>> ^Jinx:

>> ^kir_mokum:
i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.

Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.
Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.


I was ready to argue with you--then I read the second paragraph--then I read the late addition. You are assuming the downvotes are automatic; using what? You don't know why anyone downvoted (except me--see comment above).

>> ^kir_mokum:

i'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between racism coming from white people and racism coming from black or indigenous people then you need a lot more education. probably in the fields of history and psychology.

I don't really think there is a difference. I had nothing to do with black slaves or the exploitation of an indigenous population, and nor did my parents. Or their parents. Sins of our of great great grandfathers? This guy is no more justified in attacking the colour of my skin than a Klansman or a Nazi.


Still, this is a drunk throwing insults at strangers. Its not exactly a lynching by men in white capes. I'm not sure what QMs point here is. That we view racism differently coming from a Black guy than from a White guy? I think we all know and understand why that is.

Oh, and shame on the automatic downvotes.

@Grimm - At the risk of stating the obvious, don't you think it's more logical to believe that Reagan's loyalty to big money (and ALL of his predecessors) might have played a dominant role in the degradation of American public education, rather than the fact that a Department of Education exists? Boise laid out a number of deliberate poison pills in his comment. You've merely asserted your claim without any rational other than an arbitrary number of trips around the sun.

Let's say you buy a new car, and I tell you I hate it and intend to pop the tires, break the windows and light it on fire after you go to sleep. If the next morning you wake up to find your car on fire, with popped tires and broken windows, would you take it back to the dealer and claim the car was faulty? This, in essence, is what you are doing here.

If I were you, the logical counter argument would be, "well there you go, you've made my case, a malicious or subservient (take your pick) president was able to have a hugely negative effect on education nationally. Had it been left to the states, our educational system would be a utopic wonderland."

To which I would respond, "If big money can compromise a huge government, what makes you think they couldn't eat a state house for champagne brunch?"

The problem with libertarians is that they are unwitting allies of the corporate state. They believe that getting rid of government would end authoritarianism, completely failing to understand that the kind of authoritarianism that haunts our country would prefer to be unrestrained by government too. Right libertarianism, if enacted, would indeed provide more liberty to a handful of wealthy and powerful people, but it would come at the cost of liberty to the vast majority. 1% vs 99% if you will. Sound familiar? I see no clear difference between libertarianism and social Darwinism. If you respond to any of this, I'd most like to know how you differentiate libertarianism from social Darwinism.

I think a vast amount of people would prefer the liberty of healthcare, education, roads, fire departments, police departments, schools and libraries to the liberty to dominate a labor force, the liberty to pollute the environment with impunity, the liberty to manipulate the banking system or the liberty to build bloody corporate empires on foreign shores. What makes you think the business men that took us to war in the middle east wouldn't be twice as brutal without a single shred of oversight or transparency? What makes you think deregulated labor markets wouldn't revert back to pre-regulation era slavery if given the option?

If social Darwinism is what you truly desire, then we have nothing more to say to each other. However, if you want to stop authoritarianism, then stop trying to make it easier for authoritarians to thrive. Ron Paul is a nice fella and all - an adorable little grandfatherly gnome even - and I take him at his word when he says he believes his economic hypothesis would create liberty. Unfortunately, reality begs to differ. And, sincerity is no excuse for bad ideas.

Good debate. Peace.

You can join the convo too if you like @GeeSussFreeK

lol, she's 95 man. Just leave her alone! lol

I actually knew 4 great grandmothers of mine (but only had regular contact with 2 of them, both of them great), and I think I once met one of my great grandfathers.

And fortunately my 4 grandparents are all still alive.

An example of friendly fire would be my grandfather getting shot in the hands in WW2 because the guys in the trenches weren't sticking their heads up to look where they were firing. But holding their gun up and shooting anyway...and shooting the guys in front of them in the hands, heads, etc in the process.

One guy getting shot, it being covered up, and used as a call to arms.......well that's just wrong on a much worse level than simple friendly fire. Although I doubt it would have happened if it had been a well known Senator's son, because they try to protect them. Wouldn't want to lose the support of the politicians.

I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

Thanks for the promote.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
How did I miss seeing this?
*promote

Your video, WTF?!? - My Grandfather's Video Will, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by mintbbb.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Skeeve. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/WTF-My-Grandfathers-Video-Will

I'm so embarrassed when my grandfather does this. Couldn't he just buy a billboard like normal grandpas?

>> ^srd:

Nice video, however the spin you're trying to give it doesn't quite fit. The US has been acting like an international schoolyard bully for a very, very long time now. So whats different now that causes all the outrage? That it's starting to bully its own people? That it's "Number One!" in political assassinations with non-human mediators?
Ron Paul put it nicely in that clip, when he said in so many words "at least we've tried to keep it a secret before". I wonder if you can name one administration of the past 60 years that didn't engage in these tactics.


Yes this is true...do our crimes get "Grandfathered" in then? I mean do we get to commit them just because the previous people who lived here did? Because we're gonna have a lot of genocides if that is the case.

People should be honest about history but they should also change the present.