I'm very confused. Let me get this straight...

You're gonna blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall (a law that REGULATED financial markets) on Barney Frank who voted AGAINST the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which is the legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall?! You do realize you're basically making effectively a socialist argument, right?! You're saying the repeal of Glass-Steagall was intended to help the poor, but it didn't. Glass-Steagall is fundamentally socialist, so you're saying repealing it hurt the economy?!

Other than the fact you got the critical detail of Frank voting against Gramm-Leach-Bliley wrong, I completely agree with you.

In respect that job reports have been disappointing, you didn't address what every objective report about the stimulus bill says it created jobs, and those jobs did go to lower and middle class people. There's a disappointment it didn't do more than it ended up doing, but it DID create/save jobs in the short run, that's undeniable. Extension of unemployment benefits helped the poor and middle class. I could go on and on. You're seriously gonna fight this point?! Ridiculous.

Every company Obama visited and showed as a good example folded, huh? Let's see some proof. I want to see everyone of these companies, and what happened to them. You don't get to throw idiotic statements like this out without proof and expect not get called out on it. You're full of crap on that.

Oh, so if the jobs went to people you blanket don't like, it didn't do any good? LOL! Nevermind they're poor and middle class jobs, those very people you said weren't helped. I don't blame you. Those fat cat teachers and other civil servants, robbing the country blind with their gross underpay and what not! BTW, state employees are not all union members. There are in many states laws against state employees unionizing. Minor detail really...

So you're talking about "real Socialist" countries, not the fake ones I described. Are they more left than us? YES! You then mentioned we've gone "too far to the left" and the pendulum swing of a correction is coming to smite us! Are you suggesting the UK, France, and Britain were smited by the wrath of the free market gods for being too socialist? How have they managed to avoid the smite?!

As to the US education system today. First off, I'm glad you agree with me that universal public education system did coincide with the rise of the US as an economic superpower. You do at least seem to understand attacking that point is pretty pointless. But that also means you lost the argument. We had undeniably the world's best education system during that time, and it was a socialistic program in nature. Do we have the best education system now without question? No. What changed? Not the public mandate. Not the fact it's still mostly gov't operated. That's the same. Therefore, it's undeniable that you can have a top notch gov't run public education system.

Need more proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

What do you notice about the countries with the best education systems? Oh wonder of wonders, virtually all of them have gov't operated public education systems! How do so many evil socialist programs work so well?! Hmmm, maybe it's because sometimes, socialist ideas work the best, and maybe you should open your mind a little, look at specific things, look at data objectively, and apply socialist or capitalist solutions, whichever work the best? I know that's apparently revolutionary for you, but it's called "effective problem solving".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.
Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.
Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...
That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.
Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.
I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.
For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.
Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.
Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.
The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.

Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.

I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.

For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.

Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.

Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.

The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.

>> ^Matthu:

>> ^ghark:
mmm yes let's ignore the humanity side of it, and just go to Libya for the oil - what a beautiful soul this man must have, underneath that lovely crop of hair.

You know what though?? For me, this was his one saving grace. I can't believe how honest he was. The govts. already in Libya for nothing but the oil - we know that, it's refreshing to hear some honesty.


To be honest, I've never been privy to any presidential, NATO, or U.N. meetings. I'm sure oil works into this somehow; but, I doubt that is the reason the security council voted the way it did. War or even making a friendship or treaty will always be about resources and options (like a military base here or there, getting gold at a discounted price as long as it goes towards a bilateral satellite, etc...). Our world revolves around resources, make that clear in your mind.

Money is merely an IOU and a virtual promise, but an actual resource is power. Because, we need it and the U.S. (and the West and some of the East) are beholden by oil. So don't be surprised when it becomes a contentious issue as it WILL affect your life eventually and our government has, as a top tier issue, to keep our way of life and our lives safe. You can blame the government(s) for going after oil, but I wonder if you're aware of exactly how much oil is responsible for everywhere around you.

/I'm not trying to be argumentative in a negative way, but re-reading it gave me that impression. So take what I say with a grain of salt and only remind yourself that war will continually be about resources and land. It's a rare war to not be concerned with that. Plus Qaddafi has gone off the deep end, mentally. I'm not sure it's entirely safe to give him a chance to even try to govern his people (Cambodia: Electric Boogaloo?)...

I actually think this was a pointless interview. We gained no great insights, we heard no new information, etc... All of what was said has been said for weeks AND has been said better, i.e. reasons to be there and reasons not to be there.

Plus, I don't consider the CIA to be anything more than a tool anymore and hopefully it stays that way; as in the past you could make a case that the CIA was GETTING us involved in wars and shaping internal politics. I'm sure they still do this, but enough whistle-blowers came forward to create an environment were the CIA must tread carefully. Especially, after their complete and utter fuck-up of the century for the last Iraq war.

I appreciate this man's council, but in the end he has as much experience in leading a country as I do (armchair generals). He's very well informed in some international dealings, but his answer of "do nothing" is an old answer and it needs to be done away with to some degree. As it's an answer that does nothing; in fact it shows you the shear amount of apathy that our country feels is O.K. to use (like Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc.). The problem as I see it is that the U.N. passed a unanimous security council resolution on Libya, a U.N. member. Libya said it would comply and then went on to do exactly what @bcglorf has said.

The solution I see is that NATO shouldn't be the watch dog here. The problem is that the U.N. is a useless body without fangs. It NEEDS fangs. The fact that EVERY security council member is not involved in this situation/resolution to me means that their "security club membership" should be nullified. I'm tired of people abusing the U.N. . It's perhaps our best way to solve many of these problems. But, when the military action is ALWAYS carried by NATO at the end of the day, I begin to believe that members that don't participate in resolutions THEY PASSED need to be kicked out of their position (I'm looking at you China).

Until the U.N. gains some fangs and the ability to enact resolutions that are passed UNANIMOUSLY (5 abstains for the countries too scared to take a stance), we will continue to carry the weight via the U.S. Armed Forces or NATO; otherwise, we let innocent people die. We could do nothing, but if we did do nothing the media needs to put the blame squarely at the feet of U.N. Security members that abstain; make them swim in the blood they've spilled by their political maneuvering called "abstain"... We don't do this, but I think it's time we did. If China wants to be a big boy, they need to learn about responsibilities related to their direct inaction. Likewise, Russia needs to learn that the Cold War is dead; holding their feet to the fire internationally might do that.

Eventually, this comes down to the media getting the story right and being willful enough to put countries to the question: Why?

Don't bring up the "reverse angle" of death and destruction. I know it will happen, but this is the cost of choosing and FIGHTING for any side. Death is everywhere; it doesn't make it right, but it makes it true...

Here is the vote for, Resolution 1973:

U.S.-Y*
Lebanon-Y
France-Y*
U.K.-Y*
Bosnia and Herzegovina-Y
Columbia-Y
Gabon-Y
Nigeria-Y
Portugal-Y
South Africa-Y

Abstained (the eternal worthless permanent security council members: China-they never do ANYTHING, and The Russian Federation-who seem to vote just to be contrary); I'll put a mark next to permanent members that abstained^:

^The Russian Federation-NA*
^China (as usual)-NA*
Brazil-NA
Germany-NA
India-NA

I find it hard to keep Russia and China on the security council (they'd whine like babies if removed) as they almost always abstain AND they don't help; in fact they do nothing. The other members are not permanent and may be cycled out in the upcoming year; making me not very concerned with their attitude.

*Permanent Security Council Members

So take it or leave it; but, I think our worldwide diplomacy from every country still revolves around the Cold War and WWII. It's terribly sad to me that we are still stuck on such ridiculous fears and ghostly machinations...

Has the world become a deus ex machina to politicians? Do they believe complex problems can be solved with the smallest of effort? This is what it seems to be coming to and it's scary to see people like Donal Trump in the runnings for president. Sarah Palin is a walking and breathing Captain Catherine Janeway in the sense that she believes she has answers and solutions that are easy to implement and as ridiculous as every piece of deus ex machina "Voyager" ever used. AND she is not alone...

I see this in our country and in others. Simplistic leanings that help no one except to further their own agenda. It's as though politicians and leaders use Rube Goldberg machines, yet these do have a purpose: they grab your attention, they pacify, they cause you to become their disease--ready to even spill the blood of what they hate. It's true in every country on the planet. So when Russia and China take the easy way out, that is what I think of them. It is also why they should NEVER be given leadership, as they seemingly don't know what it truly is or they abuse it.

/My long two cents with a little drama to get a dialogue started...

This is a short clip of one of the floating villages off the Cambodian side of Tonle Sap Lake. The first floating building you see there on the left had a goal at the back and a group of kids goofing around with a football. Further down the estuary was a concrete barge with a full court basketball cage on it. Now that was sweet. I can't tell you how pissed I am that I didn't get a photo of it.

Btw, that link is to the travelblog-ish thing my girl and I put together over the last couple years. Hasn't been updated in a while. The big goofy white guy is me, and the beautiful babe is my lady.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

So were they removing signs that warned ppl about mines? I'm not sure I understand what was happening here.


yes. all in the name of fun.

I only had to read 3 of the "200 lies" to see that the person who wrote it has never really read, nor understood, Chomsky... except maybe in-order to get his 'out of context' quotes.

I've been following Chomsky for over 20 years and you'd be hard pressed to come up with something on him. He has been intellectually consistent and on-topic since the 70's. He was against the slaughter of peasants in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, East Timor, Iraq, Palestine, and every other hidden murder zone in the last 50 years.

When the "200 lies" start with Chomsky's take on Lenin, the author's already proven himself to be a moron. Chomsky's only downside is that he bores people who aren't intellectual enough and infuriates people who are brainlessly patriotic.
>> ^quantumushroom:

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies.
Oh, that's right, it's FOX that has an agenda.

Definitely contains good interviews with Moore and Stone. I hope they dedicate a full doc on the specifics of the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon. It seems to me that, possibly, Hollywood might be manipulating the military by accurate use of history. So, for instance the ghost writer or whoever puts a spin on the next Incredible Hulk script. Spins it so it takes place in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge just so the Pentagon offers up use of their gear in order to re-write the script.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it.
China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Soviet Union. Case dismissed.


This is how it's been my friend.

Don't bother mentioning those cases in history where Emperors/Kings were godheads by divine right and worshiped as the human embodiments of God on Earth, because that would like, totally undermine your argument and stuff.

"Remove Zeus---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it." - Quantomos Mushromolis, 400 BC

>> ^quantumushroom:

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it.
China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Soviet Union. Case dismissed.


Totally agree. if not fish, bicycle.

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it.

China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Soviet Union. Case dismissed.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Coming from "sumone" too "ignorent" to even know how to spell "genoside" I'll take that pithy remark as the highest compliment.

>> ^westy:

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.
>> ^bcglorf:
People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.

>> ^bcglorf:

People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.

You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.

But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.

Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.

The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.