>> ^spaceman:

Also, I think more than a truck is needed to stop that train.


DUDE! That's a 1965 Chevy C-10. They were the precursor to the M1A1 Abrams tank!

They won the Vietnam war singlehanded!

True story.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^gwiz665:
It's looking more and more like vietnam, isn't it? The american occupying force ought to get the hell out of there.
quality, not that the video really needs it.

All of the wars since Vietnam have been just like Vietnam. But no one seems to give a shit in the US, and if they do they sure as hell don't fucking act like it.



This is not true. It took years for significant protests of the Vietnam War to make any sort of impact on the situation in the United States or in Indochina. Before there were significant protests Indochina was bombed into oblivion with tons upon tons of war crimes mounting up, millions of people killed land deforested and people rounded up into camps. Although this horrible shocking footage is damning it doesn't compare to the monstrous brutality and murder on a mass scale that Vietnam was.

People do care, Iraq is the first War America has had that had organized large scale resistance before the War was even declared. It's tapered off due to complacency the outstanding work of the media to push it to the side so successfully and the overall Failure of the Left in this country to keep organizing people and bring about a dedicated resistance. Not having a draft and keeping the numbers there as low as possible has helped the media do it's job and point out that this isn't our problem.

It's not hard to start a resistance against this War...the groups exist and the people are out there. If you don't want to see anymore stuff like this either keep watching Lost or stand up together because this all happens in our name.

Okay, you invoke the phrase "checks and balances" -- at least in my civics education, that was always defined as the interactions between the 3 co-equal branches of government, the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, aka The President, The Supreme Court, and the Congress, and the various ways they can veto (and override) one another.

The Constitution sets up the Senate as a majority rule house, that's why there are two Senators from every state, and a Vice Presidential tie-breaker. The filibuster itself is more of a bug in the rules of the Senate that has been exploited, and never has been exploited this much at any other time in the history of the United States. The only major legislation that was held up before the 1990's by filibuster was the civil rights act. The period for debate on the Senate health care bill was the second longest in history -- the only one longer was the debate on entering World War I (the debate on de-funding the Vietnam war, Civil Rights, and Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton's impeachment...all shorter).

Now we can't even get Republicans to agree to a vote on confirming Obama's appointee for the TSA (though that one's a hold, not a filibuster, at least not yet).

You say the bill would've been improved by the minority. In what way? I've followed this process closely, and I've heard of no proposal Republicans have made that would have included something they wanted, in return for something Democrats would have wanted. They were all proposals that would've only gutted a core aspect of the legislation, or they were non-controversial and passed on a bipartisan or unanimous basis. Despite the latter amendments (of which there were many in committee), Republicans have demagogued throughout about how they'd been "shut out" of the process. Republicans outside the process (like yourself) have echoed this, loudly, despite the basic reality of it -- they had a seat at the table, they just weren't willing to make any concessions at all.

For example, Obama literally said to Republicans that he's open to incorporating their version of tort reform into the bill, but wanted to know what they'd be willing to give him in return for it. Their answer: nothing.

As far as the mid-terms, I do think Democrats are likely to wind up losing a net of 1-3 Senate seats in 2010, meaning they'll still be at the exceedingly large majority of 57-43, and they'll probably still have a 50+ seat majority in the House. So what then?

What incentive is there for Republicans to work with Democrats if being obstinate pricks gives them electoral success? Their maximum incentive to make deals comes when they're so far in the minority it's the only way to influence legislation -- a 60-40 Democratic majority, say. But the Republican party of today is still refusing to compromise even under those circumstances. If they win elections based on that in 2010, why wouldn't they just double down, and hold Congress hostage from 2011-2013 and force Democrats to either pass nothing, or pass Republican legislation? Then, after that shoot to win the White House on a campaign that says "kick those do-nothing uncompromising socialist Democrats out"?

Personally I think the filibuster needs to go precisely because of that dynamic. A time will come again in my lifetime where the shoe is on the other foot, and I guarantee you that I'm going to be telling Democrats to filibuster everything Republicans do, big or small (unless Republicans transform into a very radically different party). I'd rather see the Republicans and Democrats pass their legislative agendas, and let the American people hold them accountable for the results, without letting our representatives wiggle out of their promises with "but the minority party we crushed in the last election wouldn't let us do it!" I think it would moderate the campaign promises, as well as break us out of this cycle that keeps us perpetually saddled with a status quo that few are happy with.

Also, remember how angry you were that they pushed Bush's tax cuts through via reconciliation rules because it broke down the fundamental checks and balances of our Democracy?</snark>

I wish they would've had the balls to privatize social security that way. We'd have wound up with President Howard Dean in '04.

I agree this is a very good documentary.
He was the Donald Rumsfeld of the Vietnam war and the Veterans of that day had a deep hatred of this man. He also had a part in the bombing JAPAN during WWII and Cuban Missile crisis.

Truly a must watch documentary.
The full title is "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara"

Here is the IMDB link
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/

While yes, this presentation does seem like a pro-conservative or pro-liberitarian promotion, it does a few things incorrectly:

A) The presentation is to the speed of the music, not to the spend of the human eye to translate concept in to something the brain understands. The music is great (if only to get it as a techno soundtrack somewhere..). There were a few times I either stopped th presenation, and thought on the history accuracy or rewinded to see it again.

B) It moves past Mr. Clinton quite quickly (which is bad for conservatives, as they hate Clinton). Before Mr. Obama, the previous 4 US presidents have increase the US debit from the 1.4 trillion during the Carter Administration (again, the sources do range in numbers) to 10+ trillion after Mr. Bush. So, if Clinton was in that group of four, and Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr were in there; the which party should be held more accountable for spending? At 5:14 in the presentation, it does say that Clinton "Federal Deficit becomes Surplus". Actually not entirely true. The economists stated that under the Clinton Administration, if the 'plan' was followed for 2 additional years (1st 2 years of Bush Jr), the budget would be a surplus. Mr. Bush Jr, being the 'brilliant' and 'wise' man he was, surrounded himself with equally 'brilliant' and 'wise' men. Together, they gave Americans 3 Tax checks that effectively removed any chance of the deficit being made a surplus.

I found Democrats look long term, and Republicans, short term. Here was a great example of this effect in practice. We could have had the budget balanced THEN given tax breaks to remove the surplus down. This never happened. So while I hear conservatives/liberatians b*tching at Obama about how he spends the US money, never ONCE, do I hear them complain how republicans spent the money. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

C) All of this tries to ignore the other 90% of events and activites that were taking place across the country and world. Yes, it shows something here and there, but that's it! The Vietnam War effected a HUGE section of the population. The Iraq War, the Recssion, and Hurricane Katrina. This presenation glosses over things like this, even though they are huge events. (/start sarcasm) Oh, and September 11, 2001? That's right, it wasn't important from a finanical point of view...(/end sarcasm)

The rise of fascism is here, I do believe. The US has become a terrible Empire, which is ironic when considering the founding fathers led a revolution against the British Empire and worded our government documents carefully so we'd never end up as such.

It's disgusting to see jackbooted police in the streets of America. This is certainly the slow creep of fascism. And it's as if they don't even care that they're a blatant parody of Nazis at this point! It's ridiculous.

When George Lucas wrote Star Wars it was a comment against the Vietnam War. When creating the 'Empire' he wanted everything to be stark black and white and red, which was to symbolize Nazis. So, inside the various ships you'll note the colors are very stark, as are the uniforms. Looking at this video, however, is it not ironic, too, that they're wearing black and white uniforms?

This was made in 1971. Nixon was President. The Vietnam War was raging. The World Trade Center had just been completed.

I'll bet the people who made this thought things were as bad as they were going to get in that year.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'live, music, phil, ochs, vietnam, war, protest, peace, united fruit' to 'live, music, phil, ochs, vietnam, war, protest, united fruit, peace, treason, love, reason' - edited by calvados

I agree with blankfist. What happened to this poor guy is newsworthy, but the video itself doesn't have any larger meaning. Unfortunately people get murdered every day, for all sorts of awful reasons. Now that the police are involved, keeping this video here becomes questionable.

I can also see a reason for keeping it: The video itself has shown the power of internet video. However, I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep it, because the power of internet video is already pretty well established. That's just my opinion.

Just to be clear, I still think the death of Neda should stay, because her death has become symbolic of the Iranian struggle for freedom, just as much as the Burning Monk became a symbol of the Vietnam War. Neither deaths are ordinary, if you'll excuse my usage of "ordinary" in this case. History has already judged both deaths as significant in the course of human events. It wasn't me, or you, or any one person here who did that. The world sometimes collectively reacts the same way to events, and especially to images of events, and before you know it, it's in the history books. Like it or not, history works that way sometimes.

Anyway, this poor dude's death, however sad it may be, probably doesn't belong here because it doesn't hold any special historical significance, especially since the police are now involved with the case. Now it has become just another random American homicide, which happened to be caught on video. So if someone's going to tally votes, count me in the "remove" column.

WALTER CRONKITE IF THERE IS A HELL, YOU BELONG IN IT.

During the Vietnam War, Cronkite was responsible for a massive disinformation campaign to turn America’s victories into defeats (the Tet Offensive) and fabricate out of whole cloth Viet Cong victories that were used to demoralize the American public. He should be remembered as one of the great traitors of American history, right there along with Benedict Arnold.

He was worse than Arnold because he was lying to so many more people. Good riddance to him. He can spend his time now in hell with Robert Strange McNamara.

Walter Cronkite betrayed every one of the 58,000 men who died in Viet Nam. He betrayed every man and woman wounded in Viet Nam. He betrayed every man and woman who served in Viet Nam and he betrayed the people of South Vietnam. He stabbed the Viet Nam vet in the back.

Cronkite went to Hue during Tet '68 fairly late in the battle and saw what he wanted to see, but refused an invitation to see the massacred victims the communists had killed and tossed in a mass grave. He chose the side of the enemy and his reports of lies affected his buddy LBJ in his decision making as well.

When LBJ heard of Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

Cronkite was a self-serving bastard.

WALTER COMMIEKITE IF THERE IS A HELL, YOU BELONG IN IT.

The only theory I've seen of the reason to kill JFK was because he wanted to stop Vietnam. However everyone inside the JFK administration knew that he had no intention to stop the Vietnam War. Or the idea that he wasn't doing enough to Cuba, when he had an ongoing terrorist war against Cuba run by his brother.

These theories also happen to waste a lot of time. They have tons of conventions and meetings about them even today and I really don't see the point. Even if they did kill Kennedy, does that matter? Probably not.

Rottenseed, if varietube was first then that's fine, he (she?) should be able to keep it and then this one can be discarded, but not until the debate has come to an end.

Sarzy, we HAVE kept videos with depictions of death before because they were deemed newsworthy. Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Canadian-Police-Taser-Man-To-Death

http://www.videosift.com/video/Police-shoot-unarmed-man-laying-face-down-in-the-back

Indeed this one (Neda's death) is a little bloody, but the end result is the same: All of them died. All of these are newsworthy. They are not random traffic accidents or some anonymous skydiver plummeting to his death because of a failed parachute opening. They are all significant events. And if most major news outlets around the whole world can show these videos, then so can we.

Like I said in my linked comment, the burning monk is not "snuff" because his death became symbolic of the Vietnam War. Neda's death has already become symbolic of the Iranian struggle for freedom. It is not "snuff."

I disagree. "Snuff" implies they have no redeeming value, i.e., they simply exist for macabre rubber-necking purposes. What happened to Neda is newsworthy, and we have allowed newsworthy deaths to be posted here before. It's no different than this:



That footage became a symbol of the Vietnam War. We've all seen stills of this in our history books. Is it still snuff? Neda's sad death has become symbolic of the Iranian struggle for freedom. Don't suppress it because it makes you uncomfortable. Don't help the Iranian government get away with this.

The first sifter who posted it shouldn't have discarded it, in my opinion. We only need one here, just like we only need one of any video here. But don't discard them all.

oh this post just fucking pissed me off.
i have long refused to suckle at the giant teat of iranian propaganda,and what is happening to the common people who are protesting is egregious in its violence.maybe americans and british should pay attention,this might be foreshadowing.
on it own, this post would be noble,even praiseworthy,but to call americans cowards?
bold words coming from a panty waist sitting in his boxers typing on a keyboard.
sad thing is,i actually agree that consumerism=slavery.that most americans have no clue.
but thats not COWARDICE,thats IGNORANCE,get your nouns right dipshit.
so..
you wanna play "horror-troll" do ye?
ok..ill take your shooting and raise ya:
one "active-denial system" massacre of beit hanoun.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/11/13/us-officers-planned-the-beit-hanoun-massacre/
they used microwaves to do this..MICROWAVES..isreal+america,yet ask an american if he knows about this.ill tell ya..they dont.
do you think it is ONLY in iran,or palestine,chechnya,bosnia,somolia etc etc where horrendous violent acts against humans happens?
do you think america is soley responsible?
while america for the past 50 years has been the greatest aggregator of violence and bloodshed for global hegemony.you think they did it ALONE?
FUCK...your stupidity is making my brain hurt..how can you arbitrarily blame a countries people?
the network of elites who use their money,power and influence to perpetuate their own status quo at the cost of the majority is nothing new to human history.
for FUCKS sake boy! it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who stopped the vietnam war!!
but it was only when the truth of the war,fair and honest reporting,and the revelation of the gulf of tonkin came out.
so instead of sitting at your chair and feeling clever,maybe you should take the time to consider that you admonish a people who just DONT KNOW.
what i DO know is that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
fuck this and fuck you..
cowards..phhht..
asshat ..l..

I'm pretty darn sure that civil disobedience does not always involve breaking the laws that needs to change, not even in the Civil Rights movement or Indian independence. Did you read Thoreau's essay? What about the Vietnam War protests? That might be a bad example since it wasn't the most successful campaign in history and some people felt so powerless that they resorted to terrorism. Nevertheless, civil disobeyers occasionally clogged the machine despite the war being overseas. I don't think that we need to do everything exactly how it has been done before, either. I think you could get creative if you really wanted to make it work. CD is all about clogging the machine, and there are thousands of ways to do that.