You may stop watching this bullsh1t at 1:29 when the entire Vietnam war is labeled as US soldiers--without any context--killing 4 million people in Southeast Asia. REALLY?

NEWSFLASH: the world has always been a violent place. Spin the globe, point to any country and there's a long history of military failures and maybe a few successes. If you're looking for utopian perfection, check the Fiction section.

RoPaul doesn't seem to know that the cult of islam has been at war with everyone around it since its inception. osama was a prick now and forever, and if we aligned with him it was to fight even bigger pricks.

NEWSFLASH 2: Right now, in 2011, the world is also more peaceful than ever

The point is not that there wasn't policy. The point is policy is harder to push when needed without a Department of Education.

The entire question of whether we should have a Dept. of Edu should not have a thing to do with specific policy debates. If the Dept. of Edu. is pushing bad policy, then change the policy it's pushing; abolishing it completely is ridiculous. It would be like abolishing DoD after the Vietnam War.

The Dept of Edu serves many functions beyond just pushing policy. It provides an apparatus for data collecting, analysis, correlating, etc. dedicated to education. It provides a national mechanism to help enact educational policies that are national in nature. It's common sense that if education is important, and if there are national tendencies, trends, data worth investigating that could/should drive national education policy, then we should have a Dept. of Edu. What policies should be pushed, as I said before, is an entirely different issue.

>> ^BansheeX:

The department of education helps no one but those in the education industry, it's a really bad deal for students. Education is a noble profession, but all services can be overpriced. Federal loans allow colleges to jack up rates every year knowing that the government will borrow more to pay for this supposed "sacred service that is the key to everything no matter the cost". Politicians have no fear of loss, the money is coming from future taxpayers that don't exist to vote it down. It's no coincidence that prices have accelerated far faster than unsubsidized products and services. If the government were to declare laptop ownership a social protocol and issue $1000 vouchers to everyone, the price of laptops would go up $1000 overnight. They do the same to education as they've been doing with housing.
My stepfather graduated from college in 1967. He paid 4k total for 4 years, that includes room and board. His first accountant job paid 10k a year. He is actually fairly liberal and is shocked to see how many people naively think that college didn't exist or wasn't any good prior to the DoE. He's old enough to know it's the total opposite.

>> ^rich_magnet:

Some loosely-backed claims there, but at least it's reasonably non-partisan.
It doesn't, however, answer it's main thematic question: "Is it really 99% versus 1%?"


I doubt it is necessarily 99% vs 1%. It's more likely 95% vs 5%...

What it certainly isn't is 51% vs 49%...it's a huge difference no matter who's numbers you use.

Kinda like the estimates of the Vietnam war being from 2 million Vietnamese to 4 million dead. Will anyone argue that 2 million is negligible?...in any direction?

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker
well said my friend.you just succinctly put in to perspective americas older generations view on OWS and the disconnect between "the tea party" and 'OWS".
now there really is no disconnect,not really,the disconnect lies in semantics only.
the tea party viewed government as being the intruder while OWS views wall street but i submit they are one in the same.both working to keep the institutions and concentration of power and money in the same hands to the detriment of the populace and they have become so entrenched and corrupted that neither can function without the other and always,ALWAYS it is the most vulnerable who are left to drown.

(i say lets take private monies out of public elections.that would be a great start)

you state the "average american" has a 401k,property etc etc.
this is true if you are retired or near retirement but this is no longer the case and has not been for many years.hence the disconnect between the older and younger generations,yet both generations are angry and upset and are starting to make some noise.i find this to be a very good thing (the noise,not the disconnect).

but i do disagree with you on "finding a specific message".the tea party started out organically and as people related to the shared feeling of frustration and outrage.they found a message, they began to come together and then what happened?
they became corporately sponsored ie:koch brothers.
and their message became a weird amalgam of frustration and palinisms and what was once a movement that was beginning to be heard became co-opted in to a politicians wet-dream of free publicity.

so i say keep the non-distinct yet palpable rage and keep the message broad and inclusive because as history teaches us:if the powerful cant beat ya.
they will co-opt ya.
(before they kill ya).

i hope those who rallied with the tea party will join hands with those in wall street (and italy,greece and ireland) and make such a ruckus that they make politicians pee themselves in fear.
because the only thing a government,crown,caliphate or grand poo-ba is afraid of are people coming to their door-step enmasse.see:end of vietnam war.

So this is like the Disneyland Vietnam War ride?

Pretty macabre.

Protests are often a catalyst for democratic change. Think women's rights, civil rights, the end of the Vietnam war, the labor movement, the New Deal/end of great depression, etc...

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Am I the only one here that thinks these people are useless? See a problem, sit around and do nothing. Ask for more stuff. Play the victim and "raise awareness." Right.
How about going out and starting a company and affecting change in a tangible way? How about creating jobs for your friends and giving back to society?

Ever heard of Jim Crow laws? How about the Vietnam war? Were you alive in the 50's when at colleges it was pretty much 99% white and male students? Have you been to a college campus lately?
Yeah idiot protesting and social movements start somewhere and have a purpose. You're uneducated about this subject...go and educate yourself.


You may be right. It may have to start in the streets before it can enact useful change down the road. I guess we all have our own parts to play, and that combination of everyone fighting for their own cause in their own way is what makes the world go 'round. I tend to be impatient and want to jump to solution, while others want to mobilize support for a cause. Not better or worse, just different.

Yes, I've spent plenty of time on campus as a student, as an employee, and as a teacher. There are some good eggs in there, but it always seemed to me that the majority of activists were highly-political, self-important children who liked the attention of being associated with a cause more than the cause itself.

One of my favorite experiences of late was meeting a woman who had just graduated from college. She wanted to start a clothing company that made college apparel. She was also distressed by the trend of off-shoring textile manufacturing into countries who had no regulation and did not pay their employees a living wage.

Rather than picketing, she went to Sri Lanka on her own dime and met local business people. She convinced one to open a textile factory that paid their employees a living wage of three times the national average, and she promised a certain volume of business to that manufacturer. They did, and she ran her clothing company in a responsible way. Once her margins were in order, she brought manufacturing back to North Carolina (her home state, a state that has been plagued economically by the loss of textiles).

She has taken more than 20% market share from the big 2 college clothing providers and continues to grow. Moreover, she has proved that clothing isn't always bought based on price alone, and that a socially-conscious business can afford to charge a premium to people who believe in its cause.

In my opinion, if you want to set an example, do it with success. Do it by proving that what you believe in is possible. Present solutions, and let people use you as a model.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Am I the only one here that thinks these people are useless? See a problem, sit around and do nothing. Ask for more stuff. Play the victim and "raise awareness." Right.
How about going out and starting a company and affecting change in a tangible way? How about creating jobs for your friends and giving back to society?


Ever heard of Jim Crow laws? How about the Vietnam war? Were you alive in the 50's when at colleges it was pretty much 99% white and male students? Have you been to a college campus lately?

Yeah idiot protesting and social movements start somewhere and have a purpose. You're uneducated about this subject...go and educate yourself.

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe>> ^BoneRemake:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-last-flight-from-Da-Nang-in-1975

If today's politicians were in power during the late 60s the Vietnam war would still be going on!, seriously these new wars are just as winnable as that one, the saddest part however is that in the 60s there was alittle something called the anti-war movement but today it seems almost non-existent because as George Carlin put it, "everyone's too busy at the mall buying sneaker's with lights in them".

>> ^jmzero:

>> ^westy:
Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further.
However, since you seem to want me to comment on the content of your post, I will.

aside from this if there was a legitimate reason to fight a war and I was in it I would not feel that I need anyone to recognize my efforts, the reward would be the outcome of peace that was achieved the best payback would be for people to live as free and normal life as possible.

Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because...

I didn't know people were spiting on them and what have you...

...you've paid zero attention to history. The treatment of Vietnam war vets is not a well guarded secret. Even without any exposure to history, I'm surprised you haven't bumped into this in pop culture. I mean, didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? Barring that particular movie, it just seems like this is the kind of fact you'd have to be actively avoiding. And if you're actively avoiding talk about history, world events, and politics, why do you comment on them so much?
I guess it's no wonder your opinions on all sorts of current events are a crazy mishmash, you're evaluating them without any context.


"So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further."

Wrong.

"Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because..."

Did you read my comment I dont think you understood it , I was primerly saying people should give recognisoin through pragmatic and proactive efforts ( funding vetern suport , helping with PTSD and respecting people as you would respect annyone else) Not simple and mostly symbolic gestures such as what this guy is doing.

How would sumone not living in US know specifcaly about this parade other than what was presented in the video ? How in Anny way did my comment say that i sided with morons that are harassing and generally being negative to them ? You are making allot of assumptions in order to then be angry and attack my comment.

" didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? "


Whats that about ? you do realize if you insult people they are less likely to bother to pay attention to you let alone listen to a point you might lagitimetly be making ?

>> ^westy:

Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further.

However, since you seem to want me to comment on the content of your post, I will.

aside from this if there was a legitimate reason to fight a war and I was in it I would not feel that I need anyone to recognize my efforts, the reward would be the outcome of peace that was achieved the best payback would be for people to live as free and normal life as possible.

Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because...

I didn't know people were spiting on them and what have you...

...you've paid zero attention to history. The treatment of Vietnam war vets is not a well guarded secret. Even without any exposure to history, I'm surprised you haven't bumped into this in pop culture. I mean, didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? Barring that particular movie, it just seems like this is the kind of fact you'd have to be actively avoiding. And if you're actively avoiding talk about history, world events, and politics, why do you comment on them so much?

I guess it's no wonder your opinions on all sorts of current events are a crazy mishmash, you're evaluating them without any context.

Read again. You're misquoting me all over the place.

I'm not apologizing. I'm criticizing your characterization of it as a "genocide". Killing lots of people is not a genocide. That's all. In fact, it's a civil war. The people have organized and publicly declared themselves against a well-armed government which is notorious for killing dissenters and disregarding civil rights in general. Just about everyone outside Libya sides with the rebels and hope they succeed in toppling a ruthless douchebag dictator, but it does not change the fact that the rebels are trying to overthrow a government which is bound to fight back.

Your comparison with Vietnam protesters is a poor choice. Those hippies weren't trying to overthrow the government, just change the government's foreign policy, which is anyone's legal right. I think you'll agree that if they had tried to actually overthrow government, they'd all have been arrested and/or killed. Besides, the government did kill some Vietnam protesters.>> ^bcglorf:

The Libyan protesters were overwhelmingly PEACEFUL when Gaddafi announced his intentions to cleanse them house by house. Their peaceful nature was inspite of already having been targeted for killing by Gaddafi's forces at this point already.
You are apologizing for a genocidal dictator and should be ashamed. The riots during the Vietnam war in America where every bit akin to the Libyan uprising, and contrary to your claim there was no promise of a house to house slaughter of all hippies that would include even the peaceful ones.

>> ^messenger:

A "genocide" is against people of a particular ethnicity or religion. What Gadhafi's doing is against a group that has declared a coup attempt against his government, so let's stop throwing that loaded term around. How could you blame the guy for saying he's going to kill all of them, and assure his supporters that it will be thorough? Of course he did, same as your government would do. I don't see the issue.>> ^bcglorf:
I have troubles cheering a guy who declares the better solution was never go at all. Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition...



The Libyan protesters were overwhelmingly PEACEFUL when Gaddafi announced his intentions to cleanse them house by house. Their peaceful nature was inspite of already having been targeted for killing by Gaddafi's forces at this point already.

You are apologizing for a genocidal dictator and should be ashamed. The riots during the Vietnam war in America where every bit akin to the Libyan uprising, and contrary to your claim there was no promise of a house to house slaughter of all hippies that would include even the peaceful ones.