I need to read up on this guy. Everybodys talking about C, but UNIX also? thats pretty cool in my book. For years , my companys network ran on SCO-UNIX , we never had problems , just kept working year after year with little adminstration. Easiest years of my admin life.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I still don't see any value in having user pages on our wiki in the first place, even if user pages can be edited solely by the user. Members can post as much or as little as they want on their profile page. To have a separate entry on the wiki is useless duplication, IMHO.
As far as topic pages about users, you may believe that only 10-15 members warrant them, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for a lot more than that to show up. If Wikipedia includes shit like an entry about a song that hit #39 on the Billboard adult contemporary chart in 1974, then a wiki page here about a bronze star member who wrote two funny comments will show up sooner or later. Then the wiki becomes a massive repository for trivia and gossip. And maybe that's what some members want, but not me.

I agree that user pages on the wiki are (mostly) redundant. If it's some very simple config setting that won't disrupt any other function on the wiki, sure, turn off user pages. But if it's not, I don't see how it's worth Lucky's time and energy just to make things tidy, especially when there are so many other things to fix and improve.

I just don't believe that there is going to be some rash of topic pages about users suddenly springing up. Who's going to waste their time writing them? And what other pages are going to link to them if they're not particularly relevant? Even then, it can be policed just as wikipedia does - if the community doesn't think a particular page has relevance, then take it down. If a page is getting vandalized, block the vandals.

Trying to come up with a priori rules about editing the wiki that are essentially unenforceable seems like a waste of time. Why aren't the community guidelines that apply at VideoSift good enough for the wiki as well? Read the quote at the top of this Wikipedia adminstrator's page, and consider that in the context of VideoSift's wiki. The VideoSift wiki is never going to be a heavy traffic site, and does not need the kind of editing rules for pages about people that Wikipedia does.

See Wilder and Johnson. This sounds cute and like a great motivational anecdote tho..
where is the follow thru.
Where are the results we can measure?
Where are the people that got us into such as mess?

If i'm not mistaken, many of them are in his adminstration still.
Great message nonetheless.

I won't downvote, but isn't Maddow being hypocritical when she shows McCain saying that about Iran, when Obama is taking exactly the same stance against Iran?

Also, is force feeding, sensory deprivation and sleep deprivation torture? Because that's what our adminstration is still doing in our name.

The point of reconsilation, was not to bully one's viewpoint through. Its meant to comprimise on a problem or issue. Some time around the Clinton Adminstration (1st or 2nd term), Republicans really started the 'My way or the highway' attitude. It really does not help in a comprimise issues effecting our country at the time or now. During the Bush Administration, that did this with impunity (largely because they held the House/Senate). Now, this same party controls neither the House or Senate, nor holds the White House, they want to use this same tactic. A tactic that has not worked for them, and never will.

Lets say for example that you and I share a property line, and a tree growing on the exact line is being disputed. You want a club house for your kid, and I want to put a garden around it (or at least on myself, without your kid trampling it). If either of us are uncomprimising, neither of us get what we want, unless we bring lawyers and the courts involved. If we comprised, that a garden could be set up, but a clubhouse is up in the tree, and your kid doesnt wreck the plants of the garden....who wins?

So, right now, Republicans want to stay uncomprising, but, unlike in the past, they are an irrelavent entity in the political system right now. You would think wisdom would eventually show them the error of their ways.

It seems, for the previous adminstration, that the concept "The Ends Justify The Means" is STILL, a Republican philosophy. This concept was always used in the Fox show '24', in which the main character routinely tortures people, and never has to face any penalities for his actions. It seems, sadly, that conservatives and/or Republicans, take this same view, that if they get what they want, at the cost of a US city being reduced to ash, its fine by them.

This IS insanity. This individual should be examined under a microscope, for giving possible terrorists not only a invitation to commite untold horror upon my fellow Americans, but fame/glory by the Republican party.

Anyone who advocates the harming of citizens in my country, to get political points for their cult-ish organization, should be sent to gitmo. Wouldnt it be amusing if conservatives got sent to gitmo, and had 'enhanced interrogation methods' used on them. Would be rather ironic, eh?

As a note to some of the posters above. The 1st Amendment, regarding 'freedom of speech' protects all persons within the country to a limit. Running in to a crowded theater and showing 'FIRE!" is NOT, covered under the 1st Amendment. Some of the stuff that comes out of Fox News, Mr. Beck, Mr. Limbaugh, and the like, is really borderline. Now, if ANYTHING, major happens, it will not be to difficult to find WHO motivated terrorists (domestic or foreign) to attack the country.

I think a lot of people were angry during this time frame, I remember seeing George Bush on tv saying great job, and then all the networks showing how crazy and chaotic it was down there. He was more accurate than anything the adminstration had been saying. He had an opportunity to voice his opinion and he did!

Cos the media won't be covering Iraq, they'll be covering Afghanistan. Watch out for the upcoming """humanitarian""" wars from this adminstration.

The Shirley Temple version:

Drink everytime anyone mentions:
* Ending and abolishing torture
* Ending violence in Gaza / Iraq / Afghanistan
* Ending illegal spying on citizens
* Holdings banks and corporations accountable with bailout money
* Taxing all the corporation money being hidden in offshore accounts
* Canceling tax deductions and govt money for companies outsourcing jobs
* Penalize CEOs and corporations who move jobs overseas
* Investigating crimes of Bush Adminstration
* Warcrimes
* Prosecuting the financial crimes like 9/11 shorts, Madoff ponzi, Freddie & Fannie toxic derivatives
* Ever rebuilding NOLA and letting people move back home
* Restoring the pension funds stolen by Cheney's energy buddies in Enron scam
* Enforcing FISA, PRA, or any type of Congressional oversight
* undoing the damage done by lax or revoked EPA rules
* Returning the FCC control back to citizens and no the highest bidder
* Cracking down on monopolies (especially with media outlets)

first Rupert Murdoch and also many others i wouldn't have expected, but now Karl Rove!?
all is not as it seems.


also, this conversation seems staged.
the supposed difficult question o'reilly sprung on Rove was all ready to be answered.. karl rove is a contributor to fox, a member of the bush adminstration, these two guys are really chums

Ok, so you had something to say, deadgoon, I will apologize for calling you a troll. I felt completely baited, and referring to me as a 'young pup', well, that has been done before to a pathetic affect. I consider that a personal attack. All the trigger words were there, the biggest give was 'knowing what is wrong with America today', as if that's something that fits in a nutshell.

I thought it was a pathetic protest, I want our soldiers as completely armored as my tax dollars can make them. Surprise. But I am horrified at this adminstration's machinations to squelch dissent.

If I sat here and tried to type a list of the horible things the Bush adminstration has done to this country and world I'd have a bad case of carpal tunnel syndrome by the time I was done.
Seriously! what is it gonna take for people to wake the F$%# up and hold these people accountable!?

Bush could probably ride around on national tv on a presidential unicycle impaling babies on spikes and people still wouldn't budge.

PBS FRONTLINE has covered many topics of this adminstration in a very thorough manner.

THE DAR SIDE
In "The Dark Side," FRONTLINE tells the story of the vice president's role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for control of the "dark side." Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, the film provides a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/#morelink

KARL ROVE: THE ARCHITECT
In "Karl Rove -- The Architect," FRONTLINE® and The Washington Post join forces to trace the political history and modus operandi of the controversial figure who has been on the inside of every major political and policy decision of the Bush administration. With the campaign over, Rove has turned his attention to the battle for Bush's legacy on issues like Social Security, taxes and tort reform. But his ultimate goal is something larger.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/#lower

Rumsfeld's War
In "Rumsfeld's War," FRONTLINE and The Washington Post join forces for the first time to investigate Donald Rumsfeld's contentious battle with the Pentagon bureaucracy to assert civilian control of the military and remake the way America fights.

This report traces Donald Rumsfeld's career from his time as an adviser to President Nixon to his rise as the oft-seen and well-known face of the George W. Bush administration during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In interviews with key administration officials, military leaders, and reporters from The Washington Post, the documentary examines how a secretary of defense bent on reform became a secretary of war accused of ignoring the advice of his generals.

"He came in determined to reassert civilian control over the Joint Staff and the rest of the military and it was a pretty tough process, a lot of friction in those first months, with Rumsfeld saying, `No, I don't think you heard me clearly. I'm the boss. I want it this way,'" reporter Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post tells FRONTLINE.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/#rest

I'd like to explain my downvote.

Mark Mcgrath was singing REALLY out of tune. But it was made up for by the hotness of Peter Pauls wife (Yeowzaa ! that was sexist!)

I thought this was interesting and fairly well put together. there was some really neat behind the scenes footage and overall it was edited really well.

I do have issues in general with assertions not being backed up. Like Paul saying that the judge on his case was appointed by the Clintons (that sounds implausible as they don't appoint judges and the video showed no proof of this). And the the opinion / commentary of David Chippers (DOJ prosecutor, Clinton Impeachment Manager) that the judge was biased is not coming from an unbiased source (himself - look at his creds)

I guess I also don't understand why the Clintons would "do in" a major donor. biting the hand that fed them doesn't really make sense. That is not to say it didn't happen. But why would her campaign finance manager take a fall for her if she was the one actually to be held accountable.

a few other questions unanswered by the video

so what was Peter Pauls felon (from 2 decades prior ?). Was he a fugitive at the time of his arrest in a foreign country ?

on a side note...

I like the guy who says "it's the largest election fraud in the United States ( I guess I considered that laughable for what goes on and doesn't get reported or caught...meaning that's not just a Clinton thing, as it's a problem on both sides of the aisle). Through-out the video several of these people overstate what's going on to the point where it diminishes the real issue. While these events might or might not have happened the level of hysteria the whole thing portrays smacks of hypocracy considering the current administration (i personally don't care about eithers fundraising...it's the policy they push once in office that concerns me)

But as far as leaving the country if Hillary becomes prez... i had to laugh. (considering the people who are running the adminstration at the present and what they've done across the board to our government, freedoms, environment, etc....).

This video was about Campaign finances, not policy that she would implement. So in that regard, if something like this upsets you that much to move out of the country I would almost assume that you are blind, deaf, dumb and have been living under a rock for the last 7 years. (sorry for the ad hom :-)

QRUEL

There are many better things to impeach Bush for than sitting around for 7 minutes during 9/11. Impeachment, as far as I understand it, is for a President doing something illegal, not for incompetence.

As a liberal, I've always been troubled by Bill Maher. He uses the same tactics of half-truths, word twisting, and condescenion that we criticize the current adminstration for.

Take his first interview with Ron Paul on Real Time (and I am a Ron Paul opponent). He basically twists Paul's words into "The Civil War was a bad thing," which was not what Paul was saying at all. A few weeks, later he has Paul on again and basically admits he wasn't listening to anything Paul was saying. I'll give him credit for apologizing, though.