>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Yogi" title="member since May 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">Yogi
People generally only care about protesters if they already agree with them.
While people are standing around protesting, hoping society will someday improve their lives for them, they're being out-competed in life by more proactive thinkers.


I guess you edited you comment because I got a message starting with this "Protesting doesn't change opinions unless you create a mass movement. Engaging the solipsistic far left or far right alone isn't enough."

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong about this...but it's not any fault of your own that you are ignorant about activism since it's simply not covered in schools outside historical discussions of the Vietnam war. For 30 years we funded the Genocide of East Timor with President Carter doubling our efforts. All told 600,000 East Timorese landless peasants and farmers murdered. Half a dozen people working in a small office lobbying the government with no funding to speak of, organized protests that were starting to get embarrassing. Clinton called off the funding...and just like that the Genocide was over and done with and International Humane services were allowed in the country.

This is one example...there are countless others where small protests at company headquarters get them to stop say privatizing water in a 3rd world nation or starving the population. They were not mass movements yet they had a huge affect for the indigenous population all because informed protesters knew who was responsible and knew that even a little protest would get them to back down before it become public. It may not seem like much here and there are no movements reported on in the media to speak of but they do have an influence on people around the globe.

Again this isn't surprising...I doubt many on this sift of people who do pay attention to the media know little about the victories won by small protests, because it isn't reported. In their eyes it really shouldn't be because as soon as you let on that the people do have power they will exercise it and there will be what liberal intellectuals termed in the 60's a "Crisis of Democracy" which happens when you have Too Much Democracy.

The original comic series is awesome. It was set in the days of the Vietnam war. The only thing that sucks is the English VO. It is horrible. I hope the DVD can have English subtitles and the original Japanese turned on.

I say Assange is not guilty. All he did is made public the documents. He did not steal them.

HULU has a documentary on the Pentagon Papers. Titled The most Dangerous man in America.

1971 Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level Pentagon official and Vietnam War strategist, concluded that the war is based on decades of lies and subsequently leaks 7,000 pages of top secret documents to The New York Times.

The Most Dangerous Man in America.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War' to 'Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War, classified, documents, secret, leak' - edited by calvados

I simply asked a straightforward question. It is a fact that the US invaded and continued the Vietnam War under false pretenses. And facts are darned things.

I'm amazed you're so eager to call someone who leaks confidential documents but apparently are willing to fully brush off a government lying to it's people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

You know what annoys me the most about what you say is you just don't have any consistent beliefs. Your only consistency seems to be that you always just happen to agree with Republican rhetoric.

If you were really concerned about Vietnamese deaths, you would have realised that a communist regime would have been a far better outcome, spared countless lives and would have resulted in a conversion to capitalism gradually just like Vietnam is doing now.

And hey, I bet you opposed intervention in Kosovo when Clinton was in office, right? Quite ironic if so, right?

And what about intervening in Rwanda and right now in Darfur? Against that too I'm guessing?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Your loaded question was actually the most civil response.
Wouldn't release 'em. Why be a traitor when the Pentagon Papers had zero effect on the Democrat-run Vietnam War?
False pretenses? You mean, communists didn't murder 2 million Vietnamese?
At least Ellsberg was ready to accept his fate.

@ quantumushroom

If you had gained access to the Pentagon Papers, would you have made them available or kept hidden that the US invaded Vietnam under false pretenses?

Your loaded question was actually the most civil response.

Wouldn't release 'em. Why be a traitor when the Pentagon Papers had zero effect on the Democrat-run Vietnam War?

False pretenses? You mean, communists didn't murder 2 million Vietnamese?

At least Ellsberg was ready to accept his fate.


@ quantumushroom


If you had gained access to the Pentagon Papers, would you have made them available or kept hidden that the US invaded Vietnam under false pretenses?

>> ^quantumushroom:

I take no pleasure in the fact innocents have to be searched, but if you're going to piss off anyone, how about the demographic and "religion" responsible for terrorist acts 99.99% of the time? Maybe some of these fictional "moderate" Muslims might actually stop and ponder why they let jihadist vermin represent their religion.
BTW, now that you've "seen the light" about the stupidity and low qualifications of a large swath of TSAers, are you ready for the same gorogs being hired as Government Medical Techs? Same efficiency, same grace. It's only a matter of time.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Either way you look at it QM, they've never found ONE bomb. Not one. Ever.



For "Terroristic Acts" see War in Iraq, War in Afganistan, War on Terror, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Gulf War Sanctions, Invasion of Haiti, Invasion of Grenada, Funding Militias in Nicaragua who attack soft targets.

See where I'm going here...to much of the world we are the terrorists.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CRAZY TO BE A DEMOCRAT, BUT IT HELPS
October 27, 2010

Ann Coulter


With the media sneering about the Tea Party candidates being a bunch of nuts, how about we take a look at some of the Democrats running this year?

We've got Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who personally presided over the housing crash after getting that gay prostitution business behind him. Of course, Frank's actions are nothing compared to Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul's alleged participation in a college prank. Now, THERE'S a scandal!

California Sen. Barbara Boxer refuses to say whether a newborn baby is a human life. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., asked her on the Senate floor a few years ago whether she believed a baby born alive has a constitutionally protected right to live, Boxer was stuck for an answer. Her nonresponsive replies included these:

"I support the Roe v. Wade decision. ...

"I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. ...

"Define 'separation' ...

"You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? ...

"The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. ...

"I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions!"

(Also, I think she said: "Please call me 'senator.'")

That's not Patty Murray-stupid, but it's still pretty stupid. How many late-term abortions are you planning to get, Californians, that it's worth being represented by such a cretinous woman?

Even if you are under the misimpression that Boxer's Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, is somehow going to outlaw abortion in California, Carly will cut your taxes so much that you'd be able to fly to Sweden for all your abortions and still come out ahead!

Liberals are indignant that Sarah Palin writes speech notes to herself on her hand. This week, Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate for governor in Florida, was slipped a debating point by her makeup artist, texted by a campaign aide in violation of the rules during a debate with her Republican opponent, Rick Scott.

Oh, those thick Tea Party candidates!

Last weekend, Illinois governor Pat Quinn -- Rod Blagojevich's running mate -- stood silently as his supporter, state Sen. Rickey Hendon, blasted Quinn's Republican opponent, Bill Brady, as "idiotic, racist, sexist, homophobic."

Hendon has repeatedly made headlines over the past few years for his inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Once -- during a Senate debate -- he asked Sen. Cheryl Axley if her hair was naturally blond and then publicly propositioned her.

Another time, Hendon tackled Rep. Robin L. Kelly, knocking her to the ground after a House-Senate softball game she had come to watch in office attire.

Of the impeccable Brady, Hendon wailed: "If you think that women have no rights whatsoever, except to have his children, vote for Bill Brady. If you think gay and lesbian people need to be locked up and shot in the head, vote for Bill Brady."

Even the Chicago press was shocked by this, calling on Quinn to apologize. Quinn has "renounced" Hendon's remarks, but refused to apologize.

But watch out for the Tea Party candidates! There are some real loose cannons in that bunch.

Also last week, Rep. Ron Klein, Democrat of Florida, hysterically claimed he had been "threatened" by one of the Vietnam Veteran bikers supporting his Republican opponent, Allen West.

The man who had allegedly "threatened" Klein is 60 years old and goes by the terrifying name of ... "Miami Mike." Mike told the Miami Herald that he had simply e-mailed Klein, saying that he deserved to be voted out of office and, in addition, he needed "a good ass-kicking, which I'd be more than happy to do even though I'm a lot older than you."

As Miami Mike said: "A threat? Give me a break. He cannot be scared of what I wrote. If he is, he is just a real baby."

Apparently so. Klein turned Mike's e-mail over to the Capitol police, where they promptly burst out laughing and then ordered framed copies of the e-mail.

Speaking of little girls in pink party dresses, Keith Olbermann has repeatedly claimed that Allen West "disgraced his uniform." Weirdly, he never gives details of how he thinks West did that. (Maybe Olbermann could check on war-zone protocol with fake-Vietnam War veteran Dick Blumenthal, who's running for the Senate from Connecticut by lying about having served in Vietnam.)

As a colonel in Iraq, West was interrogating an Iraqi terrorist who knew about a planned ambush. Unable to get him to talk, West shot a gun near the terrorist's head, whereupon the frightened but unharmed detainee spilled the beans.

Because of that, West's men were able to capture a potential attacker and identify future ambush sites. There were no further attacks on West's men.

As West later told The New York Times, "There are rules and regulations, and there's protecting your soldiers." He said, "I just felt I'd never have to write a letter of condolence home to a 'rule and regulation.'"

When the Army considered court-martialing West, thousands of letters poured in defending West and thanking him for what he had done. Ninety-five members of Congress signed a letter to the secretary of the Army in support of West. No court-martial was ever convened.

Liberals won't say that John Phillip Walker Lindh disgraced his country. Washington Sen. Patty Murray thinks Osama bin Laden is a swell guy for building "day care centers" in Afghanistan. But they say a hero like Allen West "disgraced his uniform" by saving the lives of American soldiers.

Yeah, the Tea Party candidates are a real embarrassment.

First of all: when did this happen? by "hassling supporters of the military" do you mean anti-war protests? I've yet to see any antiwar protesters attacking military families or soldiers

It happened(s) frequently. Anti-war types routinely hassle military personnel, and even their families. During the Vietnam war it was a cottage industry. For shame. While free speech may allow it - such speech should be self-censored by common sense, decency, and self-respect.

Secondly: attacking self-righteous bigots who think they can decide who other adult people can love, sleep with or form lasting relationships with, and who, with their poison and bigotry turns young peoples lives into a nightmare of shame, bullying and self-loathing, is a fight to protect the vulnerable, not to harm them.

Those who seek to justify "attacking" others are in the fetters of agenda-driven bias. This comes from allowing their belief in a 'cause' to lead them into dehumanizing others to the point where they become comfortable with abuse. I see no difference between the woman in this video some other jerk who harasses people for a pet cause.

If you believe in something then you advance the cause with persuasion, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned. If you find yourself moved to insults, misrepresentation, harassment, property damage, or other abuse then you have entered the dark side no matter how just you think your cause may be. The sad truth is that there are pro-gay types who behave just like the woman in this video towards perfectly normal folks who just happen to support traditional marriage. They may come from a different orchestra, but its the same music.

screaming at people on their way into an abortion clinic, that not just low, its disgusting, immature, inhuman and downright evil

I believe I said that. I merely commented that it is somewhat curious that the outrage only manifests itself when the behavior is coming from the perspective of a specific ideology. If such outrage was truly applied from a position of justice then it would not confine itself to merely one 'aisle' so to speak. It was more a commentary on the stilted nature of "VideoSift" than anything else.

I've looked up his pics online - I could take him.

There is a big difference between high school swim team camel toe and this? I don't see it. This young lady is engaged in photo shooting - showing off her gymnastic abilities in an iconic setting. She isn't intending to display and frame her snatch - that's just how you see it. Fucking perv.

I guess if you want to nitpick about the attire of a man lurking about a children's playground, you are purposely obfuscating the issue. When you live your life online, I guess real life issues changes your perspective on things.

Who said anything about vietnam? Do you know who the Phelps family is?

Too bad if you think she is an adult, she IS a minor - and if not legally, then practically. She says she's 17. How old are you? You fucking perv.

Regarding your cock and balls - there's a great deal difference between glancing at ass and filming a crotch in public. If you don't understand that I don't have the time nor inclination to explain it to you. And how would I even know that this perv was filming her crotch? How many handheld cameras still have an eye-piece for viewing? Most have a screen. Anyone who glanced over and saw his screen would see what he was doing. He's a fucking perv. Whether he did this to 'provoke' as an aspect of his professional persona, or if he's just a perv normally is irrelevant. It was inappropriate.

Porn shoot? In public? Surely you know this would be illegal (and for a good reason). "Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels."

Pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl? She visibly IS a poor, innocent young girl. She's there with what looks like her family and a professional photographer. This is not a sexual display, this is an artistic endeavour meant to focus on her artistic ability, not her snatch you perv.

I've studied the polarizing effect of the internet - where anonymity and the digital interface leads to people upholding stringent, abstract principles with little regard for real-world practicality and social norms. This seems to be a textbook case of this trend. "She is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg" does not equal "She wants people to look at her snatch - you can tell because she is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg".

Remind me to never leave DannyM with my kids.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Throbbin:
I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.
There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)
If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.
Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.
If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.
I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.
In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"
As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

concur

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Throbbin:
I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.
There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)
If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.
Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.
If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.
I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.
In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"
As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

>> ^Throbbin:

I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.


Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.

There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)

If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.

Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.

If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.

I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.

In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"

As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

Background:
In August 2004, following claims by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that presidential candidate John Kerry had exaggerated his record during the Vietnam War, Malkin appeared on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and stated that there were "legitimate questions" over whether Kerry's wounds were "self-inflicted." When host Chris Matthews pressed her eleven times over the implication that Kerry had shot himself on purpose, she said that other soldiers had made this claim. Matthews said "No irresponsible comments are going to be made on this show"; Malkin criticized Matthews and the MSNBC staff in her blog the following day. Georgia Senator Zell Miller accused Matthews of "browbeating" Malkin. - wikipedia

Can't do animated gifs for channel avatars, since they're not allowed and the backend converts all types to jpeg anyway.

Or I'm pretty sure it does, like it does with member avatars.

For sidebar content, I suggest you search youtube or vimeo for awesome slowmotion fire. Maybe a picture of that monk that put himself on fire in the vietnam war.

Oooh, and Tobias Fünke auditioning for that one part: "OMG, IT'S A FIRE... sale"

For the icon I suggest something simple and telling, like
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4415674/2/istockphoto_4415674-flame-symbols.jpg
or
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2191/2417164282_3cedc64029.jpg
or
http://theoffutts.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/flame.jpg

If you want CSS stuff done, let me know, I'll help ya out. I never did it for talks, since I wanted to keep it nice and neat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War



When I was younger I had an interest in wars. One war that caught my attention was the Vietnam War. One battle that caught my I was Ia Drang which was the first battle directly with uniformed combat troops. Immortalized in the movie We Were Soldiers.

But soon the war began to take on a different tone, moving from rice paddy to rice paddy, village to village. Where one village worked with the US Troops and another didn't. Where one village ended up burned to the ground by US Troops, and one village killed by the Viet Cong. The use of Firebases.

Here are some photos of the firebases in Vietnam. http://www.landscaper.net/lzpics.htm#FSB%20Aries

Turn to Afghanistan. Moving from opium field to opium field, village to village. The use of Fire Bases.

http://www.google.com/images?q=Photos+of+Afghanistan+firebases&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=M
qEoTOa4AYH68AafrIi6Dw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QsAQwAA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_support_base

There were some good reasons to be in Afghanistan, just like there were good reasons to be in Vietnam. But the bad reasons always out weigh the good reasons, on bad reason is Civilian Death, on both sides. Would these people be better off left alone? One can argue that Afghanistan is not vietnam because there is no Communist Influence there, some argue that there are only 100 Al Qaeda there. Another large difference is the casualty difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Here's the big difference. Vietnam was about Communism, and Afghanistan is about Terrorism. Wait, doesn't seem that different.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861