In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
Well, quite!
Is the original not on Funny Or Die?

In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
I'm a new bronze-star member, so sorry if flagging your video dead wasn't the right thing to do. I just thought it the best way to draw it to your urgent attention, since it's #1 vid and all.


no worries. I found a different embed. We'll see how long that lasts until youtube squashes that too.



It is, but I'm not able to use the embed code there. I think only the higher ranked people can.

Well, quite!
Is the original not on Funny Or Die?

In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
I'm a new bronze-star member, so sorry if flagging your video dead wasn't the right thing to do. I just thought it the best way to draw it to your urgent attention, since it's #1 vid and all.


no worries. I found a different embed. We'll see how long that lasts until youtube squashes that too.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
I'm a new bronze-star member, so sorry if flagging your video dead wasn't the right thing to do. I just thought it the best way to draw it to your urgent attention, since it's #1 vid and all.


no worries. I found a different embed. We'll see how long that lasts until youtube squashes that too.

I'm a new bronze-star member, so sorry if flagging your video dead wasn't the right thing to do. I just thought it the best way to draw it to your urgent attention, since it's #1 vid and all.

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

Sorry for the issues guys. @lucky760 is doing some urgent server upgrades.

"This is a spiritual battle which can only be won by overwhelming prayer. The future of the world is at stake because if America falls, there's no longer a strong champion of freedom and a champion of the oppressed of the world. There must be an urgent call to prayer."


Apparently, God can deliver, but only if he sees some initiative in the "beg Me" department.

I don't know what you want this guy to do; suck your dick? He got on the innertubes, apologized and said they were taking measures to discipline the guy. Is every company man supposed to be a crack orator?

If I had an important urgent message to send, I would read it off carefully, too. Wouldn't you? >> ^shagen454:

Fuck FedEx. They treat their employees like shit and it's in my belief that that our government helped fuck the post office in order to help private companies like FedEx and UPS. FedEx is like a corporate Scientology, the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top.

Socially liberal? Bull...

Like most leftists, you probably approach this from the biased perception of your own political position. You occupy a much further 'left' position than I do, therefore your perception bais tells you that I am not 'left' because I am to the right of yourself. However, you must simply accept the reality that your position is much further left than the national average.

As a person with libertarian leanings, I have the socially liberal position that abortion is the choice of the individual - not the government. I also tend to agree that the war on drugs is not really government's proper role, but that the states should be allowed to legalize some drugs for medicinal purposes. Quite a few of my political positions are 'liberal' or 'centrist' because I come from a consistent position that it is not the government's role to limit the freedoms of citizens.

Anyone who has kids and a soul would be highly cautious of ever reporting a story like this. "Jumping the gun" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for for mis-reporting the facts in a case that doesn't need to be urgently reported on

Well, first we don't know if they 'mis-reported'. That's an allegation. Regardless, since when has that ever stopped the media? Waiting for the 'facts' is not a habit of the news media in general and is in no way limited to either Fox & Friends, or this woman's story. I don't dispute that implies that the news media has no soul. But if we harp on it, then fairness demands equal harping on news outlet who discusses anything without the facts first. If we don't do that, but reserve our outrage only for cases for persons whom we ideologically sympathize with, then what does that say?

There is an obvious smear campaign going on. Rather than airing, openly discussing, and trying to come to terms with the complaints of the many thousands of protesters out there all around the US and the globe, the new media decides to post smear articles about specific individuals.

The OWS hippies have no 'terms' or 'complaints' or other specific 'demands' that they are willing to articulate. There are other videos and comments on the sift on how BRILLIANT OWS is because they refuse to have a leader, a position, a platform, or anything else that pins them down. Please tell me how anyone is supposed to have a meaningful dialog with a group that has no set of real complaints to address?

Regardless, the OWS movement is not the subject of a 'smear'. If anything, the bulk of the news media is engaged in massive cover-ups of thier daily crimes and abuses. There isn't a day that goes by now where there aren't reports of sexual abuse, rapes, theft, violence, arrests, property damage, and other violations of the law. Even Bloomberg - who has gone out of his way to slobber all over OWS - is starting to say they are going to have to take steps to deal with thier crimes and disruption. No one needs to smear OWS falsely. They do just fine smearing themselves.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Blah, blah, blah, calling people names as though I'm still in first grade, and making shit up that might or might-not be possible and then acting like it was somehow research...


Anyone who has kids and a soul would be highly cautious of ever reporting a story like this. "Jumping the gun" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for for mis-reporting the facts in a case that doesn't need to be urgently reported on. They could have taken their time, but they didn't because they aren't reporting facts. They are presenting an agenda.

Believe it or not, some people that disagree with you actually still believe that what they do is important. And some people feel that they have a responsibility to do what is important to them. This woman might believe that she is fighting for her children's very future, that "the enemy is at the gates" so to speak. Just because she's not holding a rifle doesn't mean that she's not fighting a war.

To bring this woman's children into a discussion with no facts is abuse. Using them as a weapon against her harms them as much as it harms her. No wonder she's angry, attacking children is viewed by many in this society as one of the lowest things a person can do.

I'm not holding my breath...I don't give a shit about pretty much anything. Unless they tried interfering with not giving a shit...then that means war.>> ^cosmovitelli:

The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant.
Their intentions and assumption of international authority demands urgent criminal prosecution. Or would you rather wait till they start ideological interference with something you do give a shit about?

>> ^rottenseed:
I wish that there were some way to put a check or money-order in some sort of enveloping package and send it to them through some sort of courier service. If only there were a way...

The effectiveness of their actions is irrelevant.

Their intentions and assumption of international authority demands urgent criminal prosecution. Or would you rather wait till they start ideological interference with something you do give a shit about?


>> ^rottenseed:
I wish that there were some way to put a check or money-order in some sort of enveloping package and send it to them through some sort of courier service. If only there were a way...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

"Stop it B!" is the name of the series. It doesn't stand for Barack. However, given that misunderstanding, I could see how you'd think he's pinning it all on Obama. I wonder if Glenn Beck made the same error.
If you watch it again now, I think you'll see it's a rant against irresponsible government in general, with only a quick joke about black people not paying their bills directed at Obama toward the end.


Indeed, I bet he did. I bet a ton of people made the same mistake, given that the title of it is "Stop it B! Obama, pay your fucking bills!"

Even if I set that aspect aside, he's still mostly saying things that buy into a lot of Republican propaganda about the debt. For one, he makes it out to be some sort of urgent problem, which it's not. He acts as though hitting the debt ceiling is something new, and not something that happened almost every year under Bush. He acts as though the government hasn't been paying its bills, when in fact it's never failed to before, and only the hostage-taking from Republicans over the debt ceiling made anyone think that we might not. That also invalidates all the kvetching about credit scores, since we've never even been late on payments. Oh, and lots of individuals have worse debt ratios than the federal government, and businesses almost always operate on way more leverage than our government does.

But yeah, at least now I see he wasn't addressing it all directly at Obama like it was all his fault personally. So he's not batshit insane, but he's still pretty deep in a well of misconceptions.

Or that our empathy is selectively reserved for the deserving few who meet a certain criteria. I don't have to select who I am going to feel something for..there is enough room to go around..


He is careful to make it very clear that that wasn't his point - I mean, listen again to what he says and I don't think you can possibly take that message away. He cares for people, he's just trying to help people imagine what it's like to listen to people who are ONLY concerned with themselves. People aren't universally and equally empathetic, and considering how complaints might sound to others is going to help many people in social situations. Haven't you met many people in your life who are perpetually blaming others and complaining about their problems? I sure have - and I've done it myself sometimes. And it usually isn't productive. Sure many people need help, maybe urgently, and there's nothing wrong with seeking help. But that can't be all you do - to build the kind of relationships that can be a support to you later, you need to show genuine interest in others. You will be a better person, a bigger person, and a more interesting person the more you show interest in others.

The key thing Stephan said here is that he finds himself less interesting than other people. This is because he has a few personality disorders and presumably they are embarassing to speak about.


No, it's because despite his problems he tries to show real interest in other people instead of focusing on himself. This is a very Christian ideal - kind of reminds me of Philippians 2:3 -

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves


Stephen has been very candid about his own problems and has gone out of his way to help others - take this letter as an example. It's a simple, beautiful thought from a man who is honestly making effort to help a stranger.

Now, sure, his thoughts are a bit of a mess in this video (he's not on a script and he rambles and isn't always perfectly clear) - but his overall point is plain and is something that would really help a lot of people out of self-centered ruts. And, as before, I think focusing on others is a very Christian thing to do - coming in, I would have expected you to applaud this kind of thing.

Did I just upvote a comment by Bob Knight? I hope your sentiment is bipartison.

The "debt ceiling crisis" was a self inflicted wound. This vote, which has been routine and generally unpolitical, was indeed used, badly I might add, as a political hostage. The many republicans, who in banana republic style advocated a US default on our legitamate active debts are directly responsible for the credit downgrade by S&P. Lest we forget who they are, from TPM:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), May 17, 2011: "You want to make sure that the bondholder has confidence that the government's going to be able to pay them.... That's what I'm hearing from most people, which is if a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four what is more important that you're putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on."

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), May 18, 2011: "What I think is that the markets are looking to see credible progress on changing the fiscal trajectory in Washington. The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse. I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), May 19, 2011: "The government is not to be trusted with more of your money, so I will refuse to allow them to borrow more. Now is it a good idea to default? No! But this is a false claim being promoted by big-government advocates. We can simply spend what we take in!"

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), June 24, 2011 on administration warnings of "catastrophic consequences" of not raising debt limit: "I don't believe them, it's not true."

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), May 18, 2011: "This problem is so urgent that there is -- an alternative school of thought has emerged recently," Toomey said. "The most high-profile advocate for this was Stanley Druckenmiller ... one of the world's most successful hedge-fund managers, extraordinarily wealthy from his knowledge of the markets, a big money manager now, and a big holder of Treasury securities -- and he has said that he would actually accept even a delay in interest payments on the Treasuries that he holds. And he would prefer that if it meant that the Congress would right this ship."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), July 13, 2011: "To get a balanced budget amendment in this environment...we'd have to make the serious, credible, earnest threat that if you want to raise [the debt ceiling] and you want to have any Republicans voting for raising it, you're going to have to assist us: You give us 20 votes to adopt the balanced budget amendment in the Senate and we'll make sure you get the votes you need to raise the debt limit."

OK, let me start by saying I was never incensed, irked, consternated, angered, or otherwise bothered. I always think it's funny to hear the assumptions people make about me, they are invariably wrong, I'm a wierdo and rarely take the path expected. I take joy in setting the record straight in the hopes of presenting a different point of view for consideration, I see no reason for revenge or anger over a misunderstanding and usually not schadenfreude either.
I didn't see it as consession to my arguement, I saw it as coming to agreement that we really meant the same thing. I guess to some people that might be the same thing, it's not to me.
The only apology needed is to Umption, you made an ass out of him. I'm not looking for one myself, I don't know why I might be due one except for the blankfist thing. You misunderstood me again.
It depends on which current financial crisis you mean. I completely agree, our economic crisis was caused by mismanagement and deregulation of the banking system/wallstreet, which is now made worse by the European crisis. Our debt crisis is a decades old issue that's suddenly in the forefront, but is also a huge and looming problem. 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.
The debt discussion stems from the discussion of the european crash, which I believe was caused mostly by the crushing debt of many union members, caused in large part by over spending on social programs like paid maternity (along with many others), and the worsening of that debt to the point their partners could no longer ignore it caused by the global market declines. It came to a head when Greece couldn't borrow more money to pay for the services they refused to curtail. I disagree with the contention that Spain and Ireland were in "good" shape simply because they were not collapsing yet. Greece has been spending like a teenager with daddy's credit card for far too long (probably decades), so long that it's people (and corperations most likely, don't misunderstnad) believe they are entitled to all their handouts because many have never known different, and they flatly refused to raise taxes to pay for those services and entitlements, forget paying their debts. Let's be clear, they are not us, they were even worse about entitlement programs and ignoring debt. That does not mean we should not use them as a cautionary tale of what to avoid, we don't want to be where they are now, and it's where we are heading.
Here in the USA, I think our debt stems from overspending (on defense and entitlement programs, stupid wastes, and needed services) AND under taxing. I'm not sure about your health care point, we haven't really paid for it yet, so it hasn't really effected the debt. Maybe I'm missing your point.
I disagree with your final point, that our debt is a made up problem. I also disagree with the contention that we must erase the debt completely and instantly, damn the consequences. Sadly, the big 'debt debate' that once again tarnished our reputation worldwide (and continues to) is really not about paying down our debt. As far as I know, no one seriously even floated a ballanced budget ammendment, forget actually paying down the debt. All the wrangling is over a small percentage of the insane increase they expect in the national debt over 10 years (I think I recall the number 24trillion). I fear the debt will crush us, and stagnate our economy if not dealt with quickly, but it must be done with reason and thoughfulness, not ignored OR myopicly focused on.>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy the part that reminds me of blankfist is that you seem to be incensed at my terrible crime of misunderstanding an ambiguous statement, and then thinking I owe you something (a retraction, an apology, or a concession to your argument) because of that.
Let's wind this train of thought back a bit. My contention is that the present economic calamity started with a financial crisis, driven by mortgage-backed securities.
I didn't mention debt, you did.
I agree that debt plays a role in the unfolding of this crisis, especially in Europe, but it's not a cause of the crisis. Any kind of economic crisis throws a government's budget into deficit (or pushes it further into), because tax revenue goes down when GDP and employment go down, while at the same time, more people wind up needing to rely on the social safety net as they loose their jobs (or just get their hours or pay cut). Greece and Italy were in bad shape before the crisis, and got much worse. But Spain and Ireland were in good fiscal shape before the crisis, and wound up deep in debt as a consequence of the crisis.
I also disagree with your contention that the debts are caused by "people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." I'm not intimately familiar with the specific fiscal details of the European countries, but basically the way government budgets work is that you need to make sure you have tax revenues that are higher than spending in normal times.
Here in the US, our debt issues are primarily a result of cutting taxes, overspending on defense, and a refusal to adopt a single-payer health care system for everyone.
But for the most part, debt is a made-up problem in the US. It's not that it's not a problem at all, it's just that it's not something we need to solve in 2011, it's something we need to solve by 2030 or so. It's important, but not urgent.