well, he is named "meat loaf" afterall.
while he had some hard-driving hits in the 70's and his tits were awesome in fight club, he is now living up to his moniker of a meat product that is greasy, fattening, stanky, and a kinda weird.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

conspiracy?
Consider the facts:
-Most musicians and artists are liberal.
-The backing band chose to play "America" in a key awkward to the human voice.

Deliberate SABOTAGE? Probably not.


Oh man....yer onto something distpiuafurtdy.....Wonder if he jacked this shit on porpoise??

Anyone with a flimsy, two-octave range can wing that song in any key-

Oh shit.....I just watched this loaf!! *wtf......WHAT THE FUUUUUCK???!!

Dude....I wouldn't wish that flaming airline disaster on ANY Mormon!!

Welcome to the club, mate! Great first-published viddy, love me some loaf!

Who wants to tell them bread's now $20 a loaf?

Oh, but I can when they use those beliefs to deny me what is owed, like a service, merely because I hold to a different belief.

They would not tolerate a customer's request because they were morally opposed to the customer's personal beliefs. That's the fucking definition of bigotry.

>> ^Morganth:

No, that's not the definition of discrimination. And it's not the definition of bigotry either. You cannot simply cry "bigot" whenever someone else's beliefs aren't the same as yours. >> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Morganth:
Nexxus is spot on. This has nothing to do with hatred. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It's simply not wanting to sell your services and goods to something you're morally opposed to.
Being "morally opposed to" something isn't a "get out of jail free card". You must justify your moral opposition to something. In this case, your justification for being opposed to gay marriage is discrimination and bigotry. Explain to me how this is different to a racist refusing to supply a cake for an interracial wedding? You might be "morally opposed" to interracial marriage, but that doesn't make it ok. The rest of us get to stand up and call you out for your bigoted views.
>> ^Morganth:
It's significant here that it's a wedding cake that's requested as well. As a Christian, if that gay couple came in to my store (hypothetical - I don't actually have a store) and just asked for a loaf of bread, we'd do business just like anyone else. But if they requested a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, like the owner, I would refuse. I would not want my business to directly support an institution of which I am morally opposed. There's no hatred behind it - how could there be? I don't even know those people. It's not bigotry either, because I'm still fine with doing business in other ways - I just don't want my business to directly support something I'm against.

I 100% support your right to refuse support to things you are against. If you don't want to make a cake for corrupt business or a KKK meeting, go for it.
But I then get to judge you for what you are against. I'm sick of this pussy-footing around, where people have to defend themselves and the left goes on about how being gay isn't a choice, as if it was some terrible affliction that gays are stuck with. I don't give a shit if being gay is a genetic thing or if someone wakes up one day and decides "you know what? I'm switching teams today". Honestly what business is it of mine?
So yeah, you don't get to be "morally opposed" to gay marriage as if that's ok. It is the very definition of discrimination, plain and simple. You can claim it all you want, but as time moves on, history will judge your morals to be as fucked up as those who opposed civil rights, women's suffrage and divorce.

No, that's not the definition of discrimination. And it's not the definition of bigotry either. You cannot simply cry "bigot" whenever someone else's beliefs aren't the same as yours. >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Morganth:
Nexxus is spot on. This has nothing to do with hatred. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It's simply not wanting to sell your services and goods to something you're morally opposed to.
Being "morally opposed to" something isn't a "get out of jail free card". You must justify your moral opposition to something. In this case, your justification for being opposed to gay marriage is discrimination and bigotry. Explain to me how this is different to a racist refusing to supply a cake for an interracial wedding? You might be "morally opposed" to interracial marriage, but that doesn't make it ok. The rest of us get to stand up and call you out for your bigoted views.
>> ^Morganth:
It's significant here that it's a wedding cake that's requested as well. As a Christian, if that gay couple came in to my store (hypothetical - I don't actually have a store) and just asked for a loaf of bread, we'd do business just like anyone else. But if they requested a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, like the owner, I would refuse. I would not want my business to directly support an institution of which I am morally opposed. There's no hatred behind it - how could there be? I don't even know those people. It's not bigotry either, because I'm still fine with doing business in other ways - I just don't want my business to directly support something I'm against.

I 100% support your right to refuse support to things you are against. If you don't want to make a cake for corrupt business or a KKK meeting, go for it.
But I then get to judge you for what you are against. I'm sick of this pussy-footing around, where people have to defend themselves and the left goes on about how being gay isn't a choice, as if it was some terrible affliction that gays are stuck with. I don't give a shit if being gay is a genetic thing or if someone wakes up one day and decides "you know what? I'm switching teams today". Honestly what business is it of mine?
So yeah, you don't get to be "morally opposed" to gay marriage as if that's ok. It is the very definition of discrimination, plain and simple. You can claim it all you want, but as time moves on, history will judge your morals to be as fucked up as those who opposed civil rights, women's suffrage and divorce.

>> ^Morganth:

Nexxus is spot on. This has nothing to do with hatred. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It's simply not wanting to sell your services and goods to something you're morally opposed to.

Being "morally opposed to" something isn't a "get out of jail free card". You must justify your moral opposition to something. In this case, your justification for being opposed to gay marriage is discrimination and bigotry. Explain to me how this is different to a racist refusing to supply a cake for an interracial wedding? You might be "morally opposed" to interracial marriage, but that doesn't make it ok. The rest of us get to stand up and call you out for your bigoted views.

>> ^Morganth:
It's significant here that it's a wedding cake that's requested as well. As a Christian, if that gay couple came in to my store (hypothetical - I don't actually have a store) and just asked for a loaf of bread, we'd do business just like anyone else. But if they requested a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, like the owner, I would refuse. I would not want my business to directly support an institution of which I am morally opposed. There's no hatred behind it - how could there be? I don't even know those people. It's not bigotry either, because I'm still fine with doing business in other ways - I just don't want my business to directly support something I'm against.


I 100% support your right to refuse support to things you are against. If you don't want to make a cake for corrupt business or a KKK meeting, go for it.

But I then get to judge you for what you are against. I'm sick of this pussy-footing around, where people have to defend themselves and the left goes on about how being gay isn't a choice, as if it was some terrible affliction that gays are stuck with. I don't give a shit if being gay is a genetic thing or if someone wakes up one day and decides "you know what? I'm switching teams today". Honestly what business is it of mine?

So yeah, you don't get to be "morally opposed" to gay marriage as if that's ok. It is the very definition of discrimination, plain and simple. You can claim it all you want, but as time moves on, history will judge your morals to be as fucked up as those who opposed civil rights, women's suffrage and divorce.

Nexxus is spot on. This has nothing to do with hatred. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It's simply not wanting to sell your services and goods to something you're morally opposed to.

It's significant here that it's a wedding cake that's requested as well. As a Christian, if that gay couple came in to my store (hypothetical - I don't actually have a store) and just asked for a loaf of bread, we'd do business just like anyone else. But if they requested a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, like the owner, I would refuse. I would not want my business to directly support an institution of which I am morally opposed. There's no hatred behind it - how could there be? I don't even know those people. It's not bigotry either, because I'm still fine with doing business in other ways - I just don't want my business to directly support something I'm against.

It's obvious that you have a steady job and/or a lot of money. I'm so very happy for you.

I apply for a job--I jump thru all the hoops, except I refuse to give up my passwords--I don't get the job--how am I to know what their reasons are? If it's because I didn't give up my passwords how would I ever be able to prove it?

No one ever said that employers owe anyone a job--they do however owe everyone a modicum of dignity.

You don't see your argument as idealogical--your ideology has blinded you.

"Doesn't matter how important you consider a job to you or your family's survival, it's never your only possible means to survive." I imagine that someone probably would have said the same thing to Jean Valjean before he stole that loaf of bread.

I'm done responding to you.
>> ^renatojj:

This isn't ideological, it's about defining coercion. If you can prove in court that you were under real economic duress, then you can say there was coercion involved in denying your job because you didn't hand out your passwords.
However, we must be careful not to accept this interpretation that employers owe us jobs. That when they deny us a job, they are taking away something that is rightfully ours.
A job is a voluntary relationship that usually involves a contract. So, by definition, no coercion is involved, because no one is ever forced to hire/accept a job.
The hipocrisy of people who yell coercion, is that they want government to make laws to coerce those that aren't coercing at all. So we end up with a less civilized society overall.
You shouldn't resort to violence to stop something that isn't violent to begin with. How about not panicking, and coming up with non-violent solutions?

He's certainly sincere,and utterly mistaken to think such starry-eyed idealism would shift as massive and entrenched a concept as Oil a foot towards a better enviorment when there are profits to be made.

And these selfsame unnaccountable titans want to send a pipeline down the center of Middle America,corrupting Lord knows how many acres of farmland with an even dirtier type of oil. And not even to wean America off of foreign imports,but to fatten already swollen wallets by exporting it to China and other third world labour camps. The poor kid thinks his father's industrial peers have souls.

I found it amusing towards the end the moderator trying to steer him into "safer" waters and shut down his blind enthusiasm for wanting change. A surprise Enviormental Radical in their midst...

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2012/01/30/enbridges-northern-gateway-pipeline-joint-review-panel-explainer

People who decide these things ultimately will be able to afford a 5 dollar loaf of bread,the imported clean bottled water,the filtered air. We don't matter in the world they exist in.

Not yet.

lol

yeah, even in that hypothetical situation he couldn't have solved world hunger. He managed to feed 1 crowd, for 1 meal, with some loafs and fish. Hardly beyond the powers of good catering!

>> ^solecist:

>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^solecist:
does anybody else feel like this fell a little flat compared to his older stuff? i think solving world hunger is actually a pretty decent super power, BRO!

except he never solved world hunger.

oh, you mean jesus didn't solve world hunger in the hypothetical situation where he came back to earth and joined the fucking xmen? really? i'm sorry i made such an egregious error. i must have read the wrong bible.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'russian, man, bread, cut, slice, loaf, knife' to 'russian, man, bread, cut, slice, loaf, knife, skills' - edited by SlipperyPete

>> ^newtboy:

I think debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have much larger debts (per capita).

I'd say per capita isn't as important as debt/GDP ratios. By that measure, Greece is in terrible shape (148% of GDP), while places like Sweeden and Denmark and Finland are all in the 30-40% range. The US is at about 60%, which isn't great, but it's not terrible, and definitely nothing like Greece.

>> ^newtboy:
They do all have soverign currency still, don't they? I thought they all just added the euro, not replaced their currency. If you're right, YIKES!

It's true. Not every EU nation has given up their own currency, but all of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) have.

>> ^newtboy:
I disagree that we have control of our currency since we left the gold standard, but that's a different discussion althogether. We certainly do have the control to devalue it, just maybe not re-value it.

Well, Fed policies can reduce the money supply too. Any time the Fed raises interest rates, that's what it's doing.

>> ^newtboy:
You say 'at worst, inflation' as if that's just fine, but remember Germany after WW1, they 'just' had inflation to pay their crushing debt, it started with them needing a wheelbarrow full of deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread, and ended with the creation of the Nazi's and WW2.

That's hyperinflation, i.e. a process where inflation doesn't just rise, but starts exponentially increasing. That's why central banks in modern times have explicit, stable inflation targets that they communicate publicly.

Adopting a higher inflation target definitely helps a government's long term fiscal position, at the cost of weakening its exchange rate, without risking any sort of runaway inflation.

Sometimes that's a worthwhile trade to make, especially if the alternative (default) is worse.

>> ^newtboy:
There's no need to focus solely on taxes either, it's a ballance thing.
...
Our 'friends across the pond' will shortly not be supplying these programs to their citizens either, they bankrupted themselves with these kinds of programs and lack of revenue, and now their bankrupting their partners in the EU. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare our social programs to theirs and say 'they can, why can't we?'...theirs bankrupted them.

That's the thing, you say it's the programs that "bankrupted them", I'm saying "no it didn't, they went bankrupt because they didn't ask people to pay the taxes to pay for the safety net they had".

You can balance the government budget at 18% of GDP or 50% of GDP. Having paid maternity leave doesn't bankrupt you. It's having paid maternity leave, and then cutting the taxes that pay for it that bankrupts you.

>> ^newtboy:
If we had the money, I would be all for it, and 3 months paid vacation, guaranteed retirement benifits, low or no taxes, etc.,

Well, having the money is a choice we make as a society. Our GDP, even in this crisis, is $14 trillion a year. I suspect maternity leave wouldn't even cost a thousandth of one percent of that.

Again, the size of government has nothing to do with your fiscal discipline. Fiscal discipline is saying that you want to be taxed at a rate that will pay for the government as it exists. Demanding other people sacrifice so that you don't have to pay higher taxes is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

I think debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have much larger debts (per capita).
They do all have soverign currency still, don't they? I thought they all just added the euro, not replaced their currency. If you're right, YIKES!
I disagree that we have control of our currency since we left the gold standard, but that's a different discussion althogether. We certainly do have the control to devalue it, just maybe not re-value it.
You say 'at worst, inflation' as if that's just fine, but remember Germany after WW1, they 'just' had inflation to pay their crushing debt, it started with them needing a wheelbarrow full of deutchmarks to buy a loaf of bread, and ended with the creation of the Nazi's and WW2. I think they also defaulted in the end. Inflation can be a nation killer.
I have repeatedly said the same thing to you about ballance, but reversed. There's no need to focus solely on taxes either, it's a ballance thing. You seem to be focused solely on raising taxes as a way out of the problem, I'm saying that's only 1/2 the solution (that should not translate into 'I don't think low tax rates are a problem' or 'I think overspending is the only problem', it seems that's what you're incorrectly gleeming from my words). Maybe it's just that you don't like the WAY I said it, but you agree with my point? I don't get it.
We are NOT the rich and powerful country we claim to be, and have not been for a while...that's the issue. We need to consider ourselves a second world country and decide if we want to continue on the path of fiscal irresponsibility and become a third world country, or do we want to regain first world status. Our 'friends across the pond' will shortly not be supplying these programs to their citizens either, they bankrupted themselves with these kinds of programs and lack of revenue, and now their bankrupting their partners in the EU. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare our social programs to theirs and say 'they can, why can't we?'...theirs bankrupted them. If we had the money, I would be all for it, and 3 months paid vacation, guaranteed retirement benifits, low or no taxes, etc., as long as we never spend more than we have, I'm fine with it. It's just not fiscally possible without going into the hole even farther, and that leads to disaster. Right now, we are in debt more than the entire country produces in a year, and that only counts the debt on the books, and counts our GDP at 09 levels, which we no longer meet. That means if every person/corperation was taxed at 100%, it could not erase our debt in a year (assuming we also stop spending a dime on anything). That's a HUGE problem that should never have been allowed to happen, if you don't think it is, I think you aren't responsible with money. Living above your means on credit is irresponsible, and usually passes the bill on to others or leaves it unpaid. I have no children to worry about there, but I'm not the kind of a$$hole that plans on leaving YOUR children deep in debt in a third world country...and I don't want to end up there myself before I die.
>> ^NetRunner:
>>
The European debt situation is different, and seems to be a major cause of their current economic crisis, so is the whole credit default swap thing to a lesser extent, but they're far more removed from it.
Debt is a bigger problem in Europe because they have sovereign debt without having a sovereign currency, and don't have an established EU-wide fiscal policy.
In the US, we have control of our own currency, and have a federal fiscal policy, so a debt crisis for us would at worst lead to inflation, not to default.
Not to mention, there are two halves of a balanced budget, spending and revenue. One way to balance a budget is by cutting back on your social safety net, another way is to raise taxes. There's no reason to focus primarily or solely on cuts, if your overall goal is fiscal balance.
More broadly, I think paid maternity leave is a pretty good idea, and if we're really the rich and powerful country we claim to be, then we can afford the taxes to pay for it. If we can't afford it, then we need to think of ourselves as an impoverished 3rd world nation who aspires to one day be able to provide such a valuable benefit to our citizens. If we're simply unwilling to pay for it, then we're less humane than our European friends across the pond.