I'm sorry, I don't get it. Why are you preventing these animals from flying away? Are they pets? Are you making them easier for Dick Cheney to shoot? What is the point in grounding a wild bird?

Don't correct my inaccuracy with another one. Iran is NOT a democracy, it is an Islamic theocracy. My referencing Ahmadinejad as a 'dictator' was only used in the same sense that folks use when referring to Bush, Cheney or Obama as 'dictators'. None of them came to power through a coup or by birth right, and each stepped down in normal course.

Calling Iran a democracy though is just wrong, and is about as accurate as referring to America as a dictatorship, In Iran the presidential candidates must ALL be approved by the Islamic council or nobody gets to even try to vote for them. The highest position of power in the country is not the President, but the Supreme Leader who is appointed by a small group of Islamic 'experts'. There is no room in the Iranian system for the election of an non-Muslim, or even a Sunni muslim, to even attempt to hold the position of President let alone Supreme Leader.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cheney, bush, war, lying, caught' to 'cheney, bush, war, lying, caught, billy vegas show' - edited by xxovercastxx

Reagan was just the first stooge hired by the remnants of the Nixon administration. (By Bush Snr {his head of the CIA}, Donald Rumsfeld {2nd in command of the CIA} & Dick Cheney {3rd in command of the CIA}).

Literally an actor. And a 3rd rate cowboy actor at that (only for domestic & retarded audiences).

BTW Dubya was next & a gift to these fellas, none of them dumb enough to be the man out front making excuses.

They decided that a few million dead kids was fine if it swelled the family pile by 20%. Vietnam, East Timor, Iran Chile etc etc etc etc
.....Does anyone really know how much bank Cheney made from the slaughter/'rebuilding' in Iraq? A billion? 10 billion? 100 Billion? Will any American ever ask? Guess not.

In the future analysis of this time, these men will be held up worse that than Hitler, Stalin & Genghis Khan for sure. Their crimes are comparable in every way (especially the massive piles of dead kids) but without the personal trauma to explain psychosis. The US government of the last 50 years consists of the richest, fattest, most privileged men ever to live in millions of years of humanity, and yet they've committed the worst crimes of all time. Millions dead, crippled, traumatized, orphaned.
Is it their fault or the fault of those around them who do nothing or worse; cheer?

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

Here is Card's preface before any of the Quotes TYT laid out:
"So as a science fiction writer and a student of history, allow me to spin a plausible scenario about how, like Augustus Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, and Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama could become lifetime dictator without any serious internal opposition."

It is absolutely clear that he does NOT state this is a prediction of the future he expects. Meanwhile Cenk painstakingly sets up that the quotes are Card's rallying cry against what he expects to happen in the next few years. That's lying.

Card's statements prior to that were nothing any more severe than what all manner of people decried Bush and Cheney for and worse. Plenty of people talked at length about 'what if' Bush doesn't step down, or Cheney doesn't step down. I think it horrifically unfair to now leap down Card's throat for the same.

CBD possesses sedative properties (Carlini and Cunha, 1981), and a clinical
trial showed that it reduces the anxiety and other unpleasant psychological
side effects provoked by pure THC (Zuardi et al. 1982). CBD modulates the
pharmacokinetics of THC by three mechanisms: (1) it has a slight affinity for
cannabinoid receptors (Ki at CB1 = 4350 nM, compared to THC = 41 nM,
Showalter et al. 1996), and it signals receptors as an antagonist or reverse agonist
(Petitet et al. 1998), (2) CBD may modulate signal transduction by perturbing
the fluidity of neuronal membranes, or by remodeling G-proteins that
carry intracellular signals downstream from cannabinoid receptors, and (3)CBD
is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A11 metabolism, thus it blocks the
hydroxylation of THC to its 11-hydroxy metabolite (Bornheim et al. 1995).
The 11-hydroxy metabolite is four times more psychoactive than unmetabolized
THC (Browne and Weissman 1981), and four times more immunosuppressive
(Klein et al. 1987).
CBD provides antipsychotic benefits (Zuardi et al. 1995). It increases dopamine
activity, serves as a serotonin uptake inhibitor, and enhances norepinephrine
activity (Banerjee et al. 1975; Poddar and Dewey 1980). CBD protects
neurons from glutamate toxicity and serves as an antioxidant, more potently
than ascorbate and α-tocopherol (Hampson et al. 1998). Auspiciously, CBD
does not decrease acetylcholine (ACh) activity in the brain (Domino 1976;
Cheney et al. 1981). THC, in contrast, reduces hippocampal ACh release in
rats (Carta et al. 1998), and this correlates with loss of short-term memory consolidation.
In the hippocampus THC also inhibits N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)
receptor activity (Misner and Sullivan 1999; Shen and Thayer 1999), and
NMDA synaptic transmission is crucial for memory consolidation (Shimizu et
al. 2000). CBD, unlike THC, does not dampen the firing of hippocampal cells
(Heyser et al. 1993) and does not disrupt learning (Brodkin and Moerschbaecher
1997).
Consroe (1998) presented an excellent review of CBD in neurological disorders.
In some studies, it ameliorates symptoms of Huntington’s disease, such
as dystonia and dyskinesia. CBD mitigates other dystonic conditions, such as
torticollis, in rat studies and uncontrolled human studies. CBD functions as an
anticonvulsant in rats, on a par with phenytoin (Dilantin, a standard antiepileptic
drug).
CBD demonstrated a synergistic benefit in the reduction of intestinal motility
in mice produced by THC (Anderson, Jackson, and Chesher 1974). This
may be an important component of observed benefits of cannabis in inflammatory
bowel diseases.

--"Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts:
Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts?
John M. McPartland
Ethan B. Russo"

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.

Right again, Mr. Chomsky. Then after the rubes have been softened up, enter the smarmy, two-faced Barack Obama, whose plan to save us from global warming is a such a hack job that it's hardly worth the industry shills (like the ones taking up so much space commenting here) to bother with. Like his gift to the insurance industry -- America's sad excuse for "universal health care" -- Obama's environmental "program" is just another load of pretty B.S. thrown up to cover his real agenda, which in this case is to hand over the keys to America's energy industry to people like Dick Cheney, whose hands might as well be guiding the marionette strings coming out of his back. The "president" really doesn't have a choice about pushing natural gas; he sold out to the oiligarchs while still a do-nothing Senator. But that doesn't mean the few of us who are awake and aware shouldn't scream at him about it and do everything in our dwindling power to make him and the rest of the gasoholic cabal wish they'd never been born. Indeed, part of what the moribund U.S. environmental movement needs -- and in particular the fractured and chronically outclassed anti-fracking movement -- is a significantly angrier soundtrack, not bogged down with insipid musical baggage from old, hippy-dippy environmental campaigns. Pete Seeger and his sweet, smiling ilk don't cut through all the background noise any more. With that in mind, here's a new American anthem guaranteed to stir the soul of any red-blooded environmentalist, as well as lure a few emotionally sensitive people over from the dark side. Feel free to use it. Scream your anger! soundcloud.com/biff-thuringer/to-america

nah, the Tea Party loses all credibility when they argue that they're for responsible spending and completely ignore Bush/Cheney's war-mongering.

When you bitch about spending and ignore the guy who got us in debt in the first place then you're deserving of zero respect

If they had shown up during the beating of the war-drums you might have a leg to stand on, but they didn't, so you don't.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Michael Ware on Dick Cheney's "Progress in Iraq". Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Debt only seems to matter when you're a Republican and a Democrat is in the White House.

And yeah, Democrats? you weren't complaining enough when Bush ran up the debt. I know Cheney and co had a fun little "why do you hate the troops?" campaign going on to squelch any dissent but that really isn't an excuse.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I agree with you mostly. I think the difference though, to use your homeless example, is that many people would not need to have a homeless person in their family to support social government programs that reduce poverty and homelessness.

For the Dick Cheneys and Rob Portmans of the world, it takes a son or daughter. That's a failure of empathy. You shouldn't need a homeless son or daughter or a gay son or daughter to support human rights.

Bad argument. When you trot out a trite statement like that it sounds as though you doubt how bad it really is over in North Korea. That makes you look almost as ignorant as Rodman does in the interview.

I'm all for not compromising in expectations for American leadership. It's worse somewhere else doesn't excuse anything, and I agree.

At the same time I can also observe that by comparison, America looks like the pinnacle of freedom, equality and opportunity beside North Korea. That's just how bad North Korea is. That still leaves room for me to chime in on the calls for a war crimes tribunal for Cheney, and demanding Kissinger's name be on the list too. I can still decry American detentions without due process, and American AG's denying the right of Habeas Corpus is granted to all under American law.

North Korea is bad, it is bad in the extreme way that we have rarely seen since the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

I appreciate what he's saying, but the fact that Colin Powell was down with the Bush/Cheney administration sort of ruins his credibility on the issue. McCain and Romney were both more moderate than the guy he worked for.