Thanks Lucky. It took me about 5 minutes after registering before good ol' Siftbot banned me. Off to a good start, I suppose.

Anyways.

I've been lurking around for a year shy of a decade here on the sift. Never felt compelled to sign up, but I think the time has come to give something back by sharing interesting videos. Documentaries, music, stuff like that.

It got me...I was like why is she so shy?
To dress like that and be ....me?

What I like is the dog doesn't show any of the typical signs of abusive training. Shying away, cringing, lethargy.

I stick to people who believe in America.

Voodoo the fetus that got away from the abortionist.


You can stand with Pedophile Bill and criminal Hillary or an a bum named Bernie who never had a real job till he was 40,


http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-the-bum-who-wants-your-money/


Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money


2016: Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Monday his parents would never have thought their son would end up in the Senate and running for president. No kidding. He was a ne’er-do-well into his late 30s.

“It’s certainly something that I don’t think they ever believed would’ve happened,” the unabashed socialist remarked during CNN’s Democratic town hall forum, as polls show him taking the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.


He explained his family couldn’t imagine his “success,” because “my brother and I and Mom and Dad grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, and we never had a whole lot of money.”

It wasn’t as bad as he says. His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.


“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

Kinda sorta, but it's pretty safe to assume that the gov has a finger in every pie somehow. I do think, however, that the inspiration for this latest move has come from the companies though, not the gov. China has never been shy with the stick over the years, I reckon it's the money makers that talked them around to letting the sheep herd themselves.

@oritteropo:

The video definitely answers some questions:

1. She goes to an arts school and was able to do "anything" for her final project. No dig to her, but there's some privileged shit right there.


2. She's not super attractive, but she's cute and obviously very extroverted, friendly, and undoubtedly popular. If I was a shy nerd and was confronted by her (and probably having seen her be this way before in the halls), I'd definitely be skeptical and assume she was being an asshole to me.


3. Regardless, she does seem pretty genuine.


4. God damn, college art kids are annoying with all their "wow, I'm so laid back I fucking curse all the fucking time for no fucking reason or some shit. Fuck."

Writing: All of these shows are what we might call 'clever,' which is generally a big selling point for me. Unexpected, heavily layered, structurally complex writing for comedic effect - a lot of recursive, iteratively growing humor. They're all also quite big on dialogue, and are comparatively 'dark'.

Themes: All of them also feature self-destructive and dysfunctional characters, to different degrees. In addition to this:

Rick & Morty: Does brilliant deconstruction of science fiction concepts without a condescending outside perspective. An amazing example is (spoilers) the time that Rick makes Cronenbergs of the entire global population, or the time that Morty's indecisiveness creates split quantum timelines.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5A5Mb__fiA

Always Sunny: Never shies away from exploring the darkest consequences of its incredibly self-absorbed, idiotic, low attention span, high energy, self-destructive cast.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_49P1RtqU0

Arrested Development: ...I'm not good at writing these synopses; I just wanted to see if I could figure out why I love these shows so much. Anyway, Arrested Development is the most heavily layered of all of them, so in just a few episodes it builds up an incredible library of call-backs, double meanings, etc. It's also less abrasive than the other two, if you have something against offensive shows.

...I don't know if there any good example scenes. You should just watch it.

Maybe. I think I'm more 'once bitten, twice shy', and just trying to help some people not get bitten.
Some people were totally open about their LSD experiences in the 60's-70's, and claimed it helped them in their fields. I can't find when Francis Crick is said to have admitted it, but it sounds like it was in the 70's if not earlier. As I see it, LSD was seen back then in near the same light DMT is today...relatively unstudied and often miss-used as an illicit hardcore 'recreational' drug.

FBI? Fairly Bothered by Intoxicants? Certainly not! Just extra wary of certain ones. ;-)

The intent was more to suggest that religion gets a free pass, because everyone is so fucking afraid to offend people's crybaby sensitivities. Like, look how much bullshit we keep hearing about, and the irreparable damage that's doubtless being done to countless of our youth, all the crazy tax breaks from the scam artists, etc., and nobody wants to raise the question asking what the fuck is going on in the religious communities. Everyone's fine talking about guns, but they shy away from this brainwashed bullshit. It's fucking retarded.

Awww.. he's a bit shy at first!

That was good.

I might disagree with Obama's near-blanket statement at the end - "government (at large) works better than when I came into office".

That's a hard statement to evaluate because government is a BIG thing. I think that the portion that he is responsible for (Executive branch) definitely works better than it did under Bush (which, to be fair, isn't saying much). The Judicial branch just made a hugely positive wave with the ruling on gay marriage, so I'd tick their "better than before" box also.

But the Legislative branch is a complete f*cking disaster. To be fair (again, on the other side), Obama technically has no control over that. But still, with Congress being such a complete and total epic fail, I take issue with the "government works better than when I came into office" quote.

I don't see how things can improve much, shy of taking a mulligan and replacing every last Senator and Representative.

...Hey, maybe Obama should have let Iran have *1* nuke, so long as they.... /sarcasm

He's one slur shy of being the Mr. Plinkett of the home improvement world.

That is freaking phenomenal! I've been an athlete my whole life and have just shy of 50 years on that boss... not sure i could do that if my life depended on it.

@newtboy,

How about great big citation needed. Your making a lot of assertions and about zero references to back anything, your just one step shy of claiming because I say so as your proof.

The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap.
Citation required.

your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets
The abstract is only a paragraph and the charliem gave the link up thread, just go and read it already, they did numerical estimates AFTER going in and directly measuring the actual affects. And I must additionally add, it's not MY link but was instead the ONLY claimed evidence in thread of your catastrophic methane release.

Let me start us off, the IPCC once again summarizes your problem as follows:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

There are caveats prior to the above quote about unknowns and uncertainty and the possibility the affects will be less or more, but the consensus is, don't panic. Like I said.

As for bringing that person from 1915 in today, you don't get to tell them the environment will be destroyed 100 years from 2015 in the year 2100 as a result. You have to prove that first, which you have merely asserted, not proven. On the other hand, my evidence was bringing our visitor from the past showing them the year 2015, and the consequences of rising global temperatures by 0.8C since his time in 1915. Then I say we ask him if abandoning coal power, airplanes, satellites, and cars to prevent that warming is a better alternate future he should go back and sell the people of 1915 on. I'm thinking that's gonna be a hard sell. I'm additionally pointing out that the IPCC projections for the next 100 years is 1.5C warmer than today, so we'll be going up by 1.5 instead of the 0.8 our visitor from the past had to choose. The trick is, I don't see how you can claim that panic should be the natural and clear response. You need a lot more evidence, which as stated above you've failed to provide, and more over what you've posited is contrary to the science as presented by researchers like those at the IPCC.

It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates.
citation needed.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
citation needed, and you need to tie it to human CO2 and not human guns and violence creating the misery.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
citation needed

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions...
, says you. If you don't use any evidence to refute me it's still called your opinion...

That's what's left on the table, isn't it? I'd divide the exit option into orderly and disorderly, but the core of it remains the same.

Yet we have to keep in mind, Syriza was elected on a program diametrically opposed to the troika demands. And an EZ exit is equally far outside its mandate. Not to mention that a significant portion of Syriza is made up of former PASOK supporters, who would need a whole lot of convincing to vote for an EZ exit.

A referendum sounds decent enough, but they should have a strategy in place for the post-EZ time. Merely getting rid of the Euro won't get them out of the shit. In fact, I'd argue that a clear strategy is an absolute neccessity to even get a "favorable" outcome from any referendum. The public needs to have a clear picture of what awaits them behind any choice they might be presented with.

For starters, they should be perfectly clear about what it would take to get the Greek economy started again. Greece has very little to offer at this time, so every effort must be made to improve the domestic market. Plans for rebuilding its productive base should be worked out prior to any referendum. Industrial policy spanning at least 5-10 years would be needed.

Question is: can a non-EZ Greece muster up enough political capital to run the vast fiscal programs required to pull the economy out of the shitter? Or would they be stuck with a recessionary focus on balanced budgets, just like the rest of us?

In any case, within the constraints of a monetary union with neo-mercantilist Germany, Greece will not get the fiscal expansion it needs and will remain a shithole, just shy of a failed state.