rather than at the beginning, but after rewinding it a few times I think I get where she stands. The main argument is that from the traditional point of view, transgenders do not qualify as a 'girl', while modern point of view says transgenders do qualify as a girl as long as the individual chooses to be so.

This new rule is solely dependent on what the individual claim him/herself to be, an intangible claim of identification. And in a traditional organization, identity based on 'claim' has little merit over straight physical evidence.

And by accepting the transgender children into the traditional scout group obviously creates confusion within its own system since the perspective of 'gender' contradicts the definition set up previously.

@chilaxe

What does this video have to do AT ALL with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?! Nothin.

So why don't you "chilax" with all your "cognitive complexity" master race, jingoist, racist, segregationist rhetoric.

Immigration by non-whites ≠ Socialism

You're scapegoating on minorities cause dim to understand something as cognitively complex as: helping other human beings.


And just FYI, Randall Parkers racist, jingoist, segregationist tirades from a collection of opinion articles entitled - Immigration Societal Decay - DOES NOT qualify as "evidence" of marxist communist EVIIIL socialist experiments in the US.. or anywhere for that matter.



..you old racist ass, anti-multiculturist bigot.