imstellar28
Member Profile
Member Since: 2007-04-02
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Comments
Subscribe
British Videos Submitted by imstellar28Navigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (3)
- sifted videos (13)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (5)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- killed videos
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
- group playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 448
Rating:
16 star points
Votes Received: 276
Votes Cast: 243
Comments Posted: 805 • browse
Comments Applauded: 4
Sifted Videos: 13
Sift Talk Posts: 1
Profile Views: 4390
Rating:
16 star pointsVotes Received: 276
Votes Cast: 243
Comments Posted: 805 • browse
Comments Applauded: 4
Sifted Videos: 13
Sift Talk Posts: 1
Profile Views: 4390
Highest Ranked Comments
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
its on a winch, so it can be pulled in during big storms.
the 1kW residential version is also only $2,000.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, smart. The only downfall would be storm systems ripping it from the sky like some 10 million dollar kite. Still, pretty reasonable little thing.
they aren't sending work overseas, they are sending work back in time.
Is that where we need to go though? Why should we be forced back in time? The corps are richer than even imaginable back then, and they won't be going back anytime soon. Why is it up to us to take the brunt?
Also know that I'm against unions myself. Reading up on the auto unions, they are a big reason for the failures. I also see our own small company being choked by the unions with our recent lay-offs. They are forced to lay off people based on seniority instead of ability, causing them to be less efficient.
But when Gunter talks of longer hours, I think he forgets the reason we do work. We're not doing it because it's our lot in life and we are sacrificing ourselves for the common good, we're doing it to obtain "the good life".
I talk to older people at work. 20 years ago a working couple, (doing the same work they do today), could save up and buy a home. It took a lot of overtime and maybe a second job, but they could do it. Now that's impossible, some need to work second jobs just to pay the rent.
A full cart of groceries cost roughly $80 just 6 years ago, now it's about $150. They used to give us yearly "cost of living" increases, but they've abandoned that language because they know they can't get it even close.
I also agree with him about indebtedness, but collectively we're not the brightest bunch and we're a huge marketing target for debt. Shame to say but true. But the debt we did accrue 10 years ago was manageable then, and now it's not and we're stuck with it and have had our shovels taken away.
So you may say, "get an education!". This is grand, but I know at least 5 people at work that are still paying school loans, and those you can't bankrupt away. The others aren't bright or motivated enough to re-educate themselves, but I don't see that as a reason to make them live in squalor all their lives, they still work hard and that should be enough in this day and age.
P.s.
I do agree that the owners and ceo's should make a lot more than us, but not so much insanely more that one ceo makes more in yearly bonuses than his entire workforce does in a year. It's a matter of degree. Sure, give them a million dollar home, just don't give them 6 of those homes. Is that too much to ask?
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
anonymity doesn't change who you are, it reveals it.
you don't see a difference between food and an xbox?
i am not sure what you're trying to say.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
you don't think an apple is designed to be eaten?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
dude, so wrong.
the hype every year for the "must have" toy is designed well in advance by the industry, including of course the stores, especially stores with the buying power of walmart. as i understand it, you are trying to argue an extreme version of "caveat emptor".
they know they will sell more if they create hype, panic, false shortages, blanket advertising. so they do that. if only one employee gets killed by the lack of security guards and barriers... well.... that's efficiency in action!
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
a store sale "causes" excitement like the smell of food "causes" appetite.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
the stores cause this false excitement and stampede. they should take care of their customers better by actually having crowd control that makes a stampede impossible (but... it would be less exciting, eh?)
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
which ayn rand books have you read?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
http://libraryoflinks.blogspot.com/2007/06/smackdown-james-joyce-vs-ayn-rand.html
this is an interesting link if you want to know how retarded ayn rand is.
I would argue that the majority agrees with my claim. That in itself does not make a claim true, but it's close enough.
Also, I never said I wasn't tolerant of it. It's still there, isn't it? I don't have to like it, but that I don't like it does not make me a bigot.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
calling another persons opinion "despicable" is the definition of bigotry. just saying.
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset."
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
^Well, "God hates Fags" is still hanging in some places, and is permitted because of the first amendment. Even if it is despicable.
The company that owns the signs have the right to not put up anything they want, just as any store can choose not to serve you for whatever reason. It may be political persecution from the religious, but the store is not to blame in that. It's their right to not show it.
One could argue that "the market" quashes the obscure or quiet, while the loudmouths are preferred and therefore something like public signs should be handled by a public entity, ie. the government.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Malcolm-Gladwell-on-spaghetti-sauce-happiness-TED-talk
because one of the problems i have with free markets is that they end up being controlled by the most successful mental tricksters, rather than by people's individual choices (which people don't even know about because they are subconscious)
the hype every year for the "must have" toy is designed well in advance by the industry, including of course the stores, especially stores with the buying power of walmart. as i understand it, you are trying to argue an extreme version of "caveat emptor".
they know they will sell more if they create hype, panic, false shortages, blanket advertising. so they do that. if only one employee gets killed by the lack of security guards and barriers... well.... that's efficiency in action!
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
a store sale "causes" excitement like the smell of food "causes" appetite.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
the stores cause this false excitement and stampede. they should take care of their customers better by actually having crowd control that makes a stampede impossible (but... it would be less exciting, eh?)
Take your pick.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
i know what ya meant, what i mean is the new CEO (in the video) -- i wonder what his last job is--why he quit it or why he was fired. why would he go from a well paying job to take a 90k CEO job unless he was unemployed and desperate or ambitious.
In reply to this comment by Krupo:
glad you like the joke
CEO in video = still there
CEO who left -> gone.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
nah, i think i've just lost too many brain cells from posting here too much. that new (to me) information just raises the question of why was he fired/leave from his old job.
In reply to this comment by Krupo:
>> ^imstellar28:
when a company loses money, often the first person to receive blame is the CEO. by accepting a low salary, he becomes popular with the workers and gains support which helps him keep his job. this makes it for a board of directors to fire him, when it might have been a better for the company (and thus for the workers) to take on a new, better CEO. put it on the local news, and just try and fire him.
nobody turns down $1,000,0000 for the "sake of the company" when the ink runs red, they are doing it for the sake of their own job. he will wait it out and happily take the $5,000,000 a year again when the ink turns black. show me a CEO at the height of profit margins who accepts a lower salary than offered, and i'll point you to a "humanitarian". once again, by looking at everything skin-deep, the whole point was missed and a typical, "selfish", CEO is being praised as the next mother teresa.
sly CEO: 1
two dozen videosift posters: 0
Dude, are you on crack, cocaine, or both? Read the background. He took over this year after they ousted the last CEO for incompetence. He got the job in the first place once it was all bad.
If anything, this helped me ask (or FORCE) the labour unions to accept cutbacks in their pay. Sharing the pain all around, not just grandstanding, silly.
CEO in video = still there
CEO who left -> gone.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
nah, i think i've just lost too many brain cells from posting here too much. that new (to me) information just raises the question of why was he fired/leave from his old job.
In reply to this comment by Krupo:
>> ^imstellar28:
when a company loses money, often the first person to receive blame is the CEO. by accepting a low salary, he becomes popular with the workers and gains support which helps him keep his job. this makes it for a board of directors to fire him, when it might have been a better for the company (and thus for the workers) to take on a new, better CEO. put it on the local news, and just try and fire him.
nobody turns down $1,000,0000 for the "sake of the company" when the ink runs red, they are doing it for the sake of their own job. he will wait it out and happily take the $5,000,000 a year again when the ink turns black. show me a CEO at the height of profit margins who accepts a lower salary than offered, and i'll point you to a "humanitarian". once again, by looking at everything skin-deep, the whole point was missed and a typical, "selfish", CEO is being praised as the next mother teresa.
sly CEO: 1
two dozen videosift posters: 0
Dude, are you on crack, cocaine, or both? Read the background. He took over this year after they ousted the last CEO for incompetence. He got the job in the first place once it was all bad.
If anything, this helped me ask (or FORCE) the labour unions to accept cutbacks in their pay. Sharing the pain all around, not just grandstanding, silly.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
my suggestion was to ban "siftquisitions" which are a clear violation of natural human law. can you look at me with a straight face and tell me that if you had lived 1000 years ago you wouldn't have burned anyone at a stake? because i see no difference in what you are doing with siftquisitions and with what people did with inquisitions.
In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
I'm sorry, did you have a suggestion on how to improve things? Or just downvotes and bullshit?
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
^Ryjkyj
"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."
why would you serve your government? the government was established to serve you, not the other way around.
that quote is not patriotism, it is just nonsense.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
its a bit cumbersome to state my intention in a disclaimer, after everything i say though. don't you think?
In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
OK, that's what I suspected. You should make this more clear in the future.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
i'm not just trying to present my views i'm trying to get people to think about their own views.
if i walk around saying what is right, people would just call me "arrogant" or a "know-it-all". my intention was to get people to question their beliefs to find out (for themselves) if they really understand them.
i wasn't trying to "test" people just to show im smarter or to be condescending. the truth is, people are going to interpret what i say based on their own attitude or current state of mind. no matter how i challenge someones views, they can feel slighted by it.
In reply to this comment by nibiyabi:
^OK, I had a feeling you were doing this. I assume this isn't intentional, but when your views are presented in quiz format, they tend to take on an air of condescension and invite angry retorts (as you've probably noticed by now). Stick to presenting your views in a normal, rational way, and people will respect you and listen to you. You have some very interesting ideas, but it's hard to see them through the presentation sometimes.
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
can you edit/retract your comment? i wasn't using the slippery slope fallacy. i support gay marriage. i also support polygamy. i have to because i believe in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". the right to marry a homosexual directly follows from that statement.
Your incest and primate arguments are examples of reductio ad absurdum: the slippery slope logical fallacy.
Polygamy is not a legal agreement between two people, therefore the rights hitherto are not so clearly defined. See http://www.videosift.com/video/Huge-Prop-8-Protest-outside-of-Mormon-Temple-in-Utah#comment-57