Why the hell does every awesome BBC series need to be re-narrated by an American when it is released over here? I'll take Attenborough over Oprah, Sigourney, and Alec every time.

Do tell how I can hold google "accountable" in any meaningful sense. It's near impossible for me to avoid using their services. Hell, I don't even give them one cent directly and they still make billions.

As @NetRunner said, I don't want something as important as free speech left to the market to decide.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....

One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.

Political capital is much harder to gain for smaller issues. Law maintenance is a much harder order than terms of service. You can quit youtube anytime you want, you can't quit the FCC, or alcohol prohibition. If you are looking for easy, I suggest a different planet. The only things you get in this life are the things you fight to preserve, no amount of laws or terms of service will keep you safe over time, only vigilance.

Large corporate powers and political capital work by the same basic rules, I am just against a monopoly on the control of that power...I don't think it gets us what we all want. Really, we are arguing about crumbs under the table. All the videos gone from youtube still exist somewhere else. If Google starts acting evil on a wide scale, people can abandon it for some other site (I can name 6 off the top of my head). I would argue the out cropping of lots of different video sites is a safer way to prevent censorship than the FCC, which has a legendary record of censorship in the US...in fact, they are the face of censorship for most everyday Americans.

Once again, I am not proposing perfection, just a good imperfection that has its own very troubling problems. We all choose what failures we are willing to deal with, and for me, the trouble of dealing with a corporate body which I can choose not to partake in is a more agreeable situation (do you have a life after google solution, I do, I have a life after windows as well). I do concede a great threat by those who own nearly everything, undermining that ability to have options, lucky for us, with the internet we don't have to worry about that as much (the internet becomes unfathomable larger everyday).

TL;DR It isn't the ends I am against, it is the means.


</rant>
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....

One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.

Right, because raising a popular movement against billion-dollar corporations any time they engage in censorship is much simpler than just maintaining a law on the books that says "communications companies can't limit people's free speech" and enforcing it...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....

One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.


Right, because raising a popular movement against billion-dollar corporations any time they engage in censorship is much simpler than just maintaining a law on the books that says "communications companies can't limit people's free speech" and enforcing it...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....


One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.

>> ^StukaFox:

Why do we not get this damn program on BBC America?


What do you guys get? My boyfriend told me that his BBC America channel has been replaced with the Oprah channel, which is awfully cruel and cracked me up

Wow, I am a bit taken aback by your soft and somewhat flattering response. When I first saw the email that said you had quoted me I braced myself for the typical QM "both barrels" response. Thank you for surprising me.

As far as what social economic system is better than another I would suggest that pure capitalism would likely also fail. History has shown us that when too few have too much and too many have too little the many take drastic steps to redistribute the wealth themselves. Look at the history of Europe.

The human element adds uncertainty and chaos to any system and subsequently all systems are inherently flawed. That is why there are regulating bodies that are meant to enforce the will of the people. When the regulations or those who enforce them are negatively interfered with, society either in part or as a whole, must fail.

I pay about 32% income tax and from what I can figure that number rises to more than 50% when you factor in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Despite this burden I do very well so if a portion of these taxes are going to help some person from a poor household to get a better education or it provides care for an elderly person who has no means to support themselves, or even if it goes to the rehabilitation of a young prostitute with a meth addiction I am okay with that. Better roads, better schools, better hospitals, law enforcement, fire protection, it is in support of these socialistically supported things and more that I accept the reduction of half of my earned income.

There will always be people who get what they don't deserve but for the sake of those that do deserve our help I think that we must accept that.
<Insert the clichéd “bad apples” quote here.>

If my contribution can give one person the chance to change their future like I did it is worth it to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.
I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?
I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.

Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...

The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.

Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?

I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.

Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?

I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.










>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

And yet, it still seems to be what the home viewers want to hear =P.
>> ^EMPIRE:

And... is Oprah becoming even more of a moron every passing day?
"I actually do believe that when you loved somebody and they've loved you, that you end up with an angel who's name that you know"
First of all, the last part of that sentence doesn't even make sense.
Secondly... WTF is she on? Who told you that Oprah? Was it god? Was it the angels? Was that on the bible? Are you the prophet now? Or was it Tom Cruise who told you that?
Sheesh... I can't stand this kind of stupid. You know what I mean. This new age-spiritual-the-secret-celestine-prophecy-astrology type of fucking utter feces.
Even Mike Tyson went: "I don't know Oprah..."

>> ^spaceman:

Up vote for David Attenborough and not Operah Winfrey.


Oprah Winfrey? You referring to the round gall?

Youtube's automated Closed Captioning said "You've only got a few days to stop Oprah."

Oprah goes off the air like a boss!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Oprah's 9000 penises ☺♥♂ ✔ pedobear remix ♬. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

According to Steve Salemo's book Sham (ISBN 978-1400054091), a good read btw, he has described himself as the world's worst marriage counsellor (which was his job prior to becoming Oprah's guru, although the Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia article doesn't mention that at all).
>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
(Not Really A) Dr. Phil is a pompous asshole.
Thanks a lot, Oprah.

He's not a Dr?? Well what the fuck is he then?