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

I would agree that this is snuff but definitely has some value from a human rights perspective. What we do sometimes with these kinds of videos is leave them in Sift Talk but keep them out of the general collection.

No, they were not put rest. To prove that the terabytes of data Snowden stole did not end up in the hand the Chinese and Russian intelligence agents is actually what requires the extraordinary proof.

Your two reasons seem really naive.
-So what he has told the truth so far? He has an ocean of stolen secrets, all of which are true to draw from. This guy who has lied and stolen and sold out his country is now some trustworthy figure? OK.

-Snowden has actually proved quite sloppy and stupid. He was an IT contractor, not some mastermind or strategist. That's why he indiscriminately grabbed all the data he could and scrammed to the two paragons of freedom and human rights: Russia and China. What a careful thinking genius Snowden is.

He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released.

Lastly, I wouldn't expect a non-american to care about the harm he's done to my country. Just try not to be so gleeful about it.

-

So all you X-Men fans can relate to the character of Loki being the bad-guy nemesis of all things righteous and earthly/human, right? He comes down from Asgard with no checks or balances from his own universe and attempts to lure mankind through force into a slave-like existence of servitude stating the obvious as to the true nature of humankind and their desire to be led, fed, bred and in essence, dead...He offers nothing but his will over theirs and demands only from the lower creatures obedience and the servile future that is in fact, their destiny in robotic loyalty to their nature.

Imagine if you will, the planet as a chessboard with the majority of humans aboard as pawns with the ruling elite acting as the Asgardian rebel, and you have the state of affairs on planet now. These minor diversions and illusions of personal freedoms and human rights portioned-out in small doses by those who control the illusion that these concepts actually exist for humanity when in reality, countries and nations are mere herd pens for the game-makers to contain their stock.

Wrap your heads around this and you are closer to the true nature of the current paradigm than most care to deal with.

That there is some tangible or meaningful dichotomy between the males and females of the herd is part of the illusion created through the propaganda of mass media...it's but another well-honed tool to keep humans distracted by bullshit and keeps humanity easily controlled.

Forced marriage and forbidden divorce have got to be the most prominent form of slavery that still exists in the world. It is as loathsome and shameful as any other kind of slavery. And nations with any respect for human rights shouldn't be tolerant of it just because it's tied up with religious teachings.

And it's not just Muslim nations that are the problem. For example, divorce is illegal in the Philippines, because they are taking their lead from Vatican City, where it's also illegal. That amount of suffering this causes is just staggering.

Not my concern, though it saddens me that your big brain begins to hurt when you hear some truth-You mistake a condescending tone or holier-than-thou attitude for my having brought you a glimpse of the non-linearity I am both caught in the center of in real-time, and see increasing exponentially for the entire world.

While it's fun to imagine some fantasy land where everyone recycles, wars are gone, Jews and gentiles and Muslims all joining hands and playing X-Box One, it's heading in another direction.

You don't really have to decipher my dialog, I'm of average intelligence, and I'm not calling people sheeple, just observing the obvious based on years of work on self-awareness and the nature of mankind. We're predictable. Just like I predicted when taking-on this style of diatribe and discourse, picking one of many video depicting police action in the world today. I did this with purpose, to draw-out those of you who haven't figured it out yet that radical change is afoot.

Predictable also, is that something so incredibly horrifying as police and government in every single aspect of a modern human's life, could sound so utterly fantastic to someone who apparently resorts to "destroying the messenger" because the message is so abhorrent and unthinkable.
Sheppard did it, jump fight in and make my case for me.

Deepok Chopra is easier for me to understand that people throwing their human rights in the toilet for an inability to process information staring them right in the face.

No Jigga, you are wrong as well. The people who filmed this wish only to expose the rampant encroachment of the police into every aspect of civil society. The advent of technology in the hands of most people and the increasing awareness of the growing police state worldwide is one of the many stopgaps to a bleak future of decreased human rights and control of humanity by a small majority of agenda-oriented tyrants.

As far as police 'turning into' shitbag assholes? NO. Again you are wrong and completely clueless as tho the psychological profiling that goes on in the process towards someone becoming a 'law enforcement' dickbag.

Alpha types with low intellect and questionable imprint and socialization. Many come from abusive homes or generations of law enforcement. Many in the U.S. are members of or are sympathetic to, the clan and other such organizations or fraternities. MOST are racist, sexist, etc. Many police, were they not accepted into academies of sanctioned thugs would become criminals. Some were very close to becoming gang members, petty criminals, etc.

They dredge from the damaged-goods of society to fill their ranks, and this only gets worse as people like you, and others detached from what really goes on, continue to come the defense of force as a means to control society.

Cops definitely don't need any help form a deluded general public to grow in ranks or develop new and improved ways to exercise force as an arm of those who would control society to their ends.

I can do this all fucking day long, and there will still be the voices of insipid dullards who have by choice, drunk the Kool Aide of "give a fuck as long as I have my MTV."

If you'd have a " bad attitude too if someone was heckling me for my entire career," chances are good you'd make an excellent state thug or sympathizer to the cause of safety over freedom.

Your argument is pathetic and week.

That's very motivational, thanks ;-)
I was merely trying to convey my hope that more groups would speak out in favor of human rights, which I found out they do, and I believe we're on the same side regarding this point.
Somehow this must have gotten lost in our communication and I hope we can drop the personal insults in our exchange.

The countrys history does not matter when we are talking about human rights.

Don't know where you live but here in Finland, the whole concept is something you're born with. For most of my adult life i really thought that it is the same for all in the "western" world and once i learned the truth my instinct was "damn that is just wrong". In the 80s, i thought that our concept CAME from USA, not that we should be exporting that concept there. It is the land of the free, ffs. (it came here from Sweden, actually..)

Just the fact that if you get hit by a car or develop cancer, health payments is the least of your worries, just like it should be. Patient can concentrate, stress free, on recovery and you don't need to miss any treatment because you ain't got the money for it. Just the concept that profit should not be a part of health care industry (unless you want to, we got private clinics that are above the universal health care in term of waiting times etc.) that is ingrained to the culture brings comfort and equality. The middle class chooses between the two, the high end goes private and poor get the same quality from general healthcare, there's something very comforting there. Every person i see, i just know that he/she is taken care of. I'm not better or worse than the rest.

In my mind, it's a question of human rights to get the same treatment than the wealthy get. Money should not be a part of that equation. The same principle goes for education, it is a human right to get the same education as the rest will, money should not be a part of that either. We are here because of our culture and wouldn't be able to survive without past generations knowledge. One crucial part of that knowledge is how to treat wounds. Denying that is just sick, demented, plain wrong.

This is how much my life differs from you. I get all the possibilities and it's my freedom to use them or not. And on top of it all, we do it cheaper than you. How is that not implemented everywhere baffles me.. How sick a parent must be to deny his child all the possibilities, how sick you neighbor has to be to deny that from you?

Agree.. Universal healthcare to me is a human right. It makes my heart go all warm and gooey inside when i look from my balcony and know that no matter what apartment i'm looking at, the people inside are taken care off if they need help.

It's cheaper and above all, more equal. That last concept is totally unknown to modern USA, the American dream seem to be "more for me, less for you". Rather than just success you need to be better than the rest. Inequality is one way to accomplish that.

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.

Gotta give it up to her for being able to look Skeletor in the face standing so close. Once she started speaking with passion he was then compelled to turn his gaze from the floor to her face.....(cringe) I couldn't have met that snivelingly-sinister gaze as she did, YOW!


I'd imagine (and tout the idea constantly when people start bitching about being powerless in these situations) a most effective impact would be had in the form of protest through boycott:
For instance, the entire country buys no gasoline for a week, a month, etc.
Protest prison system woes and completely fucked drug laws by hitting more commodities, boycott cotton and coffee for six months and watch 'em squirm.

Week off Work protests stretch into month off work.
Laws violating the human rights of retail employees, the ethical treatment of squirrels in public parks, pick a cause and demand change through withdrawing your capitol and watch the cockroaches scatter!

Shut down the predictable meatbag habits and watch the shit change dramatically.

We are heading towards planet lock-down and we can make it easy for Babylon, or a pain in her ass.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

...roughly as can be kirmokum, given the language with which to describe the experience filtered through the individual perceptive apparatus. I like to think that the architect left these chemical triggers in the species with a view towards our acclimation to higher brain function and adaptation to chaotic internal and external stimuli, as well as a catalyst for the species continuing evolution.
After having experienced DMT as well as several other psychoactive substances, the very idea that a government, religion, or any such construct of human societies would seek to imprison someone for the personal use of the same should be an indicator to anyone who values free will and basic human rights as to the nefarious ends of that construct.
First, eliminate the constructs....then we find the contractors and hunt THEM down!