Your video, Tiny, Scared Puppy Falls In Love With A 120-Pound Great Dane, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I found an update on the youtube page.

Update: A lot of people have asked about her now. I never thought it would get so much interest. This video is a chronicle of our time together, which I finished making a while ago. Subsequent to making the video, I had to travel a lot, and struggled with keeping her where I was living. A saviour stepped in and helped look after Pegs while I tried to make a plan and she moved back and forth, which was disruptive for her. After months of no solution, it was obvious that her new set up with incredible love, a bigger garden and a new best friend in Luna, another great dane was more than I could offer. I am lucky that I get to visit and take her for short periods, and maybe that's why in my heart she's still with me. It’s always difficult. If the dog is happier, do you forsake your happiness? I think yes. If a dog is negligently bred, should it be killed to prevent more negligent breeding? I think no. Who's to say. In the end we try our best and our pets teach us lessons about love, humility and non-judgment.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'great dane, tree, rescue, climb' to 'great dane, tree, rescue, climb, nebraska' - edited by MrFisk

Your video, Great Dane Stuck In Tree, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In the guys (very slim) defense, he looked surprised to see the dogs, they appear to be great danes, and he could have a crippling fear of dogs. I don't even mean a phobia; I used to be so afraid of dogs when I was younger that my legs would freeze up and feel like jelly.
Everything else is his fault, of course, but the whole thing is strange. I think most public services schedule a time/day to lock pets in for safe access to the property, (but that's probably the kind of change they hope to encourage with this video.)
The other thing that bothers me is why the wife didn't yell at the guy. Was she afraid for her safety? Suffering from a case of suburbanitis?

If they stay and impose their own rule over the 'natives', they're invaders.
Nope, doesn't stretch my imagination at all, perhaps yours needs more exercise!
Perhaps if those Jews were still in Europe fighting against the Nazis, they wouldn't have made it out of Germany. The fact that they all immigrated to one place and stayed there makes it an invasion, not refugees fleeing to their neighbors for safety. If all Syrians rushed to, lets say only Denmark, displacing the inhabitants, replaced the government and army, and started deporting Danes and settling in Finland, I'll be right there calling them invaders. It's not the same thing by far. The Jews were not fleeing anything but fear in the 30s, the Syrians are fleeing certain death.
AND...the Jews were certainly allowed to immigrate just like anyone else. I don't know where you get this idea that they were persona non gratta, during the war German Jews were under stricter immigration rules, yes, but immigration being strictly illegal, not according to my education or research....unless you mean since EVERY Jew couldn't immigrate it was illegal for those that didn't pass inspection or came too late and missed the cutoff....but that applied to EVERYONE not just Jews, so no.

Just thought I would copy a comment from the link you gave. Not going to get into a discussion over this, since I've made my feelings clear elsewhere.

________________________________________________________

Henny Roenne
May 17, 2015 at 4:56 am
Being a Dane, I would like to comment on your article.

One thing that makes the Scandinavian countries very different (or made them very diffferent until recently): countries with small enormously homogenous populations. This has changed the last few decades with an influx of people from countries with different cultures and ways of living. And actually all these fine figures have changed accordingly – at least for Denmark, A previous British ambassador to Denmark wrote: Denmark is not a nation, Denmark is a clan. I think this observation explains a lot and unfortunately the clan feeling has more or less disappeared.

Denmark has become a country which is much less safe to live in, prisons are filled to the brim, and standards in health and education systems have fallen dramatically. BUT previously things were quite rosy.

So the lesson to be learned for the US: this cannot be done with a country of more than 300 million inhabitants and a population mix that is like yours.

Sorry to be so pessimistic ……

Your video, Family Guy on Danes and Denmark, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

check out warrel danes high notes here:
*related=http://videosift.com/video/sanctuary-remake-of-jefferson-airplane-WHITE-RABBIT

Your video, Great Dane Scared of Ghostbusters’ Marshmallow Man Costume, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Great Dane Puppy Does Not Want To Get Up Too Early, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Aussie got on the podium and first time Dane on the podium

" I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here."

Where did you quote me? I missed that.

I am not "attacking" the "comedians." I quoted/"plagiarised" Thomas DiLorenzo who pointed out "[Jon Stewart's] "hit" was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century did: namely, peacefully. . . . " and that Stewart (in his inimitable wisdom as an historical scholar) was wrong in his assertion that war was the way to go.

And, whatever Lincoln's reasons were for going to war, of course there are always options other than imperialism (despite what manifest destiny might have you believe). Same as Truman having options other than nuking Japan. Or Bush the second having options other than invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever Lincoln's "reasons" were for going to war and thereby leading to the slaughter of 620,000 people and the maiming/disfigurement of over 800,000+ others, these reasons are not the same as what his options were, and the white washing of history does not change this very basic fact.

Delaware is considered a northern state. Maybe not by you but by others.
And when I lived in Maryland, everyone there seemed to consider it a northern state too. But ok, you don't consider it a northern state. Cool.
(Ask anyone in Boston if he is a "Yankee" and see how that goes!)

But what's your point now? You agree that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". That's why he did not invade or interfere with the border states. They did not secede. So how is this relevant to the original point about Jon Stewart thinking otherwise and going off on Andrew Napolitano about it? And are you now trying to claim that the north was acting in "self-defense" because of southern attacks on federal forts?


"In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled.""

The proposal was never put to a vote. It was not tried in other states. And it was not addressed directly to the slave owners but to politicians in the Assembly. No effort was put into it.

Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves.

The most charitable thing I could say is that Lincoln tried but failed to come up with and implement any other way to end slavery but to engage in 'bloodshed and violence' (putting aside that he claimed to not care to end slavery except as a way to get one over on the South).

Still, that only says something about his competency, his "political genius" as some say (or lack of it), but not about whether there were other options available that could have worked without the 620,000 dead and 800,000+ more maimed-or-disfigured-for-life.

Of course, there is no empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that any more than there is any empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that, without two nukes, Japan would have lost the war, or that without the Korean war, the Communists would have taken over the world, or that without the Iraq invasion, Saddam would not have built "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on the world.

What if 'peaceful secession' would have neutered the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system'?

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own without the US and its allies going into a bloody war against it. Maybe if the US had started a third world war with the USSR, it would have collapsed sooner. But it certainly would not have been worth the 'blood and violence'. And it is far from certain that the 5 years of Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, while it has certainly served to bolster and continue the decades of segregation, discrimination, and abuse that followed.

The first Republican president seems to have set a precedent for later Republican neocons. When faced with a problem ---> go to war.

Hmm, so Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that the U.S. couldn't have ended slavery in the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all of the other Northern states did (not to mention the British empire, the Spanish empire, the French, the Danes, the Dutch, the Swedes, and many many others during the nineteenth century), namely, peacefully. (For reference, see Jim Powell's Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery; and Joanne Pope Melish's Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860).

Rather, Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that 750,000 dead Americans (and even more than double that number maimed for life), to say nothing of the total destruction of the voluntary union of the founders, was in fact the only way to end slavery. Southerners (only six percent of whom actually owned slaves) were, according to Stewart and Wilmore, "willing to die to preserve slavery" and so, therefore, the Great Oz (er, I mean, The Great Abe) did what was necessary...

So says this renowned historical sage, Jon Stewart, and his cast of clowns...