According to her wikipedia bio, she is a trust funder that inherited her riches from daddy and has never had to engage in any kind of difficult labor in the entirety of her life. >> ^oritteropo:

She is Executive Chairman of Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited, and is known for being totally ruthless with companies wanting to do business with her.
She could have chosen not to work and still led a fairly comfortable life, but didn't and has become obscenely rich as a result.
I'm pretty sure that Marie Antoinette never actually offered cake, either, but wasn't there to personally verify this (in either case).
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
So a woman who has never worked a day in her life or earned a wage is asking others to work harder for less. At least Marie Antoinette offered cake. This beast appears to be made of cake.

She is Executive Chairman of Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited, and is known for being totally ruthless with companies wanting to do business with her.

She could have chosen not to work and still led a fairly comfortable life, but didn't and has become obscenely rich as a result.

I'm pretty sure that Marie Antoinette never actually offered cake, either, but wasn't there to personally verify this (in either case).
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So a woman who has never worked a day in her life or earned a wage is asking others to work harder for less. At least Marie Antoinette offered cake. This beast appears to be made of cake.

obscene production values for a water squirt prank

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

Have you ever taken the time to look at what the apologists/"sophisticated theologists" of today are on about? Because they do not leave out the OT, even in its worst aspects: http://videosift.com/video/The-Obscenity-of-Christianity-or-Pro-Life

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Thomas Jefferson (on the concept of Trinity)

@shinyblurry

I never said Ryan was an intellectual lightweight. Are you projecting your own fears again? Ryan is Palin lite in the sense that the Romney campaign knows it is losing so once again, they're making a risky gamble. Just like Palin was a gamble.

I also never said big gov't was the solution. Again, you seem to be projecting. Besides, it's funny how selective the right is about big gov't. they don't seem to mind a obscenely large military budget and they don't seem to mind gov't intruding on reproductive rights and issues of sexual orientation.

Gov't efficiency has nothing to do with size alone. big gov't can be inefficient and so can small. just because you cut the size of gov't doesn't magically make it efficient. on the other end of the spectrum, you've got a gov't that doesn't have the resources to do what they need to do..hence inefficiency and people get pissed when needed services are cut. Instead of this knee jerk, one-trick pony of small gov't. Efficient gov't actually has to do with compromise, and intelligence. Two things the right doesn't seem to be interested in.

your problems with big gov't has nothing to do with actual efficiency, it's about ideology.

That's the problem with Romney's campaign:

Romney: I'm running on my business experience, but we can't discuss my business experience. I'm also picking a VP that is notable only because of his budget...a budget I disagree with.

Ryan is a desparate attempt to rally the tea party. Problem is, the tea party isn't as big as they think they are. add to that Romney and his VP pick have this pesky effect of rallying the independents and women and moderates against them.

Doubling down and going further right isn't going to win the election. It didn't last time.

I don't know why you posted that video @shinyblurry as the video contradicts your point. There is no dismantling of the AHA (grow up and call it by it's proper name you fucking child) Ryan agreed there needs to be reform and he appears to have put forth some legitimate concerns. But there is no dismantling, If he wants to fix parts of AHA, then more power to him

My point was to contradict your claim that Paul Ryan is a "Sarah Palin lite". Yes, he did dismantle a primary rationale behind Obamacare which is that health care reform is budget reform. Ryan clearly demonstrated that it is exactly the opposite as Obamacare uses shady accounting practices and steals nearly a trillion dollars from Medicare to fund itself. It is a disaster for our budget, creating another gigantic government entitlement when we can't afford the ones we have.

Healthcare should not be a for-profit system. Gov't has a vested interest in keeping its citizens healthy and happy. It's one thing to take care of our doctors and reward them for their service and knowledge. It's another to make them and the insurance companies obscenely wealthy at the cost of our well-being.

We are both agreed that the system as it is is broken and needs reforming. We are disagreeing that bigger government is the answer.

Funny how your video conveniently cuts off Obama's response. Too afraid of the opposition I see.

The video had nothing to do with the argument, only to counter your point that Paul Ryan is some sort of intellectual light weight.

Dismantling AHA is going backwards. AHA is here. Deal with it, you and your Insurance lobbyist pals lost. You have some legitimate concerns? Great..awesome. I know some Republicans who have actual rational concerns and they ought to be addressed so you don't even have united support against the AHA even in your own ranks. Republicans don't fall in line with your warped ideology anymore. And when Romney loses in November I hope the adults of your party take it back from the mental midgets who refuse to have an adult conversation and bet against this nation.

I'm an independent and I don't endorse everything the republican party does. They agree more with my values since the far left took over the democratic party, but I have actually supported democrats, both locally and nationally, in the past.

If you think Obamas re-election is in the bag then you are in denial of reality. Obama is showing some very poor numbers in many polls, and if he does win, it will be by the skin of his teeth.

Ryan wants to gut medicare. Thanks for gift-wrapping Florida for Obama.

Romney has gone public with the fact that he isn't necessarily embracing all of the elements of the Ryan plan, but will introduce his own plan. That includes medicare:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/internal-talking-points-romney-will-push-his-own-budget-proposalnot-paul-ryans-plan/




>> ^VoodooV

I don't know why you posted that video @shinyblurry as the video contradicts your point. There is no dismantling of the AHA (grow up and call it by it's proper name you fucking child) Ryan agreed there needs to be reform and he appears to have put forth some legitimate concerns. But there is no dismantling, If he wants to fix parts of AHA, then more power to him.

Healthcare should not be a for-profit system. Gov't has a vested interest in keeping its citizens healthy and happy. It's one thing to take care of our doctors and reward them for their service and knowledge. It's another to make them and the insurance companies obscenely wealthy at the cost of our well-being.

Funny how your video conveniently cuts off Obama's response. Too afraid of the opposition I see.

Dismantling AHA is going backwards. AHA is here. Deal with it, you and your Insurance lobbyist pals lost. You have some legitimate concerns? Great..awesome. I know some Republicans who have actual rational concerns and they ought to be addressed so you don't even have united support against the AHA even in your own ranks. Republicans don't fall in line with your warped ideology anymore. And when Romney loses in November I hope the adults of your party take it back from the mental midgets who refuse to have an adult conversation and bet against this nation.

Ryan wants to gut medicare. Thanks for gift-wrapping Florida for Obama.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I hate this whole rape-is-terrible-so-let-make-no-jokes-about-it. It's really annoying, insulting, and fucking stupid.
Yes, rape is terrible. So are many other things used for comedic effect: murder, racism, etc.
No one is allowed to demand SHIT from comedy. Take it or leave it.
Making a joke about something bad does not mean you condone it, in the slightest.


Two big differences between rape and murder: First, the victims of murder are usually dead, so they're unlikely to be sitting in your audience when you make a murder joke. Second, murder rates (in the United States, at least) are much lower than rape rates.

About 18% of American women have been raped. If you're a comedian performing in front of a large audience, realize that it is highly likely there are members of your audience who have experienced rape. And for many people, that shit is seriously traumatic. Does this mean comedians should avoid rape jokes? No. It's possible to tell rape jokes that aren't re-traumatizing to victims. Louis CK's joke about how there are no good reasons to rape someone except really wanting to have sex with them is clearly not a joke mocking rape victims (or potential rape victims). The humor comes from the ridiculousness of Louis's on-stage persona: Here's a guy saying something that starts out sounding reasonable but then qualifies it with something obviously ridiculous. It is the rapist's sense of entitlement, rather than the rape victim, being mocked.

This is not what Tosh's "joke" was like. Besides being infinitely less funny, it was targeted at the woman in the audience. Most of the people laughing weren't thinking "Ha ha, Tosh is saying something so obviously stupid." They were thinking "Ha ha, that bitch just got told." Tosh was asserting his dominance over this silly humorless heckler. That kind of rape joke -- where the premise of the joke is "Isn't it funny when bitchy women get raped?" -- is seriously re-traumatizing to a lot of victims.

Comedians have mastered this bullshit where telling offensive jokes and not backing down is a badge of pride. That shit was brave when Lenny Bruce was doing it, because he was purposefully challenging the ridiculousness of obscenity laws. Comedians aren't being thrown in jail for telling offensive jokes anymore. If your joke is offensive in the service of making a serious point, or even if it's just really really funny, I think you have a license to be somewhat offensive. But lionizing offensiveness for its own sake is nonsense. Tosh's joke wasn't funny and it didn't make any useful point. Obviously I'm not suggesting (nor is anyone as far as I'm aware) that he should be legally punished somehow for making the joke. His critics are just saying he's an inconsiderate asshole for making it. Why are people so upset about that?

Even if the commercial was successful in attracting more girls to science, it wouldn't do much to increase the number of women scientists. For the most part, the problem isn't that women aren't interested in the sciences, it's that there are obscene levels of attrition among females moving from undergrad, to grad school, to postdoctoral work, to assistant professor or industry positions, to tenured professor or high ranking industry positions. The gender disparity in some fields, such as engineering, is still great at the undergraduate level, but for science as a whole the bigger problem is that women who want to be scientists drop out before they reach the higher levels:
www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

You're missing the point of this video. He never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Reich, while he was Labor Secretary under Clinton, is currently part of Common Cause. As it slogan says, Holding Power Accountable. Similar to Lawrence Lessig and Change Congress / RootStrikers, they want to lessen the corporate influence on politics to bring it back to a government for the people. Reich is pointing out the flaws in legally allowing companies like Bain Capital to do what they do and profit excessively from it.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All you really need to know is that its a Robert Reich video to know to throw it in the trash where it belongs. It is such a dumbed down, simplistic 'unnuanced' (to use a leftist term) interpretation. Aw - and he even uses cartoons.
I see a lot of pontification, and moralizing, and oh-so-much self-righteous indignation. This kind of business practice is perfectly legal, and it is engaged in by Democrats and liberals all the time, but somehow only Romney is to blame of course. :eyeroll: Typical. As usual, its an election year hit piece used to angry up the blood of the ignorant and the stupid.
You guys act like firing people is some sort of horrible thing that should never never never be done. I know leftists are blindingly ignorant and uninformed of how things are in the "real world" rather than thier fevered imaginations... But companies have to fire people all the time. In fact, if they don't fire people then they become bloated, cumbered, over-saturated dinosaurs that get annihilated by thier competitors. I notice that even the moronic Robert Reich freely admits that the process makes the business work better and more profitable. No one likes to be fired, but as the years go buy companies build up headcount, and as time goes on there are jobs that become obsolete, tasks that are redundant, and processes that are inefficient. Tightening the screws is healthy. It is how companies survive and thrive.
I myself was a casualty of a "downsizing" a few years ago. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You brush up your resume, get out and hustle, and find a new job. Only in the tortured, idiotic mindset of a liberals does it make any sense that all jobs should be permenant and unending. Grow up people.

Congratulations! Your video, How Did Mitt Romney Get So Obscenely Rich?, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 9 Badge!

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

But... but... they CREATE jobs!


I know you're being sarcastic (thanks little pastel coloured box!), but I'm starting to think this might be one of the core issues with the economy.
We've always had a rich elite, but at least they used to be industrialists. Yeah, they paid people a lousy wage for awful and dangerous working conditions (despite the fact that "union" seems to be a dirty word these days, where do you think you got sick leave, holiday pay or even weekends?) but at least they employed a lot of people.

It seems to me that these days there's a whole sub class of the wealthy that make money just pushing money around in ways like this. Their profits are huge and they employ comparatively few.

Here's the source.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

courtesy of these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

Those numbers don't tell the entire story though.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not that I am a huge fan of those who horde wealth, but its just a bare fact that the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of all of the income tax in this country..the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of that. The bottom 50 percent pays all of 3 percent. So you really can't say they aren't paying their fair share.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not that I am a huge fan of those who horde wealth, but its just a bare fact that the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of all of the income tax in this country..the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of that. The bottom 50 percent pays all of 3 percent. So you really can't say they aren't paying their fair share.


Wow!....Really?... I'm with Payback. I'm calling you out on that.

Because 87% of statistics are made up on the spot... Just not mine...