spoco2
Member Profile
Bio:
Married, 3 young kids, living in be-a-utiful Melbourne, Australia.
Life is good.
Also, opinionated pain in the arse.
Member Since: 2006-08-21
Last Power Points used: 2008-07-06 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Last Power Points used: 2008-07-06 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
Subscribe
Catsanddogs Videos Submitted by spoco2Navigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (10)
- sifted videos (40)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 176
Rating:
51 star points
Votes Received: 1138
Votes Cast: 1610
Comments Posted: 1271 • browse
Comments Applauded: 11
Sifted Videos: 40
Sift Talk Posts: 6
Profile Views: 10081
Rating:
51 star pointsVotes Received: 1138
Votes Cast: 1610
Comments Posted: 1271 • browse
Comments Applauded: 11
Sifted Videos: 40
Sift Talk Posts: 6
Profile Views: 10081
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Sometimes I do wonder about what does and doesn't get sifted up.
I truly hate this apple ad, I've been a PC gamer for a long, long time (and programmer, it's what I do for a crust), and so suggesting that all PCs do is boring things just rubs me up the wrong way.
Cause there's SO many games available on the Mac compared to the PC.
Self righteous Apple people... grrr.
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
I agree, I don't think we're going to change either one of our minds.
So... we'll end this discussion.
And probably argue about something else later
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I never said that I want to eliminate taxes altogether. As I said several times, I like government programs and I like the good things they do. But I don't want them to take any more of my money, I want them to start using correctly the money that they already take.
What about self-sufficiency? Who says that rural areas can't survive without help from Big Brother? I grew up in a small farming town, 60% of the population of which were Hispanic, many of those illegal immigrants. We didn't get enough funding for our high school so we worked our butts off to raise it. The town had a huge tourist event every year to raise money for the town, and all of the cultural organizations would work at the festival to earn money. My parents sruggled financially and we lived on beans and otmeal and rice for a few years. They learned to survive. The town built cultural centers and theaters with no government help whatsoever. You're probably going to say that I'm falling into the trap of saying that I didn't use the services so blahddy blahddy blah, but don't you think it is insulting for us to assume that people can't make it on their own? That they need help to get the things they need? That they shouldn't have to change their situation (move to a city if that's what is needed) or make sacrifices to succeed? Most people are just as intelligent as me and just as capable of making it as I am. We tell them that they can't do it so they don't. Yes, the government and taxes are good and necessary, but I don't believe that we ought to be so dependent on someone else. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." and all that. By making people feel like all of their problems are somebody else's fault, we are teaching people not to take responsibility for there own actions, and it is leaking into the moral attitudes of people as well. Everything is somebody else's fault.
And I obviously don't feel like we shouldn't help each other. We should! But we should do it in such a way that we give money where it's needed and teach people to become self-sufficient if they possibly can. It helps them to feel useful and good and capable and like human beings instead of like useless children.
I grow weary of this conversation because we're never going to agree. I'd rather talk about something like this in person because typing it all out gets so annoying.
What about self-sufficiency? Who says that rural areas can't survive without help from Big Brother? I grew up in a small farming town, 60% of the population of which were Hispanic, many of those illegal immigrants. We didn't get enough funding for our high school so we worked our butts off to raise it. The town had a huge tourist event every year to raise money for the town, and all of the cultural organizations would work at the festival to earn money. My parents sruggled financially and we lived on beans and otmeal and rice for a few years. They learned to survive. The town built cultural centers and theaters with no government help whatsoever. You're probably going to say that I'm falling into the trap of saying that I didn't use the services so blahddy blahddy blah, but don't you think it is insulting for us to assume that people can't make it on their own? That they need help to get the things they need? That they shouldn't have to change their situation (move to a city if that's what is needed) or make sacrifices to succeed? Most people are just as intelligent as me and just as capable of making it as I am. We tell them that they can't do it so they don't. Yes, the government and taxes are good and necessary, but I don't believe that we ought to be so dependent on someone else. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." and all that. By making people feel like all of their problems are somebody else's fault, we are teaching people not to take responsibility for there own actions, and it is leaking into the moral attitudes of people as well. Everything is somebody else's fault.
And I obviously don't feel like we shouldn't help each other. We should! But we should do it in such a way that we give money where it's needed and teach people to become self-sufficient if they possibly can. It helps them to feel useful and good and capable and like human beings instead of like useless children.
I grow weary of this conversation because we're never going to agree. I'd rather talk about something like this in person because typing it all out gets so annoying.
My siblings and other family members have had to make use of "those services," and I very much appreciate their existence. I don't believe in the idea that people on Welfare are lazy drunks. I agree with Karl Marx about a lot of things. But Welfare IS abused and it needs to be a system where we encourage self-reliance and help people break the cycle of poverty instead of perpetuating it. And I think by "a couple of bad eggs" you mean tens of thousands.
I don't care about Joe Shmoe's birth control. It is not a neccesity. I don't care how good his sex is. I intend to use birth control pills. I never had my teeth straightened. I still have my wisdom teeth. I'm not complaining about my quality of life. A vasectomy is a luxury, plain and simple.
It's not about healthcare as much as it's about the principle behind this whole thing.
Let me tell you about some of my religious beliefs, since you brought that up. In the New Testament, Paul's epistles to the members of the early Christian church (following Christ's death) reveal that the early church practiced what Mormons call "The Law of Consecration". It is similar to Marxism in that everyone's needs are taken care of and capitalism doesn't exist (for the sake of the public good).
I believe that there are God's laws and then there are Satan's counterfeits. Here is a little quote about it: "To me that means that whenever God creates something that is good, true, and beautiful, Satan, in his devious way, comes up with something that is false, counterfeit, and ugly, yet appears to be similar to our Father’s creation." In this case, the eternal law is consecration. You share everything you have with others. Satan's counterfeit is communism. Are you following me? I promise I'm going somewhere with this.
In the early days of my church, they tried to practice the Law of Consecration. For a while, it worked, but people began to be jealous and resentful because some people weren't working as hard or sharing fairly etc., etc. and Joseph Smith did away with it in favor of tithing. Tithing is the lower law and the law of consecration is the higher law. (I don't know how much you know about Christian theology, but it's like Moses' Law being lower until Jesus came and gave a higher law. Jesus said "turn the other cheek" and Moses said "an eye for an eye.") We pay tithing for the greater good ("us") as a sacrifice to prepare us for a time when we are righteous enough to be given the higher law again.
Tithing is 10% of our income and is used for many things. We know that our money is being used where we want it to be used and we give it voluntarily. We also give what are called Fast Offerings. That is, we fast once a month and have the choice to give the money that we saved on food to the church and the money is distributed to the needy. Most people give a lot more than they saved on food, though.
The way it works is that the Bishop interviews people who aren't doing well financially and helps them become self-reliant if they possibly can. If they can't, the church gives them money to support them until they can find a way to support themselves. Also, the Bishop will often give the person the opportunity to serve the church in some way so that they can feel as if they're earning the money. This is a good system. Satan's counterfeit is socialism. The government takes our money by force and does with it what it pleases and we have no idea what happens to most of it. Much of it goes to the rich and to those who don't deserve it and who didn't work for it. Often, our welfare system helps people who really need help and I'm delighted about that, but much of the time my money goes to the lazy, to those who abuse their own bodies with smoking and unhealthy lifestyles, to those who want a vasectomy because other forms of contraception are just too difficult for them to handle, to those whose fathers and grandfathers were on welfare, to those who won't do what it takes to get/hold a job, to corrupt politicians and rich corporations, and so many others.
Like I said before, I give a huge chunk of my money to charity. I give it VOLUNTARILY. It's not all about me, me, me. It's about what is just and what is unjust. It is unjust for people to get free handouts unless they are really in need and cannot possibly take care of themlselves. To give people stuff that they don't deserve is not doing them a favor. Indeed, it is perpetuating ignorance and laziness and co-dependency instead of the things that truly make people feel like worthwhile human beings like self-reliance and hard work. The Lord's way of service and sacrifice and benefitting the greater good makes people happy. Socialism isn't right for that reason.
But I really do believe that we need government programs for those that cannot help themselves. I just don't like the way things are looking right now. We're slipping into socialism and I don't like it one bit. I wish there was a way to fix healthcare without privatizing.
Those were my opinions, by the way. Not church doctrines. The church doesn't take a stand on political topics.
I have more to say but I'm sick of typing and I don't think you want to read it, anyway.
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Have you watched Sicko (Michael Moore, who I'm going to guess you don't like), if not, do so, it demonstrates the differences between the US and countries like ours.
I see that you have the usual right wing view of "How does it work besides you having to pay for somebody else's elective surgery?" You're coming from the viewpoint of me, me, me, rather than us, us, us.
Which, considering your strong religious views is odd, as the Christian ethos is 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'... which to me I would read 'If I were sick and couldn't afford to pay for a heart operation, I would hope that others might help me.'
Really, do you think we notice the money that goes towards public health? Nope.
Do we notice the huge difference in the cost of medicine and health care day to day for all of us here compared to places like the states? You betcha.
Really, even though you have private health cover, you should check out Sicko, it shows that just having cover doesn't mean things are going to be covered. And do you think it's right that before a doctor will perform LIFE saving procedures on you they ask about your cover, whether they'll get paid for it?
It's disgusting.
And breeding excellence is a load of absolute toss.
As I mentioned, one of my sons has a host of heart conditions, what we discovered is that we, right here in Melbourne Australia, with its public health system, not having to pay for it... we have one of the absolute BEST heart care centres in the world. The care we get for our son is second to none... really, they are superb, and we've read a lot on it, and talked to many, many people in the same boat around the world, and the quality of care in the states is no better, and the cost is far, far more.
I know which health care system I'd want.
And, by the way, I DO have private health care also, because we can afford it, and because you benefit for doing so and helping out further. And if you think that the rest of the country is paying for people to have boob jobs and the like you're very mistaken. By elective surgery, I mean things like vasectomies (very handy in keeping the ol' population down in this overcrowded world), and other things that are not life threatening, but impede the quality of life. (Um... warts being removed, wisdom teeth extracted, things like that)
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
?
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Ah, capitalism. I could really get into that. I donno, Spoco. I'm terribly wary of a public health care system. The US doesn't always handle its public programs in the best way. Prime example: Education. Also: Welfare. I'm afraid that the quality of our health care will go down. We do have social programs for free healthcare. The government will pay and it really isn't that hard to obtain. Just ask my brother.
So if you were to break you leg tomorrow and went to an emergency room and didn't have private health cover, would you have to pay for treatment?
That's my question really... In Australia we just don't have to think about the cost of health issues really, unless it's an elective surgery, and even then most of that is covered as well, it just takes longer on public than private. Having health care so very closely entwined with private enterprise is a scary, scary thing.
Providing health care to people shouldn't be a for profit game.
No, because I wouldn't be stupid enough not to have health insurance.
No, no, no, no, no. You DO have to worry about the cost of health issues. It comes out of your paycheck every single month of your life. I'm just spewing opinions here because I've never witnessed what socialized healthcare looks like, but I believe that competition breeds excellence and innovation most of the time.
Tell me about your healthcare. How does it work besides you having to pay for somebody else's elective surgery?
Ah, capitalism. I could really get into that. I donno, Spoco. I'm terribly wary of a public health care system. The US doesn't always handle its public programs in the best way. Prime example: Education. Also: Welfare. I'm afraid that the quality of our health care will go down. We do have social programs for free healthcare. The government will pay and it really isn't that hard to obtain. Just ask my brother.
Don't get me wrong. I love public education and I love Welfare, but USAmericans are getting extremely tired of the government mismanaging our tax dollars. Republicans cling whiteknuckled to their pocketbooks because they're tired of the government dipping in and throwing our money around like its free. I don't worship the almighty dollar, but I don't believe that the government has the right to decide where my money is most valuable. I give almost 20% of my income to charity and if I (21-year-old girl) can make $30,000 a year with no academic degrees or job skills while going to school full time and paying for tuition without going into debt and without relying on any social programs or scholoraships, anyone can at least survive and have a decent standard of living in the US with the help of the social programs that we already have. We don't need any more. That's just my narrow-minded opinion, of course.
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
A well said comment indeed.
I think one of the things that has me so anti American at present is a hold over from our last government (we elected a new government in, erm... 6 months ago or something, we've just switched to our Labor government, like your Democrats, switching away from our Liberal government, like your Republicans). Our last leader seemed to be George W's lapdog, and followed the US in everything, to our detriment, went into war with the US after the VAST majority of Australians said 'NO, we don't think this war is right'. And at that time France was being ridiculed by the US for having the balls to say so and not get involved in a war that pretty much the entire world now agrees was based on lies.
So there's that. Then him stating that the US health system was a model to emulate which made me dry retch... The number of times we've taken our kids into the emergency room, had a battery of things done, and the like, then walked out... nothing to pay, all done... try doing that in the states. Or, try affording the things we need done with our son who has a collection of very serious heart defects without a great public health system.
So, it comes from living in a country that I viewed as getting a number of things better than the states (health, not as war hungry, and education), and seeing our government follow the lead of the states and try and bring us down to it's level.
And I guess I'm in the same boat as you, we had our version of Bush voted in twice too, by the unwashed masses who couldn't see past their puny tax cuts... so, I guess it's a case of getting pissed off at my country by proxy... because, well, there isn't enough media around the world ON our country.
But also because we have our new government that we've finally been able to get in, and a number of us are really hopeful they'll do the right thing, and they HAVE so far done a number of things they promised to... we just really hope that the States can come up to bar too and start leading by example and showing other countries.... look, do education better, take more care of the environment, be a 'BETTER' country and it can benefit EVERYONE.
But there's so many people I keep running into who have such huge capitalistic blinkers on, and think the almighty dollar is king and everything else should fuck right off, including the environment, and I just want to scream at them because they don't get it, they don't get that their mindset is killing the world in so many ways 'War good, money good, outsiders bad'.
I see that you're probably not like that, but I think you can see how anything that rallies against the BAD in countries makes us a bit happier.
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Spoco,
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I would just like to add a few things. I think it is hard for USAmericans to accept criticism for several reasons. We can all see and sense that something is wrong. We want things to change, but change is slow. Our economy is plummeting and our president is a joke and we do what we can, but democracy has started to fail us. Or we have failed democracy. It seems to me that the middle class is either apathetic or powerless. Those of us who oppose socialism are watching as our country slowly withdraws from the ideals that made us what we are (or what we used to be). Since, as you said, we have a huge influence on the world at large, the critical eye of other nations is upon us. Try to put yourself in our place. Take me, for instance. I'm a college student studying english and education. I'm worried by the state of education and by the moral decline of the world, and I'm getting into the field where I can help make a difference in education. I'm somewhat disillusioned with my own country. That is a hard thing to face. Do you know what that feels like? It's painful. It's hard for me to hear people from other countries mock me, as if they know anything about what it means to be USAmerican right now. And I'm doing what I can, which is why I get frustrated and discouraged by USAmericans who think that bashing the USA is the new form of revolution instead of what it is: hot air.
Yes, I know we have a pretty high standard of living here and have no real reason to complain. We can get a bit ethnocentric. But I think the intelligent, educated, and/or thoughtful among us realize that the USA is not the center of the universe. We are stereotyped by other nations as prideful and egocentric and perhaps we are a bit, but it's still a stereotype, and it's small of you to ascribe to it. I've known Europeans (and Australians) from several countries who have been far more puffed-up than most USAmericans currently are. And everybody seems fond of bashing us, as if they couldn't hear themselves sounding like the very people they are complaining about. So please try to understand that the USA isn't the devil and that we're not all content to watch the decline happen, make fun of ourselves, and take the criticism of people who don't really know us. When USAmericans get a little bit defensive and angry, it's probably because a lot of us are feeling vulnerable right now.
P.S. Money is not the problem with education. We pump more money into education per student than almost any other nation. The money is mismanaged and education is failing because we insist on relying on tradition instead of adjusting to a globalized economy and a technologically advancing world. And I despise SUVs. And many of us didn't vote for Bush, and many of those who did regret that decision. Your language is a bit accusatory, as if they knew what was going to happen when they elected him. Like Australia hasn't ever had bad leaders. What are we supposed to do? Suggestions welcome.
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Well, dangit, I disagree with it as a tag then... I don't see how it can be evolution in action if it shows someone doing something stupid without being at least hurt by said stupidity... no evolution occurring there at all. (well, unless the video shows them being mercilessly mocked by women due to doing so, in which case it has the desired affect). I will continue to grump about it.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
^EIA need not be quite so literal. Dumbness is the key factor.
From the channel description: "So if your video doesn't show someone attempting to eliminate themselves from ancestory, that's ok, because this is a place for general stupidity."
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Remove the EIA tag please, it would have to be the most incorrectly used tag around here... how is that evolution in action? How is dropping the camera in the pool a form of her being killed off for being poor breeding stock for the future?
It's just not.
It's dumb, it's not EIA.
*grump over*
From the channel description: "So if your video doesn't show someone attempting to eliminate themselves from ancestory, that's ok, because this is a place for general stupidity."
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Remove the EIA tag please, it would have to be the most incorrectly used tag around here... how is that evolution in action? How is dropping the camera in the pool a form of her being killed off for being poor breeding stock for the future?
It's just not.
It's dumb, it's not EIA.
*grump over*
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
As the geekologie writer pointed out, they say that they must test for 100hrs, and yet here they said they did 1000 rides as their testing (as if that was even better)
Except the ride goes for 2 minutes: 2 * 1000 = 33.33hrs a little less than 100 hrs!
Still, I'd love to go on it, nothing like poorly tested rollercoasters for getting your thrills
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
They really need to clear up that side of things, I think an original 'posted' date should be it, I don't really know why anyone would care when things have been published or the like.
Thanks for the clarification though.
I'm not trying to be nasty. I discarded my own when I saw yours at first, then I posted to sifttalk: http://www.videosift.com/talk/Can-we-have-time-stamps-on-original-submissions and then lucky undiscarded mine because the dates confirmed mine was first. I didn't know until today that you could get information from hovering over "published by" or "submitted by".
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Wha?
So, my post, when I hover over the posted date I get: June 15th 2008, for the other post I get June 17th 2008.... Um, how am I second on this one?
In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
This post is a dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Roller-Coasters-increasingly-intense-rides, which was submitted first, verified by hovering over the "published by" field abovve.
*discard
Now I quote you, with emphasis on certain words:
And if you're going to get upset about people using terms like 'forcing beliefs', then you'd better stop having evolution be pushed out of classrooms in favour of intelligent design, you'd better stop making it be a necessity for those who run for office have to demonstrate that they're good God fearing people, you'd better stop hardline christians trying to enforce 'rules' from the bible into the laws of nations... The beliefs ARE being forced on people, so don't get shitty if those who don't believe in them are getting a little angry about it these days. The supposed separation of church and state is becoming less and less real.
You seem to know an awful lot about my political opinions (and actions, since I'm supposed to "stop"). I believe in evolution, I don't believe that presidents need to be Christian or that they ought to have to use their religious beliefs to get elected, and I don't know what kind of influence you expect me to have on hardline Christians or which laws you are referring to.
Yes, the Mormons ARE a top notch lot, whether they believe in a false religion or not. The verity of the religion has nothing to do with their value as people. I didn't post the video in the hope that it would "swing favor back(?) to the Mormons." I posted it because it is a straightforward outline of the church's beliefs instead of the skewed versions that fly around on videosift. It would be ridiculous for me to suppose that I was going to have any positive affect on "those who disagree with religion." I don't really know where you got that or what it has to do with anything, frankly. I'm not trying to show you all how true it is, I'm just showing you the truth about what Mormons believe. All of your comments have been kind of bizarre and irrelevant, as if you think that I'm trying to legitimize all religions with this video or something.
And I did NOT post the video to show people how similar to mainstream Christians Mormons are. I think that mainstream Christianity is a little bit crazy, so why would I want to do that? You're putting motives into my head that were never there. I just want to show people that Mormons are just another religion. They have unconventional religious beliefs, but they aren't malicious, and they deserve tolerance.
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
I think my issue with this video Pinky, is that you've posted it as if it shows the Mormons as actually being a top notch lot. When in fact it very nicely demonstrates so many issue with the Church of JCLDS and other branches of religion as a whole, which is why I did my big lists. If you believe that this video could swing favour back to the Mormons then I just don't think it works at all, it merely shows us even more points that those who disagree with religion can pick on.
It's never ever going to make people like Mormans more, or any other branch of Christianity more to just list out their beliefs like this because they all just seem so incredibly laughable. You're posting this from the point of view that we think 'mainstream' Christianity is ok, and so look how similar Mormonism is to it! All this has done is said 'Hey, look, we believe in all the same stuff that you ridicule in other religions and pile on another book of things you'll find even harder to believe on top of that'.
And if you're going to get upset about people using terms like 'forcing beliefs', then you'd better stop having evolution be pushed out of classrooms in favour of intelligent design, you'd better stop making it be a necessity for those who run for office have to demonstrate that they're good God fearing people, you'd better stop hardline christians trying to enforce 'rules' from the bible into the laws of nations... The beliefs ARE being forced on people, so don't get shitty if those who don't believe in them are getting a little angry about it these days. The supposed separation of church and state is becoming less and less real.