Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States [2/10] has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states-of-america

Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States [2/10] has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

oliver stones untold history of the united states of america has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

Wonder if all his little A-list friends were invited?
Danny Glover and Kevin Spacey will be there, Harry Belafonte and Bono are gonna sing, Naomi Campbell and Cornel West will be coming together to make her look smart and him look sexy...Oliver Stone OHhh, and that whining bitch Cindy Sheehan can come and continue her 2nd or 3rd stage of grief with fellow mourners...

Human rights abuses and threats will no-doubt continue, maybe they'll let anyone have a television station and a constitution that let's you talk shit about el comandante' without being killed or disappeared...Or maybe they should pull an Alberto Fujimori and hire-out!!

>> ^vaire2ube:

The War on Drugs is a War on People... or quite literally, a War on Freedom.
Who else hates our freedom as much as the DEA?? Ask Daniel Chong... Bin Laden has nothing on what the DEA did to him.


I agree, but let me devils advocate for a second. Everyone has heard of sin taxes, extra taxes placed on things like cigarettes to discourage their use. These things fly in the face of freedom as well, they just don't send you to jail, just the poor house. The scary part about sin taxes isn't the tax itself, even though it is bad, but it is the justification it then grants the government in the matters of regulating what you consume. There is the FDA on the other side of that argument as well. Lets say Mary Jane gets legalized, you can bet your ass the stuff you grown in your back yard STILL isn't going to be legal. You are going to need some kind of licence, some sort of standardized testing procedure to make sure you aren't poisoning yourself...ect ect.

My point is, harping on the drug war is fine, and it is right to do so. But there are SO many different agencies and areas the government tells us what do and what not to do. IN that, the drug war is just an extension of those things. If you still want the FDA by the logic, that the drug war is a war on people, I don't think it will stand the test. Instead, you have to take a MUCH less ideological position of "more people want to do it than don't, so it is the exception in regulator matters". That is the problem you get into when you start trying to make everyone safe...there isn't such an actual idea as safe. Safe is a completely subjective idea...some people feel safe skydiving...fuck that noise.

As a crazy libertarian, I am fine with most government agencies shutting down. To that end, I do think life wouldn't change to much. The entities in the government evolved from our desire for them to exist. They would all most likely come to be in the private sector as well, a consumer reports of food, ect. And with places like the sift and redit, I do think the second age of the information age is going to place a LOT of pressure on governments and challenge their ability to deal with challenges. The internet might unlock a democratic meritocracy in certain instances, and for that I am very hopeful. </rant>

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Looks interesting. Sometimes I think certain literary historians simply have it in for the Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon, but then I'm no literary historian.


I met the decedent of the Earl of Oxford in College. He came to give a talk on this stuff. Unfortunately for him, there were a number of very well-respected Shakespeare scholars in attendance who pulled this story apart. This was over 10 years ago, so I can't even pretend to do it justice, but the guy basically left the stage in embarrassment because he had absolutely to explanations for all the stuff, generally agreed upon, which pretty much ruled out the Earl of Oxford as the writer of the Shakespeare plays.


In the end though, movies like this (and Oliver Stone's JFK) will serve to color the general population's concept of such controversies, giving far more weight to conspiracy theories than they actually deserve.

In summary, they do have it in for the Bard and our current society just LOVES a conspiracy theory...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rodney dangerfield juliette lewis woody harrelson oliver stone' to 'rodney dangerfield, juliette lewis, woody harrelson, oliver stone' - edited by jonny

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Comandante - Fidel Castro & Oliver Stone. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

i thought oliver stone rewrote tarantinos screenplay to such an extent that quentin totally refused to take any credit for the movies screenplay?
meh...maybe that was just an article in people magazine....

"back and to the left" further proof that Oliver Stone knows a lot about making movies but nothing about ballistics, the video clearly shows an EXIT wound, meaning the bullet entered the back of the skull and exited in a spray of JFK out the front.

Can't find a replacement. Here's the transcript in case some lonely wanderer wonders what this video was about:

Oct 14, 2008
"MADDOW: Coming up, Academy Award-winning director, Oliver Stone, joins us here in the studio to talk about his new film “W” or “double-u” if you‘re one of those east coast media elitists. Hopefully, I can persuade Mr. Stone to share his opinions about the life and career of President George W. Bush, but you know how shy Mr. Stone is. I will do what I can.

First though, it‘s time for a few underreported holy mackerel stories in today‘s news. Ready for the first one? Quote, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.” What? Huh? What I said was, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.”

Does that make any sense to you? Yes, me neither. And neither did it make sense to the judge, the military officers, or lawyers working one of the tribunals at Guantanamo recently, when an American paid Arabic translator dictated to them that nonsense sentence, as if it made sense in English.

Does the phrase “lost in translation” spring to mind? Five key defendants charged in conjunction with 9/11 are moving towards jury trials. The U.S. military lawyers assigned to defend them say that translation services have been done so on the cheap that they estimate about half of what a defendant stated in the hearing room was mistranslated and a ¼ of what was said in English in the courtroom never made it back to the defendant. There are standards for these sorts of things, you know, at, say, federal courts or the international criminal courts but at Guantanamo, apparently? Not so much.

Remember the case there about Osama bin Laden‘s alleged driver? That actual phrase, “bin Laden‘s driver” was repeatedly translated as “bin Laden‘s lawyer.” What‘s the difference?

And time is running out for American troops to be in Iraq legally. The United Nation‘s mandate that allows our troops to be there expires at the end of this year. What happens when that mandate expires? Well, the Bush administration has long expressed confidence that the Iraqi government and the White House could sign a status-of-forces agreement—a country-to-country, one-on-one plan for keeping our troops there.

But after months of a stalemate and trying to reach such an agreement, one of the Iraqi vice presidents this week finally said that he doesn‘t think it‘s going to happen in time. So, that means after December 31st, it will be illegal for American troops to be on Iraqi streets.

Karen DeYoung from “The Washington Post” reports today that American officials are looking for a plan B if the status-of-forces negotiations really don‘t work out. What is plan B? Apparently, the Bush administration might try to get that U.N. mandate extended. That would require a vote in the U.N. Security Council where Russia holds a veto and Russia, you may recall, would just love an opportunity like that to shove us our locker and steal our lunch money.

So that makes me think “B” in that plan stands for “bad,” as in if that‘s your only plan, that‘s a bad plan. Karen DeYoung suggests that a few other plan Bs might be in the works as well, though Plan B-1 - I guess we‘d call it. A plan B-1 would be, quote, “a simple handshake agreement between Bush and the Iraqi prime minister to keep troops around until the next president takes over and starts negotiating again.”

A handshake deal? You would ride 150,000 American lives on a handshake deal? Maybe I could suggest a plan C, “C” as in “see you.” If the Iraqi government doesn‘t want us to stay enough to sign a deal for to us stay, how about we leave?"

Thanks! I was hoping it wouldn't slip through into the PQ.. I'm looking forward to seeing the full production.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chavez, morales, venezuela, oliver stone, socialism, documentary' to 'chavez, morales, venezuela, oliver stone, socialism, documentary, revolution' - edited by EndAll

>> ^IronDwarf:
The answer to nearly all of those questions would be something to the effect of that day was utterly chaotic and the US was grossly unprepared for an attack of that kind. Other questions like "Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?" don't even make sense to ask after the fact. The things that happened that day happened because the people flying those planes made it happen that way.
I'm sorry, but anyone who actually buys into any of this conspiracy bullshit is not looking at all of the material available and is either purposefully or unknowingly keeping themselves ignorant. I know these videos can be persuasive, but they are not giving you all the information; they are picking and choosing what fits their particular theory. For example, I felt like I knew for a certainty what had happened on November 22, 1963 after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", but after reading more about it I realized the theory was complete shit, no matter how well made and persuasive the movie was.


You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.

At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.

I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.

In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?

FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.

I ask you sir...
srsly?