>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
Title is incorrect. The independent journalist interviewed says the mainstream media is pushing NATO propaganda.
"Claims of rebel advances dismissed as misinformation by eyewitnesses" = Gaddafi is ready to die in Tripolis / The rebels win!
Orwellian doublespeak at it's finest.
Edit: video content deserves up vote even though the title is inaccurate.

I'm afraid I have bad news for you marbles. The great and beloved leader of the Libyan people truly has been overthrown by the Imperialistic puppets that western propaganda has labelled the Libyan opposition/rebels. It's a sad day for freedom hating people the world over.


You sound like George Bush. I guess you think we liberated Iraq too.

hahaha flail...part of that "ready, shoot, aim" logic>> ^shinyblurry:

i believe these are duplicated in the individual video..admittedly when i posted this i thought all of them might have been from the same cut, so in retrospect its not that great an example..but i mean, just look into her eyes..or dont because its scary, but its clear she is trying to drill this into peoples minds through hypnotic suggestion
>> ^Drax:
>> ^shinyblurry:
which was obviously edited for different audiences
But if it's edited for different audiances, then there's no mind control through repitition to the viewer.. wasn't that the whole point of the video?

i believe these are duplicated in the individual video..admittedly when i posted this i thought all of them might have been from the same cut, so in retrospect its not that great an example..but i mean, just look into her eyes..or dont because its scary, but its clear she is trying to drill this into peoples minds through hypnotic suggestion

>> ^Drax:
>> ^shinyblurry:
which was obviously edited for different audiences
But if it's edited for different audiances, then there's no mind control through repitition to the viewer.. wasn't that the whole point of the video?

>> ^shinyblurry:

which was obviously edited for different audiences

But if it's edited for different audiances, then there's no mind control through repitition to the viewer.. wasn't that the whole point of the video?

Ahh, no, they aren't all necssarily one long take..but they are all part of the same campaign video..which was obviously edited for different audiences, but it wasn't all the same take..and as far as credibility goes, i don't think your testimony about me is particularly credible, seeing as it has been laden with ridicule from the outset

>> ^Drax:
>> ^shinyblurry:
These are all cut from one campaign video..they aren't different takes..whether it works on you or not its an example of politicians blantantly using mind control

Oh, you know this for fact? I've seen the raw footage from what this is from, she's addressing differen't people in different areas with each take. They are NOT part of one piece / interview / whatever you want to call it. The little cut to animated text scenes in this video is masking that this isn't one long take.
So.. you'll claim to know something for sure without all the facts, so long as it matches what YOU want it to be, huh?
Now how's anyone supposed to take anything you claim with any credibitlity?

>> ^shinyblurry:

These are all cut from one campaign video..they aren't different takes..whether it works on you or not its an example of politicians blantantly using mind control


Oh, you know this for fact? I've seen the raw footage from what this is from, she's addressing differen't people in different areas with each take. They are NOT part of one piece / interview / whatever you want to call it. The little cut to animated text scenes in this video is masking that this isn't one long take.

So.. you'll claim to know something for sure without all the facts, so long as it matches what YOU want it to be, huh?

Now how's anyone supposed to take anything you claim with any credibitlity?

*lies>> ^shinyblurry:

These are all cut from one campaign video..they aren't different takes..whether it works on you or not its an example of politicians blantantly using mind control

Yep, I can see it. It's clear as day when I awaken to a freer safer world because of George Bush.

Gosh I just don't care about what he did. It doesn't bother me. Is that strange, or do others feel the same?

He was so sharp on the floor sometimes, debating issues others would roll over on. I can't help but imagine - in some alternate universe - how Weiner might have handled this totally differently. For example, instead of the denials and flip-flopping, Weiner could have said from the very beginning: "This is none of your damned business.... I can't believe your asking this." (Which is pretty much what George Bush Sr. said in the '90s when confronted by press about a likely affair.)

Every one of the charges could be answered with that response. It really is none of our business. Even if he took a cell phone shot of his d-ck in the goddamn oval office. Who cares? Because it's public property? I say it again - WHO CARES? It's just sex. Why get hung up on any of it (unless you're his wife)? There's no indication it was affecting his job.

"None of your damned business." If he'd said that (and meant it!), sure, his career would probably still have tanked. But, in some circles at least, he'd be a bit of a folk hero.

I can only conclude Weiner must be dealing with some powerful sexual guilt issues to lose all his nerve when confronted with his own behavior. The irony, of course, is - it's our own culture's guilt and discomfort with sex that drove this to become such a public issue for him in the first place.

@blankfist I have to say, this is just getting sad. A City Council deciding on a building fire code regulation? Aren't there real injustices still happening in the world?

IMO, the people objecting raised mostly reasonable questions about it. The video doesn't show the answer to the reasonable questions, just to the boneheaded ones (e.g. you mean you're going ahead even though we whined at you in person?). If people don't like what the council does, they have plenty of recourse to take.

The council are all elected officials, and the people objecting are unable to make their case to the people of the city about why this should move their vote in the next election. They can file suit against the law if they think it violates some sort of Constitutional statute. Or worst comes to worst, sue the city if something does indeed go wrong and they incur damages because of the lockbox.

As to the conversation @GeeSussFreeK and @Skeeve are having about "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea", while I agree that statement is true, it also is almost a non sequitur. Gallileo was prosecuted by the Catholic church for saying things that later turned out to be true. George Bush wasn't tried for war crimes, even though he's directly confessed to ordering crimes against humanity (waterboarding).

If you want to see your meritorious ideas gain the force of law, you need to win popular support for those meritorious ideas. Saying "free speech is in the Constitution" isn't at all a guarantee you're going to be legally allowed to speak your mind. Free speech (or any other right you think you're entitled to), will only persist as long as a significant portion of the population feel strongly that you should have it.

So back to the actual lockbox case. Suppose the government accepted all liability for damages that may result from lockbox abuse. Does that set your minds at ease? If not, what "right" is it you think is being violated?

and no offense


Lets not pretend you weren't well aware of the offense in your post.

but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought


I'm talking about psychology, and the reasons people do things. That's very different than justification. And where did I say the war should have happened? Do you think it should have happened? Either way, it's irrelevant to the point at hand: American political support for "hitting back" was a prime reason the war happened. D

because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right


So, in summary, you're dismissing me (and anyone who doesn't fit in with your narrow world view) as some kind of sheep. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone hand wave away an argument this way on the Internet, I'd have many dollars.

But yeah - I'm sure you meant "no offense". You won't catch me saying "no offense" in this post - I think your world view is the result of living in an Internet echo chamber, and only reading the sites and absorbing the opinions of people who agree with you. Yes, I read mainstream news (here in Canada I don't see a lot of Fox or CNN, but I like the BBC/CBC). I also read a lot on the web. Lots of left leaning stuff, but also conservative commentators like Instapundit who, while I don't usually agree with, sometimes has insights and news that shake my preconceptions. That's important.

etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind


Yeah - you don't understand the very rich and powerful. To the extent that they want money, they want money to "win" - to make the deal or be part of a big transaction or be right, or leverage that money to the next win. But their prime motivator is glory, and validation (especially public, but also from friends and other people in power). People who aren't rich don't get this because there's a bunch of stuff they want and can't buy. They can't imagine what it would be like to have "enough" money and power. Nothing George Bush wants (and doesn't already have) can be had for money, and nobody who's opinion he cares about cares how much money he has. Glory, legacy, victory - that's what motivates a guy with all the power in the world.

The other thing you don't understand is that these guys (and most people in general) don't do things they think are wrong. George Bush, however stupid you think he is, doesn't think "oooh, if we invade we'll get all this money". The advisers who know they'll make a profit, they make a difference, sure. Of course money is a factor. The group think carries a strong confirmation bias for the course that will make money. But, in the end, people in that room are building on an honest base of "we'll kill some terrorists" and "they hit us first".

There's many corners of Internet group think where "the most cynical guy must be right". This is a normal stage in intellectual development, as you move into questioning your parents' and teachers' worldview. It's healthy to an extent, but too many people now get stuck there forever - the availability of like minds on the Internet amplifies this effect. You have to understand, though, that this kind of worldview isn't reality and doesn't help you understand the world. Just as not everything is as it seems, not everything is not as it seems.

It's a pleasant fiction to believe that the "people at the top" are hyper competent string pullers - but looking back at history, it's scarcely right. The sad, scary reality is that they're people a lot like us. And until you understand that, you'll never understand world politics or history.

@Lawdeedaw, I didn't mean to offend. I just get tired of the accusations that Obama somehow wants Gitmo to stay open, likes it being open, didn't even try to close it, etc. I think on the topic, he's tried, and has pretty much been defeated. I don't think lack of committment was the issue, and I don't think the politics of it would play out differently for Ron Paul. Also, Obama wasn't President in 2008, that was George Bush, who opened it, liked it being open, and argued that the world would end if someone closed it.

Also as sick as I am about bad intentions being ascribed to Obama, I'm just as sick of hearing noble intentions ascribed to Paul.

You know how everybody likes to trot out things Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. said they'd do, but didn't get done? The same would happen with Paul. All the shit he promised to do, or not do, won't happen. He'd abandon some promises, break others, and sometimes just plain fail to deliver. He's a politician, not the second coming.

Also, the office of the President itself doesn't really have much power. Most of your power comes from your political coalitions, and Paul wouldn't have one at all. Even a proven consensus builder like Obama has found that Congressional partisanship trumps everything anymore. Paul, being a crank and a confrontational ideologue would get absolutely nowhere with either party. He's been in Congress for what, 30+ years? What's he ever accomplished? Even his wikipedia page struggles to find any legislative accomplishments.

Oh, and the media shitstorm that engulfs every President would absolutely eat him alive.

But all this is academic because he can't win the Presidency. He won't win the Republican nomination unless he abandons his principles, and if he doesn't win the nomination he won't run as an independent. If he did run as an independent, he'd just split the Republican vote and Obama would win reelection handily.

bill whittle=revisionist and apologist.
george bush may 1st 2003 on the deck of the abraham lincon:
"major combat operations in iraq have ended.in the battle of iraq,the united states and her allies ...have prevailed".
whittle is correct that bush never once says "mission accomplished".do i need to point out the semantics here?

then he goes on to conflate that somehow iraqis ability to vote (while ignoring the massive amount of data concerning fraud,intimidation and outright scandal) is the very thing which inspired epypt,syria and jordan to rise up against their theocratic,oppressive regimes.
this is patently false and the reasons are well documented and not one of them is iraqs ability to vote.

waterboarding was the reason we got positive intell on bin laden?
ok now he is just making stuff up to fit his own premise.there is NO documentation to back that statement up.in fact the intelligence has revealed the exact opposite.

article 3 of the geneva convention CLEARLY states that waterboarding IS considered torture.case closed.end of discussion.

this video is so chock full of disinformation that my head may explode due to the sheer volume.
bill whittles bush-love is well known.
the only satisfaction i get from this video is the fact that bin laden was assasinated under obama and must keep this tool up at night crying into his pillow.
poor poor whittle.

Had to fast forward through bits out of fear watching the whole thing would incur brain damage. They're right, it could be a fake, in the same way any legal document could be a fake. And here's why anyone with any amount of sensibility gets upset over this, those are leaders of political parties and elected officials pushing this paranoia. They may be the fringe, but they're in the main stream, it'd be like if the head of the democratic party said its possible George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, they think he likely wasn't, but its possible he was.

And yet those people sit there and try to peddle that crap, 'oh he probably was born in Hawaii, but the document could have been photoshopped, and then sneaked into the hospital and magically bound into a volume of bound birth certificates.' O_O
or 'He probably was born in Hawaii, but why did he take 2 years to get special permission only a president would probably have authority to get, so he could show us a document that was confirmed to exist by a republican appointed official to confirm that the official legal document he showed 2 years ago was actually an official legal document and not a fake, like the document he just showed could possibly be.' O_O

Yeah fucking ridiculous.

It's a scary and strange point you're making. Unfortunately, this is the kind of support that could lead to potentially disastrous consequences.


>> ^criticalthud:

strangely, i hope she stays in the spotlight. george bush woke some people up with his idiocy, and palin is a great example of the ridiculousness of the american political system. and it seems like americans need a constant reminder. fucking sheep. or maybe i'm being ridiculous. but i feel that the political system is so out of the hands of the american people, that we need the becks, the limbaughs, and the palins to keep driving it out of the bounds of reality so that people continue to wake up from their decades-long complacency.
I shudder at the thought of a smooth talking reagan type leading the republicans and pushing their agenda.
Course at the same time i'm pissed at a smooth talking supposedly liberal president mouthing progressive values while he's sucking corporate dick and continuing two wars that are bankrupting this country.
or maybe i'm just a pessimist. Citizens United vs. Fed Election Commission anyone?
IMO people make change, not politicians.