Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Best line: "when you're swimming through your pussy vault like Scrooge fucking McDuck".

So much of this campaign is centered around "school will end soon, just hang in there" when did school become a prison sentence to be endured? I'm disliking the notion of high school more and more these days- not sure that the positives outweigh the negatives.

This and Scrooged are my favorite modern Christmas movies.

@Tymbrwulf

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. I think the prose you wrote above would make an excellent deface to the preface of the new book I prefaced called, 'Elephants That Became A Morass Relay System That Were "Gored" Into A Multi-Platform Supported Prostitute', written by John C. Dvorak and prefaced by me and your stuff near the back. Right before the end; you'll kindly remind the readers that they read 259 pages of nothing. Literally, (literally) nothing, but THIS (plus our stuff):

"Then on that dissmal day did I look fondly over the barren San Francisco skyline and remembered the quote I had stated so long ago, and evermore..so...truth-worthy now..."
----

'Apple makes the arrogant assumption of thinking that it knows what you want and need. It, unfortunately, leaves the “why” out of the equation — as in “why would I want this?” The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices.'

Scrooge McDuck technically died in 1967 (the same year Carl Barks retired). But it was of old age, so I guess the pen is fine . . .

When i speed-read the headline I thought it said "makes MONEY invisible" and i spent the whole time watching the original video looking for piles of cash people were swimming around in ala Scrooge McDuck.

I finished watching and said "I didn't see any money...and why would PETA? oh OH!!!"

Carl Sagan knew; so did Charles Dickens

(from 'A Christmas Carol'):


Suddenly, Scrooge noticed something strange about the ghost. Two children-like figures were at the ghost’s feet – a boy and a girl. But, they looked old and dreadful, like little monsters. Scrooge was shocked.

“Spirit, are they your creatures?” Scrooge asked.

“They are Man’s creatures,” said the spirit “The boy is Ignorance. The girl is Want. Beware them both, but most of all beware this boy” said the spirit.

@NetRunner

I only upvoted because you referenced Scrooge McDuck's awesome money silo.

How silly.

What economic issue is it that this video is claiming is the Fed's fault?

Income inequality? Good argument for a more progressive tax, and a larger system of social welfare.

Fraud? Good argument for a strong regulatory regime for banks, and a Fed chair who's got a basic mistrust of corporate greed.

Inflation? Maybe, but it seems like low, constant inflation is a good thing in everyone's theory of macroeconomics, and a central bank is a key tool for keeping your inflation where you want it.

Unemployment? Maybe, but again, fixing your money supply to some constant (e.g. pegged to the dollar, or the dollar pegged to gold) takes a big tool for managing unemployment out of your toolbox.

Mostly though, people need to remember that all money is ultimately fake.

Gold is just as worthless as paper money -- you can't eat it, you can't smoke it, you can't drink it, you can't even use it as a raw material for anything useful unless you're a jeweler, a dentist, or a semiconductor fabricator (and even then, you really should use something more common like copper or tin).

Money is a consensual hallucination meant to keep us all working. I'm really, really sorry if you reached adult age thinking that stuffing cash into your mattress was the route to riches.

Rich people understand that cash is intrinsically worthless. It's why they invest, rather than build giant Scrooge McDuck-style money bins full of coins.

All money is the same, whether it's in the form of stamped $20 gold coins, promissory notes (i.e. a green piece of paper that says "this $20 bill can be redeemed for an ounce of gold at the US treasury office"), or fiat currency, it's only worth whatever you can buy with $20.

Part of basic financial literacy is understanding that the overall trend is for prices to go up, and therefore that if you aren't getting a raise equal to or greater than the inflation rate every year, you're taking a pay cut.

Which is a good argument for unionizing, even if you're a salaried professional...

Congratulations on bringing an awful disgrace to both good taste and personal flavour to the sift. I hope you're happy.

And merry christmas to you too. philistine.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Oh yes! Sifted! In your face, Christmas Scrooge! No amount of rebranding will turn you into a christmas lover.

http://www.videosift.com/video/For-those-who-hate-Christmas-Carols

So there. Um, so have a great Chrissy.

Oh yes! Sifted! In your face, Christmas Scrooge! No amount of rebranding will turn you into a christmas lover.

http://www.videosift.com/video/For-those-who-hate-Christmas-Carols

So there. Um, so have a great Chrissy.

What saddens me is that you understand its place, and yet completely miss its significance. The combination of George Michael, 80s pop-ballad, Andrew Ridgley's hair, and Christmas tunes, takes Last Christmas into a different echelon of terrible that justifies its existence. Not so much 'so bad it's good' - I do not overstep - but moreso 'so bad it has earned its place' in music history. Very few manufactured pop tunes have achieved this status, and you have, through shortsighted ignorance and far-too-simplistic logic, downvoted one such tune.

Andrew Ridgley sheds a single tear for you on Christmas Day.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
And I would do it again and again. Wham epitomises the worst of music, taste and society in general. No redeeming qualities...this is going on your permanent record

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
You... you (*choke*) voted down Wham!'s Last Christmas? Sweet Baby Jesus! Have you forgotten the true meaning of Christmas? May Santa have mercy on your soul, scrooge.

And I would do it again and again. Wham epitomises the worst of music, taste and society in general. No redeeming qualities...this is going on your permanent record

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
You... you (*choke*) voted down Wham!'s Last Christmas? Sweet Baby Jesus! Have you forgotten the true meaning of Christmas? May Santa have mercy on your soul, scrooge.

Why should she apologize for some nutty supporter that godwinizes the issue?

Prohibiting congressmembers from using their official websites to promote certain political activities is an outdated rule from times when postage to hordes of people cost orders of magnitude more than a website costs now, adjusted for inflation.

Bachmann is a nut (and a jingoistic scrooge of breathtaking ignorance) for other reasons. Stick to the issues instead of this lame gotcha shit.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States. That balance is already long gone. If "you" wish to circumvent those limits, even and especially for "the common good", then you may as well admit you support a benevolent dictatorship where the thugs at the top can do anything they want as long as you FEEL they're doing the right thing, or they appear to be.

The Constiution is not a "living document" nor written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is, however, simply ignored by the scum in the federal mafia. If an Amendment was needed to outlaw alcohol, why is there no proposed amendment mandating 'free' health care? Because the current shits are anarchists, or monarchists.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane.

And you're basing this massive dissatifaction on what, exactly? Or is the mythical "46 million" uninsured going to come out of the woodwork again?

Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.

"But you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it."

You would be hard pressed to find average Americans dying in the streets due to a lack of health care. Like I wrote, 20 million illegal aliens seem to know where the emergency rooms are, even when the sign is written in English.

From wikipedia:

The health care industry is likely to be the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[159] The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.

It appears that once again, the soaring costs of medical care can be largely attributed to government interference. (And trial lawyers, but that's another story).


It's perplexing that numbers of people claim religion is evil yet believe that a true source of goodness is a government program which people are forced to enroll in at gunpoint. There's some confusion that this recent Obamunist government intrusion isn't the same as mandatory "universal halth care" but that's where it will end up. The camel's nose is poking into the tent.

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.

Yes, you wished harm on me, but that's due to your "left wing brainwaves"as the socialist believes that when one person wins, another must automatically lose; that's why the scramble for an "equality of outcomes" is so important. This isn't Dicken's "A Christman Carol" and I'm not Scrooge. And because not everyone agrees with your one-size-fits-all mentality on this or that issue does not mean they they're A) automatically wrong and B) in need of an ego resizing. Don't worry, I've had hard times aplenty.


Seems to me the only thing missing from your plan is personal responsibility. Are smokers or fat folks given less priority care or charged more in Australia? And forgive me in advance for going here, but at what point under the government system does some bureaucrat say, "Your child ain't gonna make it anyway because such-and-such condition has a 20% survival rate" and cut off treatment, or the more expensive treatments. From my point of view, you should at least entertain the idea that giving the government power over life and death when they can't even deliver the mail is a serious risk. They're serving you at their convenience and if they decide to cut you off, you're in a lot more trouble than some insurance company which can be sued.

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything.

There's a whole political system based on the idea that government should provide everyone with free everything, via the abolition of private property. And really, since no one is driving the train, it makes perfect sense for the communist to demand that everyone be fed for "free" all the time. Food is a more immediate and vital basic need than health care, isn't it? Even the healthy must eat to stay they way...so is "free" bread a 'right'?

What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.

Things cost money. Either you pay or someone else does. Your argument in a nutshell is that socialized medicine is less expensive, and in some ways---brace yourself---you might be right. As stated, I don't claim to have all the answers, but for America a completely government-run health care system (which is what the taxocrats are after) will be a disaster.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

The military is a tiny slice of the US budget compared to all the "free" social programs. We don't have the money to pay for all of the "free" goodies we have now, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain.

"Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". I said no such thing, but I will say this: government is the problem more often than not, and per your friend, your government system could just as easily and cheerfully kept him on the dole to suit its own purposes. Apparenlty he made a choice which brought him desired results. Which brings me to another point: some people are beyond helping, they will fk up everything all the time by constantly making the wrong choices no matter how much help you give them. There's no reason to hurt such people more than they hurt themselves, but there's also no reason to let them game the system forever.

Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

It must be cultural. Americans--the real ones--don't trust authority. Our government was founded by revolution and rebellion against the idea of kings, or ten thousand pint-sized would-be kings holding clipboards.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples)

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

Anger over NHS restrictions for osteoporosis treatment

Vulnerable And Frail To Get Substandard Medical Care, Australia

Australia's health care system basically 'broke'

Left-wing socialist ideals have given you a certain perspective not shared by all. Your "culture", like many in the world, believes that the group is more important than the individual.

I'm sayin' that sooner or later, that belief will bite you on the buttocks, because the operators of such systems remain human. Less government = better.

The basis of the idea that every human being is entitled to "free" health care is a made-up "right" based on nothing. Even among the world's major religions' mandates to selflessly help others there is no call to establish gigantic government entities to take care of the public.

It's repugnant to suggest that because one does not fall to his knees in praise of The System, one then must automatically be for suffering or letting others starve.

Government is a necessary evil that creates nothing and can only take by force and shuffle around what already exists. The answers to the health care 'crisis' will be found among the people, not bureaushits.

-----------------------
-----------------------

While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I'm not berating unskilled labor, but doesn't the medical student with half a million dollars in loans and 10 years of college study deserve more financial reward for their efforts? The socialist says, 'No, doctors' labor is a publicly-owned commodity whereas other occupations are not.'

-----------------------

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

Thank you for this information.

omg is that the way they speak in English?
lol I can barely understand a word.
didn't know that Scrooge was russian, btw.

hey, bubblegum!