@VoodooV
i dont understand you sometimes man.

how has ching hi-jacked this thread..in particular?
i will concede that he has in the past but how does that translate to this thread?
because it appears to me ching just poked his nose into you berating @bobknight33 as a bigot and a racist.

is bob a racist?
i dont know if i would call his comments here racist.maybe insensitive,even callous in regards to americas past history of slavery.

now i would see this as an opportunity to converse and communicate.
maybe learn from each other.
or at the very least UNDERSTAND why bob feels/thinks the way he does.

but you dont do that.
you ridicule and belittle him.

and then when ching chimes in pointing out that we are ALL slaves.
you cry foul and that bob is just a racist and ching is a troll.
musing dreamily of an internet community that could be rid of such parasites.
basically your own little fiefdom where everybody thinks like you.you know,the RIGHT way of thinking.

or are you not aware of the hypocrisy at work here?

i could go on but i fear you will inject intention into my commentary and perceive me as some sort of enemy.
which i am not.

i am not attacking you brother.
i am just trying to point out that our community is diverse,and bob has just as much a right to speak as you do.
as does ching.
but to cry foul after consecutively bashing bob and bemoan your suffering for having to endure those you disagree and how they besmirch your community...is..well...weak.

i disagree with bob often.
ok,almost always.
but i have to give that boy props for engaging on a secular left site when he is obviously a christian rightwinger.

that takes balls.
so kudos to you @bobknight33

love your commentary voodoo
hate your high horse.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

hey sorry man, im really at a loss as to how to find out if it is a dupe. I searched for the youtube title and checked the list that videosift suggests may be duplicates but nothing. How can i make sure i dont do this?

Cry me a f*cking river CNN, THis girl was carried around from party to party, was violated, photographed naked, URINATED ON, and then had the images spread around through social media.. Promising young men dont do that kind of sh*t. Promising young men see that happening and they shut it down and stick up for the poor girls honour. Alcohol is no excuse either.

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.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 11 Badge!

Your video, I don't do Ka-ratey, I do Ka-razy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Unintentional stand up comedy?>> ^shuac:

Perhaps that's the next chapter for Ms. Bachmann. Stand-up comedy.

What a pile of crap. Firstly, shes not saying praise jesus, Its a commonly used phrase which youre bending to spout your own personal agenda. This isnt the anti- god topic some sifters try to turn everything into, so quit trying.

Secondly, i have two kids and have lived in apartments, if either ended up standing on an a/c unit a slap would be the LEAST i would deserve, and that goes double for a 7 year old with special needs.

Do you have any kids? If so, how the fuck do you NOT consider balconies and windows as danger zones in HIGH RISE apartments? How many kids have you read about falling from them? There was one last week here. The very first thing i did before we moved in was mesh the balcony railings, seal the window latches and give the ground level windows a good kicking. What you DONT do is play the percentages or even worse, not even consider it. Thats how you end up with a 7 year old standing on an a/c unit. *SLAP*

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^thumpa28:
Yeah, the theological angle is the one to concentrate on, how fucking predictably boring. Back on topic, the mother needs a slap.

It's worth mentioning, it really is. It's a big fucking problem that people have a disconnect that goes
"Holy crap, my daughter almost died, that man was amazingly good and quick and threw himself into harm's way to save my child"
"Thank God for that"
No, thank the man, thank him, thank his upbringing that he wouldn't stand by, thank his reflexes, thank others that brought his attention to your daughter. Do not thank a mythical being.
If you're going to say it was god that stepped in and 'saved' your daughter, why don't you also blame god for letter her get out there in the first place, or giving her autism such that she would do such a thing?
It IS a problem because it's just an excuse for people to turn off most of their brain and answer anything with 'it's god's will'... And this leads to all sorts of problems as people who do this never bother to look at root causes, or actual solutions, or anything else, because 'things are just like that because of god's will', or they don't do things because 'god will set it right if he feels the need'.
And then you go and say the mother needs a slap... have you looked after an autistic child? Have you looked after ANY child? Do you know how easy it is to let your guard slip, even if just for a minute, and to have them do something you hadn't even considered was a possibility?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Circumcision, dont do it' to 'Circumcision, dont do it, ed wallerstein' - edited by xxovercastxx

what you said at the end, that i think is the real issue. youve got a documentary crew filming bullying on a bus and yet the officials (whoever that lady was, principal i presume) are in complete denial instead of looking into it further and taking appropriate disciplinary action.



by and large children are products of whoever raises em, whoever their adult influence is. you could take virtually any "bully" look at his parents and find the root cause (most of the time anyway). i know a lot of the boys who bullied me in jr high and high school i later came to find out almost all of them had no father figure. do you really think anti bullying rules or something is gonna stop that? the problem is deeper than that, much deeper. do you think bullying stops after high school? do you think it doesnt take place at work, at college, at a park, at the movies, at anywhere?

i think overall the point im getting at is it really doesnt matter what we do or dont do, we cannot prevent bullying. it will happen, it always has and it always will, and thats not a "swept under the rug" answer to the issue, its the reality. so how can we resolve it? by changing not only our mindset as adults, but positively influencing the mindsets of our children as well.

as a side note, as far as the 24-7 thing is concerned, i was bullied at school and at home almost a full decade before the internet and looooong before myspace and facebook. i had an older sister who was such a tomboy growing up she was practically another older brother. but i mainly got picked on by my older brother who was just a year apart from me. i got shit from him and his friends at school, i got it from him and his friends when we'd play in and around our neighborhood and i got it from him at home. in a way, thats infinitely more invasive and inescapable than e-bullying. i lived with him, and for a number of years i had to share a room with him. so ya, to me, it isnt different at all. and while my testimony may be a special case, its far from being unique and youd be naive to think so.

if teen crime rates are declining and bullying is pretty much a constant, that certainly doesnt suggest bullying is becoming worse or even that its a "huge problem". all that suggests is what ive been saying; bullying isnt anything new, and it will always be with us.

maybe im not articulating myself in a compassionate way. im certainly not advocating turning a blind eye to bullies or bullying. i squash it pretty quick when it happens in class, and whenever appropriate i try to talk to the bully one on one in hopes that i may discern what the issue really is. is he picking on that kid cuz he's just a shitty kid? or is he lashing out over emotional/mental issues he's unprepared to cope with? or is he compensating for severe self esteem issues? those are the things we should be addressing to "prevent" bullying, not creating this bizarre subculture war where its us vs them.
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^smooman:
>> ^berticus:
what? no comment yet from someone saying how bullying "toughens you up and prepares you for the real world"? COME ON!

ok i'll start. im all for moderate measures to be taken to monitor and disrupt bullying (man, that almost became full alliteration). that being said, the bullying scandal and the myriad documentaries and specials and exposes on the subject are just redundant. as someone who works in the school system bullying really isnt any different than when i was in school, or when my parents went to school, or their parents, etc. bullying isnt anything new. calling it an epidemic is laughable and just plain absurd.
does my heart go out to individuals who have been bullied? absolutely. i myself was constantly bullied growing up (both at school and at home). now berticus, what you said is true even if you were being facetious. being bullied forced me to quickly develop social skills needed to diffuse confrontations among other things. it sharpened my wit, even as an adult. the point isnt that we need bullies to make men out of our children. the point is bullies arent anything new, and they will always be with us. react accordingly

I downvoted your comment and I just wanted to explain why.
First off, while you may technically be correct in that the amount of bullying has not changed over time, technological advances (i.e. the Internet) allow that bullying to continue 24-7 so that there is no refuge from it, even after you get out of school. In other words, while the rate of bullying may not be changing the severity and impact is--it is more invasive, harder to escape, and therefore is NOT the same as when you were a kid.
But even disregarding that, I think the term "epidemic" is appropriate when you look at the fact that over the past 50 years crime among teens has consistently been decreasing in the U.S. (according to FBI statistics a drop of over 44%) and yet the rate of bullying appears to remain the same. To me, that says there is a huge problem that is not being addressed by either our society or our school system. And taking the attitude that "bullies aren't anything new, and they will always be with us" does not seem to me to be the way to go about solving that problem. Rather, it virtually guarantees that in the next 50 years we will see bullying to continue at the same rate as bullies find ways to circumvent the "moderate measures [...] to monitor and disrupt bullying" that you advocate.
Documentaries like this are critically important because they expose just how deep the problems are--you have school officials claiming the bus is perfectly safe while the documentary filmmakers are capturing multiple acts of violence and bullying on the bus. We need more documentaries like this and much more research into how bullying manifests and how to prevent it because we're clearly doing a piss-poor job of it right now.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Tennis, Shout, Swear, Thunder' to 'Tennis, Shout, Swear, Thunder, Robert Seguso, Dont do that, God' - edited by xxovercastxx

I guess on the one hand, I agree with part of his rant -- elections don't matter enough, and there's too much continuity in policy from President to President, from Congress to Congress.

On the other, I think it's largely spun in a self-serving way from a right-wing ideologue. His big complaint is that the parties are too similar, but then largely misidentifies this as somehow inherently a liberal confluence of policy, when the real issue is that we haven't had a liberal shift in America's policies since before I was born.

A lot of the problem, IMO, is that conservatives like to sell people on the idea of "divided government" and the whole idea that adding opportunities for the minority to stop things from happening (like the filibuster) are the essence of "limited" government.

They've been on a decades-long crusade to stop or sabotage the government from acting effectively on any topic, and now they're complaining that their success means they were right that the government is some unresponsive, ineffectual, cold-hearted leviathan that must be destroyed...even though they had a lot to do with it getting that way, and have worked tirelessly to keep it that way, regardless of whether people vote for them or not.

I don't really know how we're going to get out of this situation, but the solution has got to start with people getting fed up with this blame-shifting excuse coming from the right. Government is not some alien creature acting on its own whims, it's a human institution, populated with human beings, acting in accordance to laws that are voted into existence by people.

People who think "government" is the problem, are letting the actual people responsible for the problem off the hook, because they're too apathetic to figure out who's really to blame. And assholes like Judge Napolitano want to help encourage them to keep blaming "the government" by trying to make it seem like it's some all-encompassing conspiracy that no mere mortal could penetrate, rather than it being the direct result of decades of Republican malfeasance left unchecked by anyone, including Democrats.

And forgive the rant, especially if you're not normally into politics.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

There are two major logical flaws in this guys logic.

1. At the end of a rant against republicans and democrats, he endorses a republican.
2. He gives a list of politicians who have failed to live up to their campaign promises, and then endorses Ron Paul, without considering that he too would also fail to live up to his campaign promises, because he would be subject to the same political realities (congress, the media, big money, etc. all have power to subvert the president) that all of the previous presidents had to face.

I don't believe Ron Paul to be the saint he's made out to be. He's another rich, conservative, white career politician pushing his own questionable agenda on a whole lot of unsuspecting citizens.

More reading:

http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/transcript-of-noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/

http://videosift.com/video/Why-so-many-people-are-endorsing-Ron-Paul-for-President?loadcomm=1#comment-1380333

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/13/1054389/-Of-Broken-Clocks,-Presidential-Candidates-and-the-Confusion-of-Certain-White-Liberals

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @NetRunner thought.

>> ^EMPIRE:

The man is a creationist, in a developed nation in the 21st century, with full access to information, AND he's a doctor, so he should know a thing or two about basic biology.
That alone would be enough for me.


Me too.

But in this argument, I actually agree with Paul, and I think Matthews is playing a cheap gotcha-game with him.

Lets ask, what is this law really good for?

So, storeowners etc cannot discriminate, well, at least not officially, they cannot put up signs with "no blacks" and things like that, and they cant deny people entrance based on skincolor, well, thats all well and good, but they could still stand in they own store and shout "I hate black people" as much as they want.. or they could give looks, poor service, etc all sorts of "expression of freedoms". Most stores dont do these things.. why? well, because its not socially acceptable anymore, right? For all I know, there might still be some who do, and that would suck, but its not like you could outlaw these things. What needs to change, and I still do think change is needed, is what we deem to be socially acceptable and so forth. Racism, unfortunately, wont dissappear over night, its a long, hard battle, and just like the battle against drugs, making laws against it is probably not an effective weapon.