There's nothing a thousand times better in any How I Met Your Mother ending that comes after the 5th season.

It just went too long and got sloppy as hell, greed conquers all.

@lantern53
look at you waxing all philisophical!

prosperity gospel is NOT an interpretation though.
it is a gross twisting of the gospels.
it is "the secret" wearing the garments of jesus but lacking any substance or depth.a poetically laced corruption,lightly sprinkled with scripture to appeal to the most incurious and base of us,in order to continue the flavor of the decade:greed is good.

fuck those charlatans and pray for those who have bought their twisted theosophy.

He forgot the most important blow to the betamax: JVC licensed VHS, SONY refused to do it and wanted to take the whole video market as a monopoly. So VHS was available, in cheaper prices from multiple manufacturers and with ever increasing options while SONY and BetaMax had couple of models.. Not the first time SONY has lost something over greed, BluRay almost went with the same route (allthou there were several companies developing it from the start).

BetaMax cassette was 1h with the short play (and better quality), 2h with long play (later over 3h). Even on that machine he demonstrated.. The real reason for video cassette wars going for JVC was licensing and price dropped obviously with competition. But BetaMax was around almost for the entirety of video cassette history, collectors often wanted theirs in BetaMax for better sound and slightly better picture quality. Sound difference was noticeable, picture,, naah, not so much (i was there when this war happened...)

Sony was offered to join JVC before either had come out...

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

Asshole is a dish best served raw, eh??


"The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion."
-Bodhidharma

Yep.

Part of that is laziness/selfishness/greed, etc. but I bet that part of it is also a sense of helplessness or of being overwhelmed at the scale of the problem.

I don't sign internet petitions for anything anymore, because I believe them to be utterly useless as a means to affect change (see also "slacktivist" and "hashtagactivist" for equally useless activities)

Meaningful change is slow.

In some cases (like poverty) that's incredibly detrimental to those affected, but over time things will (hopefully) improve. Certainly humans are generally better off today than they were 100 years ago.

In other cases (like climate change), it's fucking catastrophic.

What's the solution? Damned if I know....

Wheelchair companies can suck it. Overpriced and ineffective.

Yeah, liberals totally HATE success. That's why we hate greed. Riiiiiiiight. (Yes, I AM projecting -- but for good reason.)

As if the benefit of all humanity equated to hating success.

@artician
because you are a fully actualized human being.
the majority of the western cultures have been berated under a cascade of distractions and so-called "entertainment" to further their devolution into little consumption machines...SQUIRREL!

when you attempt to understand someone from their perspective,through empathy and compassion,you begin to love them.this is a natural process which does not fit into the "us and them" paradigm.

the tools for violence and conflict are made flaccid and ineffectual.
religion.
nationalism.
become useless tools to manipulate.


understanding leads to love which leads to cooperation which only serves to undermine the interests of the powerful...so that can never be allowed.

it is the natural state of being that humans cooperate and work together but we,in the "developed" world,are taught that greed is good and selfishness is an admirable trait to pursue.

it is a spiritual cancer.

how ironic that those who live in the "under-developed" world are much more prone to share,cooperate and have a far more dynamic understanding of community.

the more i read your comments the more convinced i am that you are one righteous dude.
you are not alone.
the rising tide of resistance grows each and every day.
stay awesome my man.

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

@VoodooV
when i use the term "extreme nasty" i am not referring to a civil war but rather the american public finally reaching its boiling point.

it started bubbling with the tea party,and if people recall it was NOT the rabid christian rightwing fascist group it is today.
they had real grievances and rightly so.

but they got co-opted by private monies.

then occupy blew up and they too had real grievances and since the power elites could not co-opt them like the tea party they were systematically shut down by targeted governmental edict.

thanks Obama.

for years the poor and working poor were disenfranchised,made irrelevant in a political system that only used them as talking points to garner sympathy during an election cycle.

but now the middle class are finding themselves falling into the ranks of poor and working poor and ALL have been made irrelevant and inconsequential.

the american public has been kept in a constant state of fear for over 25 years.
fear of brown people.
fear of losing their job.
losing their house.
hell they even fear their own neighbors!

while the beautiful and poetic nationalism of american exceptionalism and ingenuity sound great,most americans are aware its all bullshit.
the political system is corrupt and sick on its own hubris and greed.

the american public know that this government no longer serves their interest.just look at the data.time and time again the public has a strong opinion on a subject and yet our elected officials vote to serve their masters.
war in iraq? americans shouted NO!
bank bail out? resounding NO!
the examples over the past (especially the past 15 yrs) are staggering.

so while i admire your optimism in still using the political system to enact positive change.i just dont see it ever becoming a reality.
mainly because the system is rigged and not in our favor.

so that leaves only ONE option:take to the streets.
refuse to go to work.
keep your purchases to a minimum and trade with each other.
refuse to feed the beast.
clog it with bodies.
clog the streets..halt business from operating properly.

but avoid violence.

thats what the state uses and to give it reason to engage in violence will only serve to beget more violence.

make those in power afraid.
remind them who they really work for and that if they dont the whole fucking thing is gonna come crashing down.

its the only real option i see and if it comes to pass you will see those who wield power do so..and it will be very nasty.

see:the labor movement
see:civil rights
see:anti-war
see:woman sufferages

1. He’s a tinker. He fixes things, and sharpens knives
2. Someone who appreciates or is loyal to Wonka products, a fanboy.
3.He’s Mike’s friend.. the other questions are don’t stem from the movie.
4.He is sooo excited about the ticket that it has given him uncharacteristic strength (he’s obviously worn out after the dance). It’s a musical, stop being a dipshit.
5. Yes, no, no.
6. He’s doing it sneakily, the parents don’t notice (although some of the children later tell their parents).
7. Businessmen often use out of place, insincere physical contact as a device to demonstrate their sincerity and good nature.. and no, Mr. Beauregarde’s attempt at networking was thoroughly shot down.
8. No. no. and C’mon pay attention! ..and again, it’s a musical, although it’s also implied that the Oompa Loompas tend to sing and dance as they work.
9. No. Wonka and the tour don’t take the ferry when the leave the room, and there is clearly no way all of the Oompa Loompas would be able to use the ferry efficiently. and, no, no, no.
10. No. No one was seriously hurt, and the contract apparently had more to do with the contest (limited to the children) than protection from injury suits. Assault is not considered assault when its whimsical; it’s considered a prank.
11. Capitalist greed, and a lack of value placed on simple pleasures and imagination.

Unanswered?

How can you be mad at this, it's Capitalism, the only way for the world to work.

Greed is good, it makes jobs and innovation and what the world economy is built upon. If people had no chance to get even richer with their 100's of millions via shady tax evations schemes, there would be NO incentive to start bigass corporations that does all the wonderful things for our society! Think of all the jobs that won't be if they stop trying to get richer, oh the disaster of taxes and limitation of wealth. Don't fool yourself, the rich has to get richer, not contribute via some obscure idea that "the more you take, the more you should give back to the world that makes you rich". Think people, this is capitalism, the great glory of the globalized world - it's sooo good.


*coughsarcasmcough*

...or the West's demise will be caused by the uneducated but quite opinionated zealots.
Your argument is not logical. Because there is 'cause' for an act does not necessarily mean there is justification. That's why the two words are spelled and pronounced differently. It seems this conflagration (mixing up of the two terms) makes it difficult or impossible to accept (the first step in correcting a problem) any fault because some will incorrectly interpret that as accepting responsibility for the unacceptable response.
I find it sadly funny that the vast majority of people advocating aggression (in most situations, not just the middle east) are invariably 'Christians' that seem to not understand that their 'savior' advocated non-violence and tolerance and only railed against greed. I call these people Jews that like Jebus, not Christians.

OMFG... the threads... First Bob calls liberals two faced, but Conservatives were upset at the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against Bush and his wars. Many conservatives demanded the Dixie Chips sponsors drop them and had large CD burning events, all over the fact they spoke their mind and their beliefs. Now these same people are upset at A&E for suspending a guy (a rather worthless suspension since the upcoming season is already filmed and he's already in it, and it is making free publicity for a stupid show about rich people).

This isn't a free speech issue. He isn't in jail for espousing anti-gay and racist remarks. He was suspended for saying something that made his part time employer look bad. Food Network fired Paula Dean. There was a PR lady who was going to Africa on a business trip that got fired after she tweeted she hopes she doesn't get AIDS, but no problem since she's white. You represent your company, officially or not, and make them look bad, your employer can fire you. You can say what you want, but sometimes that speech has consequences. A&E created the Duck Dynasty image, he made their network look bad, they have the right to suspend him... suspend, they didn't even fully fire him. Were they really outraged they would have pulled the show or edited him out of the upcoming season, but they didn't do any of that. They made a publicity grabbing move to suspend him.

This video also highlights the one key point I've been saying the whole time. That Jesus Himself said it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, doesn't matter if they want to or do follow Him, they have their reward here, and won't have one in Heaven. So Phil goes off on how gays are "full of murder" and how they won't inherit the Kingdom of God, but ignores that part where Jesus Himself said that people like Phil won't go to Heaven.

Then high, blaming it on some Atheist agenda. The same thing would have happened regardless of what religion or lack there of he had. This has nothing to do with Atheist wanting to make Christians look bad, as there is plenty of outrage over what he said in many Christian circles... you do know most liberals are Christian as well. Yes, most Atheist tend to be liberal, but the largest voting block of Democrats and Greens are Christian. People who take the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe Jesus was serious when He said to help the needy and poor, that the rich won't go to Heaven, that blessed are the peacemaker and not the warmongering Republicans, that when you pray, to pray in secret and not make a show of it the way modern Conservatives do, that know the reason for the destruction of Sodom according to the Bible was that "she was a land of plenty and did nothing to help the needy and poor", basically full of modern Conservatives, that the thing with the Angels happened after the city was condemned to be destroyed and they were there to rescue Lot's family, before Lot pulled the father of the year by offering his young daughters (think Olson Twins) over the angelic warriors of God (think Conan the Barbarian and Rambo) with magical powers, rather than just a simple "no". Anyhow, plenty of Christians are upset at what Phil said, because it makes Christians look bad, he not only bashed gays, but thought blacks were fine under the old Jim Crow era laws, thought Nazis were Jesus free, though Jesus and the Bible was their main defense for all they did... He basically made the Conservative Christians look like they ignore the main teaching of Jesus which was to Love one another. Jesus hung out with the sinners and tax collectors and told them of the love of God, not how God is going to condemn them all to Hell. If Jesus was alive in modern day America, he'd be hanging out in San Francisco talking about the love of God, not fighting to deny them equal rights under the law.

And of course Shiny... The controversy with Chick-fil-a isn't so much what some stupid old rich man says, he also made it clear that was the position of the company as a whole. And that anti-gay money was going to organizations that actively campaign not only to make being gay illegal in the US, in other countries where it is gay and punishable by death, they campaign to keep the death penalty attached to it. That said, at least Siny agrees that A&E had no choice... though, based on past posts, I don't think Shiny sees that the whole modern day Conservative movement is driven by the greed factor, that modern Christian Conservatives are willing to toss out every government program to help the needy and the poor so that they can give tax breaks to the rich...

It's all a free publicity stunt. I'm sure A&E will cave in, or Phil will issue some semi apology, "like I still believe it is a sin, but I'm sorry I likened them to murderers and I'm sorry about offending any blacks, I was just noting my personal observations growing up" type thing and he'll continue to rake in millions, going against the very Jesus he claims to follow... and he'll be right back on.