X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Recent Comments by BicycleRepairMan
 | comment listing type: Top Sift for Dec 9th, 2009Friends O' the Sift Top New Videogames Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Videogames Sifters of All Time Top 14 Videogames Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments         |
Food Ad Tricks - Making A Commercial Burger
The office's last scene, David Brent philosophy
Taken from Season 2, Episode 6 rather than the last episode (S02E12).
nope, this is the last episode. The office was only 2 seasons, with 6 episodes each. There was a Christmas special wrapping up the storyline
"Why Bank Of America Fired Me"
Yes, corporations are evil and yes, this woman's actions were honorable but, you can't make a video like this and claim "I'm not doing this because I'm bitter." Especially with that last little dig at her ex-boss, she sounded pretty bitter to me. As she should be.
And she didn't say she wasnt bitter, she said she didnt do the video because she was bitter. I thought this was a story justified, bitter or not. She did the video to tell that story, good enough for me.
But I cannot fucking get over her "akxs" Its A S K, how fucking difficult is that?
George Carlin vs. Fred Phelps
Many people don't believe that there is a GOD.
But everyone knows of or had an experience of something that is not of this word. Some creepy feeling or hearing something or something that should not be has occurred. You can't deny that there is something beyond our sight and reach.
So if this is true, then how can you rule out the existence of GOD?
So, let me see if I get the argument: If something undefined something may or may not be something or maybe something else entirely , then how can you rule THIS out?
You are getting it all backwards. Atheists do not start with an endless pile of nonsensical claims that we have to "rule out" one by one. We see that some "ways of knowing" seem to be extremely effective and reliable, and has given us extremely good results (ie: Science and philosophy) while other "ways of knowing" such as revelation, scripture, personal anecdotes , a tingly feeling, etc tend to give us no results at all, or dangerously uninformed and wrong results.
The first method can literally bring us to the moon, and the second is nothing but unverifiable noise.
TDS: Jon Stewart explains why he doesnt like Sarah Palin
No it's not.
"Nothing there" doesnt mean she's not doing what the talking points says, or even that she doesnt agree with them, it just means that she doesn't THINK when she gets a question. Its so bleeding obvious you'd have to be blind to miss it. She simply repeats some conservative mantras that frequently has nothing to do with the question she was asked.. If you look at any other politicians, even George W. Bush, you can atleast trust that he answers the questions he gets asked, even if those answers are lies or just plain fucking stupid) ie: "Bring 'em on" ) atleast he could usually cough up an actual answer. Palin does none of that, she replies with talking points that often shows she doesnt even understand the question. look at this answer:
COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
Now what the fuck does this even mean? Random rambling about tax-cuts and "job creation". Obviously, her answer should have been something like "Because if these big institutions fail, it will be worse for everyone, and heres why:---" But because she doesnt really even consider the question, she just makes up an answer with some conservative ear-candy in there and , as was said, there really is nothing there.
Curb Your Enthusiasm - Sweden and Norway are not the same!
16 yr old has ridiculously simple idea, makes $$$
Stealth cat returns
Still think this cat should be named Heisenberg.
Or Schrodinger .
Homophobic Christian Whines About Getting Fired
NO. No no no no no.
I would have
-or-
I would've
-or-
I'd
I'm sorry but the word "of" has no business being in that sentence.
Rachel Maddow Laughs at Texas and More
Thanks, we have. for decades, and as I just pointed out, the end result: My government spends LESS TAXPAYERS money than the US government spends on healthcare. Every single country with public healthcare does, and everyone is covered.
Now explain that.
Without profit, there is no reason to provide the good or service. Let's say health care is now 'free'. Manufacturers of medical supplies, health care workers, administrators, hospitals, & clinics are still not going to be working for nothing. Therefore people are going to be earning profit under a so-called 'non-profit' public system (otherwise it wouldn't cost 1.3 trillion dollars).
No, of-fucking-course someone is paying for the goods and services. In my country's case, the government covers all that with tax-money, but again, we still spend LESS than the US government currently does.
Instead of raving on about how publicly run healthcare will be hundreds of times more expensive than the private ones, look at the numbers.
Daniela Santanche calls Mohammed a Pedophile
Rachel Maddow Laughs at Texas and More
As much as I side with you on this, WP didnt exactly lie in that post. He says healthcare costs money, and yes it does.
What healthcare shold not do, however, is to be exploited for profit. And if the US Government didnt have its nutsack firmly placed in the hands of the health and insurance industry, they could, like most comparable country, spend HALF of what they do NOW, and provide free, universal healthcare
One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive in the US, is precisely because it is privately run. Providing care isnt like selling cars. You dont have the same kind of "competition driving the prices down", and even if you did, a MRI-scan is still insanely expensive. And then you have insurance.. sure, insurers can compete to have the lowest premiums, but that of course means that they'll have to cut somewhere to make a profit, and that means to reduce the number of actual payouts, so they make sure to attach hundreds of conditions and rules that no one reads anyway, so that they can blame pre-existing conditions or whatever, and then refuse payout. Overall, its a system that encourages PROFIT, and not actual healthcare.
If you ever needed proof of this, simply look at the numbers: The US government spends more money, yes MORE TAXPAYER's MONEY (hear that, republicans?) today then every single country that provides free, universal healthcare
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries