From the Mitt Romney super pac.

The establishment is going bat shit crazy.

The saddest part of all this is that the establishment created the environment for Trump to be, by not doing what the people wanted them to do and that is stand up and fight the left, but they caved.

I had some nostalgia fever recently and ran across these "Let's Compare" videos a day before seeing your Pac-Man homebrew submission, so I had to post this.

Had you not seen that channel before? Between YouTube and emulators it's fun to revisit the old favourites, and the ones you may have missed. Can you guess which company I was a fan of way back when?

Almost forgot to mention I had that Pac-Man table top game they show at the end.

I had Pac-Man fever back then.

Also, http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgeSfaLXS8Macm3ddzYF_wg is rad.

Dude, you need to chill. Have some weed or a glass of wine or something. The pot legalisation will work itself out over time. Once enough rich people realise how much cash is in it, it'll become an industry with lobbyists. Maybe Snoop should start a super PAC.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Its almost impossible to change things at the federal level. Citizen's United MUST be repealed. It is possible. It has to be done at the state level and we need a lot more states to get on board. Outside of Wash D.C. Its almost impossible to find anyone who agrees with Citizen's United, which is why you can get traction with this on the state level.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

There ARE things we can still do... Does anyone really think that will be the case in 10 years?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pixels, retro, games, arcades, Pac Man, Puck Man, Donkey Kong, trailer, preview, attacks' to 'Pixels, Arcade, Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Trailer, Adam Sandler, Peter Dinklage' - edited by Sagemind

Bob,
What color is the sky in your universe? I'm curious, because we obviously live in different planets or planes of existence.
You really need to stop getting your information from right wing nutjobs. They mislead you at every turn, obvious from your comments. I disagree with every single 'point' you made, and your numbers are silly, because they completely, intentionally ignore super PACs which is what Republicans used for funding, and also claims some people gave $74million directly to the democratic party/candidates, which is completely illegal and didn't happen.
Fail.

Your video, paid for by-the fight against the super pac and dark money, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@dannym3141

Broadly speaking, I tend to subscribe to the view that capitalism is the worst economic system anyone ever invented, except for all the others. There are plenty of problems with it but also practical solutions that could be implemented. Pining for a better system is great, but this quasi-vague revolution that Brand is espousing is as almost guaranteed to be as direction-less and short lived as the Occupy movement.

Take campaign finance reform, of what I'm familiar the Mayday PAC in the US is proposing a voucher system where either (1) each voter is given and limited to a set amount tax refund they can spend on campaign contributions or alternatively (2) there is public finance for something like a 10 to 1 matching system for smaller donations. That seems like a good solution to the problem. It's not perfect though, as speech via the media (TV, internet) would still be wielded disproportionately by those with power. But it's a start. More transparency on where donations are coming from would also help.

I'm no fan of inequality either, but it's a far more difficult issue to grapple with. If you approach it with taxes, the problem is you need global coordination. A single country raising taxes will just see incomes shift elsewhere particular the highest percent who are the most mobile. There needs to be some kind of standard on taxation globally as to whether it is incurred where it is earned or where the company is registered, otherwise you have companies like Apple paying next to nothing because they avoid it in both countries (known as the double Irish, although this has now been eliminated it's a good example).

Should investment income be taxed higher? Probably, I'm not too well informed on this subject but it certainly entrenches established wealth. Should there be an estate-like tax of sorts that limits wealth passed on through generations? Perhaps, but it seems like a band-aid of sorts and a double dipping on what should really be collected through income tax in the first place.

I'm all for public services where it makes sense to provide them publicly. I don't like political cronyism either. But solutions need to be practical. Eliminating tax avoidance by multinationals is good policy because otherwise these companies paying virtually no tax intrinsically sets up barriers to entry to smaller competitors which is terrible economically and leads to monopolistic behaviour and higher prices. Targeting finance with a specific tax probably isn't. Business will just shift globally and countries like the UK will lose out more than they gain.

There are serious problems with Sommers video. If anyone hasn't seen it yet, watch it here.

Basically, her argument is "I looked at some literature (I'm not going to tell you what though) and I concluded there is no misogyny in gaming. You can trust me because I call myself a Feminist."

That's called "appeal to authority" and it's a logical fallacy.

The hugely ironic thing is that anti-Sarkeesian people are constantly going on about Sarkeesian is not qualified to critique games because she only played some of the games she talks about in the videos and watched YouTube game footage of the rest. Yet Sommers admits in the start of this video that she hasn't played video games since Pac Man in the 80s! By anti-Sarkeesian standards, she's even less qualified to talk about games than Sarkeesian is.

But that doesn't stop people who don't like Sarkeesian from trotting out this video as some supposedly magical proof that Sarkeesian's arguments have been debunked.

He supports your voice having more weight regardless the cause, be it the end of the state, following the Constitution, or whatever. Lessig is a lefty but the PAC is designed to give any influential politician, party-be-damned, incentive to fight the influence of money in politics.

When only money is heard in Washington, I'll take any hope I can get. If I'm too partisan to rally behind the cause of my own voice, there really is no reason for politicians to listen.

Congratulations! Your video, Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution, 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 5 Badge!

I'm having a real problem putting my thoughts into words. I would feel a union has most of it's member's values presented for the most part. If a union leader really started acting contrary to the rank and file, he'd be voted out.

"Citizens United" -and PACs in general- however, from what I've been able to figure out, is a CEO donating "for his employees", but a CEO working contrary to his employee's wishes is commonplace, dare I say expected? As long as he has the blessing of the Board and Shareholders, his position is fixed.

I would think a union is closer to having its member's welfare in mind than a CEO. I have less a problem with a union (mass of people) controlling a government, than Corporations (a couple dozen people) controlling it.

One question in Citizens United v. FEC was "what constitutes a campaign contribution?" Michael Moore had just made an anti Bush film, and decided to personally pay to run ads for his film just before an election. The ruling was basically that Michael Moore had just made a campaign contribution. That is, if David Koch's PAC had made a documentary about Obama's birth certificate and ran a bunch of ads for just before the election, that's effectively giving a campaign contribution as well.

Whether the campaign spent the money, or someone spent the money on behalf of the campaign, it didn't matter. An ad is an ad, and ads cost money. However, if you extend this logic, nobody can produce any positive or negative media about a candidate during the election run-up. That is, the NYT couldn't run a photo of Barry O smiling on the front page. That sort of exposure has value, and would thus constitute a contribution. Otherwise, what would stop me from producing a huge pile of fliers with smiling candidates on them and dropping them from my helicopters?

This is how we end up running up against free speech. Personally, I don't think we should put those kinds of restrictions on media. People will always play games, and find ways of couching themselves as other forms of protected media in order to keep funneling huge sums of money into biased political messages. That's just how it works. But I'm not comfortable limiting political speech, least of all around an election run up. The risk for unintended consequences is too high.