>> ^Asmo:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I never understood why she had to be so rude on the show. Ruined it for me. And it's ruined her reputation here in the UK as a TV presenter, as everyone now thinks of her as a sarcastic bitch who ruins game shows by being needlessly antagonistic and hostile towards the contestants instead of a reasoned and intelligent current affairs presenter with a twinkle in her eye, as she was formerly.

It's the character in the show, they are meant to be mean...
eg. Aus version (which came out after the US version) has a woman that resembles Anne Robinson in both demeanour and attitude (not to mention red head + stern glasses).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlfQGWz1c8
(watch from 2.15)
I know that, but you see it was Anne Robinson's idea to present the show this way. She never used to be like this.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I never understood why she had to be so rude on the show. Ruined it for me. And it's ruined her reputation here in the UK as a TV presenter, as everyone now thinks of her as a sarcastic bitch who ruins game shows by being needlessly antagonistic and hostile towards the contestants instead of a reasoned and intelligent current affairs presenter with a twinkle in her eye, as she was formerly.


It's the character in the show, they are meant to be mean...

eg. Aus version (which came out after the US version) has a woman that resembles Anne Robinson in both demeanour and attitude (not to mention red head + stern glasses).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlfQGWz1c8
(watch from 2.15)

Either this comment is missing the sarcasm box tick or you seriously missed the point, as well as misread the title.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^hpqp:
True, but the Bible does have its say on the matter:
Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."
Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."
Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."
Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.">> ^Morganth:
"Spare the rod, spoil the child" isn't actually in the Bible - it comes from a poem by Samuel Butler.


So we agree it (the bible) is not necessarily saying to go overboard on your child...and the concept of rod means different things to different people (And meant something entirely different 2K years ago.) I don't spare the rod on my children, but I have never once abused them. I have used a stern voice that hurt their feelings, a rare spank on their rump, and the dreaded time out. Of course the times I hug and tell them how great they are vastly outweighs the number of disciplines...
And I like how you named this post, "Spare the rod...or spoil the child." The "or" is what notes the tolerance you are developing towards religion--as though religion is not particularly responsible for this child's death...but sick, fucked up parents are to blame. Considering there are about 62 thousand cases of child abuse in Russia every year, I would agree with you.
You should read A Boy Called It...very heartrending...

>> ^hpqp:

True, but the Bible does have its say on the matter:
Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."
Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."
Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."
Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.">> ^Morganth:
"Spare the rod, spoil the child" isn't actually in the Bible - it comes from a poem by Samuel Butler.



So we agree it (the bible) is not necessarily saying to go overboard on your child...and the concept of rod means different things to different people (And meant something entirely different 2K years ago.) I don't spare the rod on my children, but I have never once abused them. I have used a stern voice that hurt their feelings, a rare spank on their rump, and the dreaded time out. Of course the times I hug and tell them how great they are vastly outweighs the number of disciplines...

And I like how you named this post, "Spare the rod...or spoil the child." The "or" is what notes the tolerance you are developing towards religion--as though religion is not particularly responsible for this child's death...but sick, fucked up parents are to blame. Considering there are about 62 thousand cases of child abuse in Russia every year, I would agree with you.

You should read A Boy Called It...very heartrending...

@westy

Yes nearly every business tries to game the system that's the point of capitalism and that's why it will always fail ( im not on about simply ballencing your books and deprecaiting assets and playing that sytem , evan though that is gamed in the same way) I'm on about the system at large , surely you can see the difference between a butcher and a company that offers high interest loans to desperate people , when instead of offering the loan the ethical thing would be for them to tell them to contact citizens advice ?

I don't think capitalism (by which I mean a regulated but moderately free market) will fail as (at least so far) it's provided the best manner of funneling people's naturally selfish/nepotistic tendencies in a productive way.

Let's be clear here, generally brokers were responsible for writing subprime loans with botched (or outright false) assessments of income and capacity to pay. These brokers were essentially gaming the investment banks (like Bear Sterns) into buying fraudulent securitised loans. Bear Sterns along with Lehman Brothers didn't survive and many other banks got taken over. There was clear motivation for them to perform more due diligence and they paid for their mistakes by going bankrupt or being taken over. The credit rating agencies and the insurers who backed CDOs also had poor judgement. My point is, the people who benefited from writing these bad loans weren't the banks.

thats the piont im making , you can have companies that game the system but also privde a service but the people that have caused this economic crisis are people that are at the pinicale of gaming the system and do not care to provide a service and purely participate to game the system purely exist to make money at whatever cost to society.

They're not gaming the system if they're going bankrupt. You know as well as I do that banks borrow money from those with savings and selectively lend them out to generally good investments thus creating economic growth and jobs. Let's not get carried away with populism here.

luckily we have people that are ethical and don't just think of the profit bottom line , but in general you will see that a good proportion of those successful at business and profiting are ones that couldn't give a shit about other people or there effect on the environment.

The difference between the butcher and a large financial institution is size. If this was a national specialty chain business, you can bet that they would be lobbying their congressman and receiving favors and payouts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for crony capitalism and I understand that banks weild considerable leverage over the economy and politicians. They should be more regulated commensurate to their significance and intractability with the economy, particularly shadow banking system (securitisation of loans and credit derivatives) should be regulated to prevent crises. This is a failure of regulation though, not a failure of banking in general. As I mentioned, every large industry/corporate body curries favors.

"Either way they are both pretty beneficial to a functioning economy"

so the bankers that turned a blind eye to the toxit assits were beneficail to the econimy ?

how about the lobiests and deregulation that made it possable ?
what about the real estate agents that knew the people they were selling the houses to could not maintain the mortgage?

What about the marketeers that designed the sales materail to obscure the mortgage rates to hide the fact that they would increase and specifcaly designed the brouchers and trained the sales teams to exploit unknowlageable people ?

No they weren't and many of their businesses went out of business. These are all issues of regulation. Corporations (as opposed to say partnerships) are by legal design geared towards maximising profit. If you come in with expectations that any corporation will not do this, you are making flawed assumptions.

"hedge funds don't gamble shares, they trade them based on discrepancies between actual price and fundamentals"

Defanitoin of Gambling from Wikipedia - "Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods."

something doesn't have to have unfavourable odds to be considered gambling for example there are many professional gamblers that make a living of horse betting , and in that exact same way there are many people that profestinaly gamble on the stock market , and I would argue that they are themselfs not providing a use to socity. I would however contrast that against sum-one that invests in a company because that company is doing good or employs many people or is developing beneficial technpligy.

the problem is in general capitalism in its current form is fucked , and i belive we need to move towards something that is what I would describe as a

"democratic socialist capitalist system" where we have as free a market as possable and that is achived through democratic regulation guided by socialist princapels. so you try to give every citizen as equal a chance as possible at having free will and succeeding in what they want to do.

the current system allows the top 10% fantastic freedom and chances but at the expense of the majorty of people.

It's not a wager of value, it's a transfer of value. Which is critically what makes it different from gambling. If you have agricultural produce and you want to hedge the risk that your harvest will go down in value when it comes to fruition, it's typically an investment bank/hedge fund/commercial bank that takes the counterparty position. Without someone taking that counterparty position, you couldn't eliminate your risk of a fall in prices. If someone buys a newly listed share of your company, they're contributing to your capacity to invest and pay wages. During the process of gambling before someone is declared the winner, there is no value being created. That's a pretty crucial difference. The main point is though that banking creates value, hopefully I've already illustrated that beforehand.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at the end, but as far as I'm concerned you should be resentful towards campaign finance rules. Instead, it's like trying to treat the symptom not the cause.

Sorry, but... the lawyer sent a stern letter??? It's lawsuit time baby! Loss of wages, loss of property, pain and suffering... the list could probably go on for quite a while! And Chase would have to settle. They look like idiots already! Maybe the stern letter included a suggested donation that would keep it out of court.

I don't know why they are even thinking about asking for or receiving an apology. It's just an admission of guilt. The bank would be stupid to apologize with anything other than a fat check and a non-disclosure agreement.

heh, if you think that's a long post to make a point, you should see my discussion with SDGundamX under this video http://videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-on-the-error-of-evenhandedness

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

>> ^handmethekeysyou:

Asking "what did I do?" is not "begging for it."
I understand why the cop got upset immediately. Guy got out of his car and started walking toward the officer with a hand in his pocket. Totally reasonable to react strongly to that. But by the 50th time when the cop told him to turn around and the guy was just asking what it was about, you'd think the cop would realize the guy isn't a threat.
Just answer the question, "what's this about?" And if you're not going to answer the question, say, "we'll discuss that in a minute, but for now just turn around and put your hands on your head." I'd say, "I pulled you over because of your license plate, but you started out acting like a threat. If you turn around and put your hands on your head, I assure you we'll walk away from this without a ticket or a problem." If the cop can't be expected to be the voice of reason, he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.
This was literally (rewatch it, precisely) three minutes of the cop saying "turn around and put your hands on your head" with smatterings of "do it now" and nothing else. That's not communication. That's ordering and tasering when your orders are not met. That's not law enforcement.>> ^smooman:
tasered 6 times for having a crooked license? thats not a misleading title at all!
what i saw was a dude get tasered 6 times for being a jackass
excuse me if i cant sympathize with a man who is practically begging for it



asking, no, demanding "what did i do?" is most assuredly "begging for it" given it's context.

You certainly have a strange reasoning in assuming a man who is utterly uncooperative, suspicious, erratic, and at times irate, is somehow not a perceivable threat.

"just answer the question"? jesus titty fucking christ do some people just have an abject lack of respect for judicial process? i'll let you be the one to leap out of your car on your next traffic stop and act surprised at the rate of escalation. Ya, the "voice of reason" certainly was working with the offender wasnt it? Guy gets pulled over, guy immediately gets out of car and approaches officer, guy is sternly and directly instructed to back the fuck up and at gunpoint even, guy refuses......ya thats a reasonable man right there

the only reason it was three minutes of "turn around and put your hands on your head" is because for three fucking minutes that asshat was overtly defiant and wholly uncooperative.

you know i hated authority too....then i graduated fucking high school

And I wouldn't call Howard Stern the press.

http://news.lalate.com/2011/06/16/benjy-bronk-from-howard-stern-show-disrupts-weiner-resignation/

This is a huge to do about nothing. There's stairs like that all over the world. the difference here is that they lead right to the courtroom of a clearly assertive and stern, female, judge.

I'm offended when she assumes that men specifically designed it just to look up women's skirts. Perhaps, but fat chance. It's just more American paranoia about sex and litigation.

Big deal. Down vote.

First person to put this in the cute channel gets skinned alive given a stern telling-off.