People are even too stupid to learn from simple and well documented history, so of course they arent able to judge if killing someone like Hitler would make everything right.
Simple facts like that Hitler was just able to rise that high due to many like-minded people, often get ignored completely, also where those people came from, what made them that angry, even though in 1919 some intelligent people already knew.
Its this biased view of things. Of course you cant judge things if you dont look objectively at them because it was indoctrinated into you that someone that bad must be evil itself and shouldnt be looked at with logic, that could put the blame on others or make him look less bad.

OK, you could make that argument about the first amendment, even though the supreme court has ruled “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”, and there's also the "clear and present danger" exception as written in 1919 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. Because the court is the legal interpreter of the constitution, it's not neglect, it's judicial interpretation. The buck stops at the Supreme Court.

But the second amendment, the topic, STARTS with "A WELL REGULATED militia...", so clearly regulations limiting/regulating firearm ownership and use was exactly what they intended from the start....no?

You're right. It must have. Check etymology.com:

1922, originally used in English 1920 in its Italian form (see fascist). Applied to similar groups in Germany from 1923; applied to everyone since the rise of the Internet.

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

AND

1921, from It. partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)


Oh wait, no. No, you're not right actually. That's still the definition we have today.

Man, the red on FDR's face when he, himself a fascist, declared war on his fellow fascist, Benito Mussolini! Oh, how embarrassing!

Unless, of course, your definition is simply a pejorative to put down another person through the use of redefining words as if the English language is your idle playthings like so many of your other comments times before.

Get your facts straight before you press your fingers on that thing you call a keyboard.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Fascist" had a different meaning pre-1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticis
m_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Criticism_of_Roosevelt_as_a_.22Fascist.22
I'm glad you on the left revere Saint Roosevelt, as your children's children's children's children will still be paying off his and the Kenyawaiian's massive, failed welfare state.
>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah FDR, that delightful 'benevolent' fascist whose policies prolonged the Depression and whose ass was saved by WW2.

I would downvote this comment 5 times if I could.
Fascist? My ass. Have some respect for the position.

>> ^westy:

>> ^criticalthud:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.abstract

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080314-warming-quake s.html
Sauces?
I can't help you understand me.
and if I had known the sources existed, i would have posted them earlier. I simply came up with a similar theory. and that happens. i do theory work.

>> ^criticalthud:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.abstract

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080314-warming-quake
s.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/08/climatechange
posted above if you took the time.
but happy to repost for you.
i'm just looking at this in a theoretical sense, based on mass ice melt and it's likely repercussions. apparently others have looked at this more thoroughly than i have. If i had known this earlier, it would have saved time pointing out fairly obvious things to rather confrontational people.
adieu

>> ^westy:
>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^westy:
>> ^criticalthud:
people.
Seismic activity has increased along with global warming.
Logic, physics, and probability all say that when you shift the mass of the earth (ice caps melting), seismic activity will increase. And it has, by a lot...in the last 30 years.
The poles are shifting.
This is the earth adjusting.
This is akin to shifting the mass of a spinning toy top.
It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe in an invisible god-man in the sky too. This is about physics and reality. and it is going to get worse.

What you are saying might be true , but u have presented it in the most retarded way.
Also Evan though global warming is happening and ice caps are melting that does not necessarily mean there is causal link with seismic activity of curse there might be but its the kind of claim where u need to back it up with some evidence and sources.
"It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe in an invisible god-man in the sky too. This is about physics and reality" ~ I think I get what you are trying to say with this but your communicating it all wrong, A christain could say exactly the same thing but focused on how god is real. Making a statment like that is uselss its the evidence and scientific method behind what is sead that will sway any sain person to believe in something or believing in something that is inline with reality.
Lol i Myself have not very clearly exsplaind why what u have said is retarded but im sure if you think about it you will see why what u said was not exactly cunstructive evan though im pritty sure u r on the right page with things.

Science, especially theoretical science is based on probability. Probability is a a process comprised mainly of inductive reasoning. k? this is looking at trends and connecting the dots. Physics...and simple probability. There are no definitives, no absolutes. It is virtually impossible to create a hard science in this realm...we simply don't have the tools.
Einstein's theories were still "theories", and have been proven throughout time (mainly in the mathematical realm). But they were theories based on probability. Asking "what if" and looking at liklihoods.
Our beliefs, or our hopes for absolutes do nothing to affect probability. And scientific "proof" is often for sale.
thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

"Science, especially theoretical science is based on probability. Probability is a a process comprised mainly of inductive reasoning. k? this is looking at trends and connecting the dots. Physics...and simple probability. There are no definitives, no absolutes. It is virtually impossible to create a hard science in this realm...we simply don't have the tools."
Although yes on a quantum level things are bassed on probability and ultimetly u can keep asking why unttill nothing makes anny sense , Its a fact that on our scale of interaction with the world things can be prodicted and understood to a level that alows for us to utilise scence and prodict and understand things to a high level.
I dont evan understand the overall point you are making you are contradicting yourself and going all over the place .
Instead of spewing all this talk out next time you want to make an objective claim why dont you just stick to stating the claim and then backing it up with evidence ?
You saying "It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe in an invisible god-man in the sky too. This is about physics and reality. and it is going to get worse." does nothing to help anyone you simply cannot make a claim and then say LOGIC AND REASON GO TO SHOW I AM RIGHT.
lol what u put is like me saying , "LOgic and resoin go to show that the sun is smaller than a bannana you can belive in an invisable sky god-man . this is about phiusics and reality and its only gona get more bananery."



MY issue was not with the ice caps melting thing , as i said that could be true ore false , i was just pointing out all the other stuff you typed in aditoin to that which was superfalouse and made little sense and if anything undermined the intail point u were getting at ,

you posted link to sauces after which is fine , i think if you had just done that on your first post , made objective statement x and posted suces to back it up , then people imideatly would have been able to just debate the sources and progress there knowlage.

Thing is you actually come across as a non native English speaker ( evan more so than me lol although im sure my spelling is worse)

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.abstract
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080314-warming-quakes.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/08/climatechange
posted above if you took the time.
but happy to repost for you.
i'm just looking at this in a theoretical sense, based on mass ice melt and it's likely repercussions. apparently others have looked at this more thoroughly than i have. If i had known this earlier, it would have saved time pointing out fairly obvious things to rather confrontational people.
adieu


>> ^westy:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^westy:
>> ^criticalthud:
people.
Seismic activity has increased along with global warming.
Logic, physics, and probability all say that when you shift the mass of the earth (ice caps melting), seismic activity will increase. And it has, by a lot...in the last 30 years.
The poles are shifting.
This is the earth adjusting.
This is akin to shifting the mass of a spinning toy top.
It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe in an invisible god-man in the sky too. This is about physics and reality. and it is going to get worse.

What you are saying might be true , but u have presented it in the most retarded way.
Also Evan though global warming is happening and ice caps are melting that does not necessarily mean there is causal link with seismic activity of curse there might be but its the kind of claim where u need to back it up with some evidence and sources.
"It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe in an invisible god-man in the sky too. This is about physics and reality" ~ I think I get what you are trying to say with this but your communicating it all wrong, A christain could say exactly the same thing but focused on how god is real. Making a statment like that is uselss its the evidence and scientific method behind what is sead that will sway any sain person to believe in something or believing in something that is inline with reality.
Lol i Myself have not very clearly exsplaind why what u have said is retarded but im sure if you think about it you will see why what u said was not exactly cunstructive evan though im pritty sure u r on the right page with things.

Science, especially theoretical science is based on probability. Probability is a a process comprised mainly of inductive reasoning. k? this is looking at trends and connecting the dots. Physics...and simple probability. There are no definitives, no absolutes. It is virtually impossible to create a hard science in this realm...we simply don't have the tools.
Einstein's theories were still "theories", and have been proven throughout time (mainly in the mathematical realm). But they were theories based on probability. Asking "what if" and looking at liklihoods.
Our beliefs, or our hopes for absolutes do nothing to affect probability. And scientific "proof" is often for sale.
thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

"Science, especially theoretical science is based on probability. Probability is a a process comprised mainly of inductive reasoning. k? this is looking at trends and connecting the dots. Physics...and simple probability. There are no definitives, no absolutes. It is virtually impossible to create a hard science in this realm...we simply don't have the tools."
Although yes on a quantum level things are bassed on probability and ultimetly u can keep asking why unttill nothing makes anny sense , Its a fact that on our scale of interaction with the world things can be prodicted and understood to a level that alows for us to utilise scence and prodict and understand things to a high level.
I dont evan understand the overall point you are making you are contradicting yourself and going all over the place .
Instead of spewing all this talk out next time you want to make an objective claim why dont you just stick to stating the claim and then backing it up with evidence ?
You saying "It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe in an invisible god-man in the sky too. This is about physics and reality. and it is going to get worse." does nothing to help anyone you simply cannot make a claim and then say LOGIC AND REASON GO TO SHOW I AM RIGHT.
lol what u put is like me saying , "LOgic and resoin go to show that the sun is smaller than a bannana you can belive in an invisable sky god-man . this is about phiusics and reality and its only gona get more bananery."

woops. here is the link again:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.abstract

>> ^spoco2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink">criticalthud: "your figures are great, and show a marked increase in seismic activity, especially in the last 5 years."
Um, no they don't.
8-9.9 Mag earthquakes: have just hung around 0-1 every year with a couple of years having 2, and one 4. And it's not ramping up or anything, there were NONE in 2008.
7-7.9 : Hanging around the teens to low twenties every year with some very low ones in the last few years.
etc. etc.
Have a look at the graphs, look at the total energy from earthquakes. See how compared to 1900 it's LOWER? See how in the last half of the last decade it's DROPPED?
Really, the figures show NOTHING like an upward trend AT ALL.
So just give it up trying to suggest that the facts support what you're saying.
I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening, I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to reduce our impact FAR quicker than the monolithically slow speed at which things are being done. And that we couldn't have already been largely running on renewable energy already if the governments had actually put some effort in. But the figures are not supporting what you're saying, so really stop trying to say they do.
That's all I'm saying, stop using your perception that there are more earthquakes etc. and look at the figures and learn to read data properly. Individual year spikes mean nothing, look at trends.


energy is one measurement. overall number is another. i hope you are right. i'm not the only one looking at this possibility tho.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.abstract

@GDGD well, I did actually google, but I used 'Egyptian Revolution'... as, well, you know, that's what this video was tagged as.

That gave me articles about the 1952 and 1919 ones, then also a link to this very video, and then some articles about it that all assumed you already knew what it was all about.

I did actually provide a LINK as to what I found when I looked at my local trusted news sources (ABC Australia is usually pretty good), but then I guess you just like pointing out things that you know that other people don't.

Everyone has different points of reference, no need to get snippy.

Embarrassed by history.

Here is a link to the full text and English translation of "The Road to Resurgence" written by Hitler, at the request of wealthy far right industrialist Emil Kirdorf.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1878145

It costs. (I had a print copy stashed away somewhere. Can't seem to find it, sry.)

------


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkirdorf.htm

Kirdorf, who held extreme right-wing political views, first heard Adolf Hitler speak in 1927. He was so impressed that he arranged to meet Hitler at the home of Elsa Buckmann in Munich. Although Kirdorf supported most of Hitler's beliefs he was concerned about some of the policies of the Nazi Party. He was particularly worried about the views of some people in the party such as Gregor Strasser who talked about the need to redistribute wealth in Germany.

Adolf Hitler tried to reassure Kirdorf that these policies were just an attempt to gain the support of the working-class in Germany and would not be implemented once he gained power. Kirdorf suggested that Hitler should write a pamphlet for private distribution amongst Germany's leading industrialists that clearly expressed his views on economic policy.

Hitler agreed and The Road to Resurgence was published in the summer of 1927. In the pamphlet distributed by Kirdorf to Germany's leading industrialists, Hitler tried to reassure his readers that he was a supporter of private enterprise and was opposed to any real transformation of Germany's economic and social structure.

Kirdorf was particularly attracted to Hitler's idea of winning the working class away from left-wing political parties such as the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. Kirdorf and other business leaders were also impressed with the news that Hitler planned to suppress the trade union movement once he gained power. Kirdorf joined the Nazi Party and immediately began to try and persuade other leading industrialists to supply Hitler with the necessary funds to win control of the Reichstag.

------



------

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.

Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers.

...

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

-------

I'm against any medical care being supported, advertised, promoted, and conducted with taxpayer money.

Tell it to the millions who died in the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. Healthcare is a public good with the same rationale as public fire department, public police departments, public military, public highways, etc. One person's lack of healthcare negatively influences the health of everyone around them.

Public healthcare is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. That kind of stuff pushes your conservative buttons, right?

>> ^Farhad2000:
Throughout history not a single uniformed military force has been able to hold down Afghanistan. Ever.
military


That's a very passionate statement, but it seems a little simplistic. The British were the dominant force in Afghanistan from 1839-1919, and the Taliban held Afghanistan down from 1996-2000.

Neither of those periods were permanent, if that's what you mean, but most other countries have never been ruled permanently by one force either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#European_influence_and_the_creation_of_the_state_of_Afghanistan

^ You are wrong. The information used in the video is from the Federal Reserve itself and is accurate.

See the data here.

It is the 'Total Borrowings of Depository Institutions from the Federal Reserve, Monthly, Billions of Dollars, Not Seasonally Adjusted'.

For specific time periods, you can modify the graph yourself at the link above.

And here are some inflation-adjusted dollar amounts for you, all relative to the 2008 CPI.

1919: $2.8 billion = $34.4 billion
1929: $1 billion = $12.4 billion
1972: $3.3 billion = $16.8 billion
1986: $8 billion = $15.4 billion
1999: $3.5 billion = $4.4 billion

Are you scared yet?

1. The Planets Move (2000 B.C. – 500 B.C.)
A thousand years of observations reveal that there are stars that move in the sky and follow patterns, showing that the Earth is part of a solar system of planets separate from the fixed stars.

2. The Earth Moves (1543)
Nicolaus Copernicus places the sun, not the Earth, at the center of the solar system.

3. Planetary Orbits Are Elliptical (1605 – 1609)
Johannes Kepler devises mathematical laws that successfully and accurately predict the motions of the planets in elliptical orbits.

4. Jupiter Has Moons (1609 – 1612)
Galileo Galilei discovers that Jupiter has moons like the Earth, proving that Copernicus, not Ptolemy, is right. Copernicus believes that Earth is not unique, but instead resembles the other planets, all of which orbit the sun.

5. Halley's Comet Has a Predictable Orbit (1705 – 1758)
Edmund Halley proves that comets orbit the sun like the planets and successfully predicts the return of Halley's Comet. He determines that comets seen in 1531 and 1607 are the same object following a 76-year orbit. Halley's prediction is proven in 1758 when the comet returns. Unfortunately, Halley had died in 1742, missing the momentous event.

6. The Milky Way Is a Gigantic Disk of Stars (1780 – 1834)
Telescope-maker William Herschel and his sister Carolyn map the entire sky and prove that our solar system resides in a gigantic disk of stars that bulges in the center called the Milky Way. Herschel's technique involves taking a sample count of stars in the field of view of his telescope. His final count shows more than 90,000 stars in 2,400 sample areas. Later studies confirm that our galaxy is disk-shaped, but find that the sun is not near the center and that the system is considerably larger than Herschel's estimation.

7. General Relativity (1915 – 1919)
Albert Einstein unveils his theory of general relativity in which he proposes that mass warps both time and space, therefore large masses can bend light. The theory is proven in 1919 by astronomers using a solar eclipse as a test.

8. The Universe Is Expanding (1924 – 1929)
Edwin Hubble determines the distance to many nearby galaxies and discovers that the farther they are from us, the faster they are flying away from us. His calculations prove that the universe is expanding.

9. The Center of the Milky Way Emits Radio Waves (1932)
Karl Jansky invents radio astronomy and discovers a strange radio-emitting object at the center of the Milky Way. Jansky was conducting experiments on radio wavelength interference for his employer, Bell Telephone Laboratories, when he detected three groups of static; local thunderstorms, distant thunderstorms and a steady hiss-type static. Jansky determines that the static is coming from an unknown source at the center of the Milky Way by its position in the sky.

10. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (1964)
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover cosmic microwave background radiation, which they suspect is the afterglow of the big bang. Their measurements, combined with Edwin Hubble's earlier finding that the galaxies are rushing away, make a strong case for the big bang theory of the birth of the universe.

11. Gamma-Ray Bursts (1969 – 1997)
The two-decade-long mystery of gamma-ray bursts is solved by a host of sophisticated ground-based and orbiting telescopes. Gamma-ray bursts are short-lived bursts of gamma-ray photons, which are the most energetic form of light and are associated with nuclear blasts. At least some of the bursts have now been linked with distant supernovae — explosions marking the deaths of especially massive stars.

12. Planets Around Other Stars (1995 – 2004)
Astronomers find a host of extrasolar planets as a result of improved telescope technology and prove that other solar systems exist, although none as yet resembles our own. Astronomers are able to detect extrasolar planets by measuring gravitational influences on stars.

13. The Universe Is Accelerating (1998 – 2000)
Unexpectedly, astronomers find that instead of slowing down due to the pull of gravity, the expansion of the universe at great distances is accelerating. If these observations are correct and the trend continues, it will result in the inability to see other galaxies. A new theory of the end of the universe based on this finding has been called the "big rip."

No, it's been ages, and believe me when I tell you.... it hurts man. ::sniff::


>> ^gorgonheap:
Have I told you lately, that I love you?
>> ^swampgirl:
>> ^gorgonheap:
Yeah why is it we don't have any videos from the 1900's?

yeah, there is a few: http://www.videosift.com/playlists/swampgirl/I-Love-The-10s-as-in-1910s

I've since changed the title to include all videos from 1900 to 1919, then my 20s list takes over from there