This guy is a very good speaker. His gestures are.. He strikes me as a lie. A living lie.

I'm going to Godwin this now, there are other good speakers, and one that he reminds me of is Hitler.

US, plutocratic actions on Haiti, if true are deplorable.

Accusations of widespread human rights abuses

Human Rights Watch accused the Haitian police force under President Aristide, and his political supporters, of attacks on opposition rallies. They also said that the emergence of armed rebel groups seeking to overthrow Aristide reflected "the failure of the country’s democratic institutions and procedures."[27]

The OAS/UN International Civilian Mission in Haiti, known as MICIVIH (its French acronym) found that the human-rights situation in Haiti improved dramatically following Aristide's return to power in 1994. [28] Amnesty International reported that Haiti was "descending into a severe humanitarian and human rights crisis" after Aristide's departure in 2004.[29]
[edit] Accusations of drug trafficking

Drug trafficking was allegedly a major source of money. Canadian police arrested Oriel Jean, Aristide's security chief and one of the most trusted friends, for money laundering.[30] Beaudoin Ketant, a notorious international drug trafficker, Aristide's close partner, and his daughter's godfather, confessed that Aristide "turned the country into a narco-country. It's a one-man show. You either pay (Aristide) or you die." Aristide denied the allegation, and the U.S. has not charged him directly with involvment in the drug trade.[31]
[edit] Accusations of corruption

Haitian investigators claimed to have discovered extensive embezzlement and money laundering by Aristide's administration, in which millions of dollars of public funds were allegedly lost to sophisticated financial transactions.[32] Aristide has forcefully denied these accusations. [33] The Haitian government filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit in the U.S. in Miami, Florida, in November of 2005, alleging that Aristide and his associates took hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the long distance company IDT, and that IDT diverted into a secret offshore bank account controlled by Aristide payments that should have gone to the Haitian company Teleco. The lawsuit was suspended by the Haitian government on June 30, 2006. [34][35]
[edit] Accusations of embezzlement of telecom revenues

According to a report by Christopher Caldwell in the July 1994 American Spectator, Aristide stole Haiti's telecom revenues while in the United States. Caldwell claims that, between 1991 and 1994, Aristide ordered that the proceeds from Haiti's international phone traffic, handled by the Latin American division of AT&T, be moved to a numbered offshore bank account in Panama.[36]

Some officials have been indicted by an US court.[37] The companies which made deals with Aristide included IDT, Fusion Telecommunications, and Skytel; critics claim the two first companies had political links. AT&T reportedly declined to wire money to "Mont Salem".[38][39][40][41]

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>And Eisner is a liberal, because all good liberals pay Haitians 28 cents an hour.
@<A rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/rougy" title="member since June 3rd, 2007" class="profilelink">rougy: You are so ignorant, I don't even know where to begin. I'm honestly puzzled. Are you confusing "conservative" with "capitalist"? That would explain why you think it impossible for a liberal (translation: communist?) to exploit the poor. Or do you think that being a liberal has nothing to do with, you know, actually being a liberal? I posted a reference demonstrating enough as such - I note you have nothing but baseless statements on your side.
>>Wow, conservatives give more pennies to the poor.
Even the poorest conservatives tend to give to charity. But even the richest liberals tend to not. Look up how much Obama gave before the public spotlight was shined on him.
Have you ever actually studied capitalism in the 3rd world? Idiots like you (who come in fighting for a "living wage") are universally detested by the actual people you are trying to "help".


Who, or what, is your source regarding conservatives giving more to charity?

I've Googled this a bit. Seems that the whole claim is based on one book written by one man.

And repeated verbatim by a million slack-jawed yokels.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>And Eisner is a liberal, because all good liberals pay Haitians 28 cents an hour.
@<A rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/rougy" title="member since June 3rd, 2007" class="profilelink">rougy: You are so ignorant, I don't even know where to begin. I'm honestly puzzled. Are you confusing "conservative" with "capitalist"? That would explain why you think it impossible for a liberal (translation: communist?) to exploit the poor. Or do you think that being a liberal has nothing to do with, you know, actually being a liberal? I posted a reference demonstrating enough as such - I note you have nothing but baseless statements on your side.
>>Wow, conservatives give more pennies to the poor.
Even the poorest conservatives tend to give to charity. But even the richest liberals tend to not. Look up how much Obama gave before the public spotlight was shined on him.
Have you ever actually studied capitalism in the 3rd world? Idiots like you (who come in fighting for a "living wage") are universally detested by the actual people you are trying to "help".


And you're the one who's saying that more of the same corporatist bullshit that had 48% of Samoans living without enough food to eat is a good idea.

You're the one who equated Disney with Eisner.

You're vomiting the bile force-fed to you by some emasculated econ professor in some effete business program.

Your examples and metaphors are so obtuse that to even respond to them is an exercise in futility.

You have never bothered to look at this on your own; you're just saying what you've been taught to say by authority figures who had agendas of their own.

I'm with Chavez, da Silva, and Morales all the way.

Structuring a society around the demands of corporate power will lead to, and maintain, poverty faster than any other economic method we know.

Corporations do not "invest" in countries in order to help the people there; in fact, institutions like the IMF and the WTO invest in countries for he purpose of undermining the people there and exploiting their resources, period.

>>And Eisner is a liberal, because all good liberals pay Haitians 28 cents an hour.

@rougy: You are so ignorant, I don't even know where to begin. I'm honestly puzzled. Are you confusing "conservative" with "capitalist"? That would explain why you think it impossible for a liberal (translation: communist?) to exploit the poor. Or do you think that being a liberal has nothing to do with, you know, actually being a liberal? I posted a reference demonstrating enough as such - I note you have nothing but baseless statements on your side.

>>Wow, conservatives give more pennies to the poor.

Even the poorest conservatives tend to give to charity. But even the richest liberals tend to not. Look up how much Obama gave before the public spotlight was shined on him.

Have you ever actually studied capitalism in the 3rd world? Idiots like you (who come in fighting for a "living wage") are universally detested by the actual people you are trying to "help".

Sweeeeet!...and terrible what Mom did to her Haitian locals...or did she?? Hey...I know that dude!

>> ^ShakaUVM:
@<A rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/rougy" title="member since June 3rd, 2007" class="profilelink">rougy: Dude, talk about a non-sequitor. I said that conservatives help poor people more, and they do indeed give more to charity. You responded with something about Michael Eisner exploiting people, and I pointed out he's a liberal, and that big corporations love big government. (Why? Because regulation hurts small businesses more. After The Jungle came out, all the large meat packing corporations lobbied FOR more regulations. Didn't know that, eh?) I'm not sure how you read that as me trying to disprove the wages paid to Haitians or whatever.
You also think that taxing fishing companies more would somehow improve the lot of people in American Samoa, when it would actually do what taxes have always done to fishing companies - push them even further overseas, thus hurting those that your bleeding heart is trying to protect. Taxes and regulations annihilated the fishing and canning industry here in San Diego.


You don't seem to know much about anything from where I'm sitting.

Wow, conservatives give more pennies to the poor. How nice. But they'll bitch a blue streak if they have to pay them a living wage.

And Eisner is a liberal, because all good liberals pay Haitians 28 cents an hour.

I don't know what you're reading, but it's totally screwed up your head.

No offense.

@rougy: Dude, talk about a non-sequitor. I said that conservatives help poor people more, and they do indeed give more to charity. You responded with something about Michael Eisner exploiting people, and I pointed out he's a liberal, and that big corporations love big government. (Why? Because regulation hurts small businesses more. After The Jungle came out, all the large meat packing corporations lobbied FOR more regulations. Didn't know that, eh?) I'm not sure how you read that as me trying to disprove the wages paid to Haitians or whatever.

You also think that taxing fishing companies more would somehow improve the lot of people in American Samoa, when it would actually do what taxes have always done to fishing companies - push them even further overseas, thus hurting those that your bleeding heart is trying to protect. Taxes and regulations annihilated the fishing and canning industry here in San Diego.

@ShakaUVM

Did you disprove the FACT that Haitians were paid 28 cents per hour?

For the benefit of an American corporation?

No, you didn't.

Would you like to try again?

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Sagemind.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Anderson-Cooper-Drags-Haitian-Boy-To-Safety-Graphic

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by ant.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Anderson-Cooper-Drags-Haitian
-Boy-To-Safety-Graphic


*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Anderson-Cooper-Drags-Haitian-Boy-To-Safety-Graphic

dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Anderson-Cooper-Drags-Haitian-Boy-To-Safety-Graphic

dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Anderson-Cooper-Drags-Haitian-Boy-To-Safety-Graphic

Ummm...the Haitian deal with the devil is a propagated myth spread in France and among Christians about Haiti's victorious fight for independence.

He didn't pull it out of thin air. It's stupid, but then so are stories about storks delivering children, Santa Claus and O.J. Simpson's book "(If) I did it"