Touching.

However, and I know I am going to catch absolute hell over this but it needs to be said, there is a legal method in place for immigration. You might not agree with it, you might think it needs to be relaxed to allow more people in, you might think it is restrictive because it costs money and time, but the fact remains that there is a process for it in place.

Of course it is terribly sad that people who want to be in this country to improve their standard of living can't simply walk across a border to get here. I wish it could be that way, but it can't. People need to be checked into to see that there is no hidden issues that will arise once they are here. They need to be relatively able to find a job so that they are not a drain on others. This is a worldwide truth, as there is no country that does not have some method to process immigrants, many far more restrictive than ours. For instance, Australia will slap your ass on a desolate fucking island if you try to immigrate illegally and they can't find a place to return you to in a cost effective manner.

My own opinion on the matter is that we need to have a concerted discussion on how we are going to handle immigration requests and then have a nationwide vote upon it. At the very minimum it should be a statewide vote in states that border another country, as they are generally the ones most affected by costs related to illegal immigration. But until that time, I have to look at this video as a mother who is willing to commit a felony to make sure her daughter has a better life.

Which is laudible, definitely, but we punish other people who break the law to try to improve their or their children's lives. If I had children and I committed a felony crime to improve their lives, I would go to jail. How is someone who came here illegally better than me and therefore immune to the same laws I am held to?

@newtboy,

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them.

I addressed exactly that in my longer follow up to Enoch. I am asking you to open your eyes and look at the reality on the ground. It's not about legitimizing claims to statehood for convenience or opportunity or semantics or whatever. It is that an area of land larger than many European countries was running under their laws. Was paying them taxes. Was under their justice system. Was under their rule in every single manner. At that point you need to recognize the reality and call a spade a spade and start acting in accordance with reality and not just the borders drawn up on somebody's map somewhere.

You want an analogy in America, than have the whole state of Texas under the control of Richard Spencer and his likes. The American police don't go there, because they fear for their lives. Even the American military has stopped pushing in because their losses were too much. Instead the American military is using back chanels to mostly direct their violent terrorist attacks towards the Mexicans. If Mexico gets tired of Texans coming in and killing them, do they have no further recourse than to ask pretty, pretty please to the US to extradite Spencer and crack down on extremists? That is the reality in Tribal Pakistan with the Taliban calling all the shots.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you.

The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military.

And yes, he was supporting those mass killings. We know now that he was running a charity funnelling money to terrorists even before 9/11. We know that not 1, but 3 of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons, even spanning two different mosques. One of those being the same mosque he met with the Fort Hood shooter. It's not exactly rocket science to put together that his 'work' with the CIA, FBI and any other organisation opposing terror wasn't honest or open from the very start. It's pretty clear his jihadists teachings came first, not after.

As you say, anywhere within the reach of the law; courts, arrest warrants and due process all protect the public well enough.

Back the original CNN clip, I dare say I must at least insist that it's not disingenuous to point to Anwar as an example of terrorism on American soil by Yemeni dual citizen.

And after all that, Trumps order is still stupid. Just because you can find such examples doesn't count as me supporting his order. I just don't see what the need is to deny facts just because Trumps order doesn't look bad enough without trying to deny reality to make it even more worthless.

If refugees begin to act in a hostile manner because their plight is minimized and ignored while they are demonized and dehumanized but others that actually did the terroristic and anti American things they are suspected of are not given that treatment, that's human nature. Racist/xenophobic actions often cause anger.
Edit: keep in mind, most that are radicalized are teenagers and early 20's, so aren't the most rational or non violent by nature of their age, regardless of their culture.

It's not like that at all, imo. It's like a political/war refugee saying 'keep your international legal obligations or we'll dislike you more'. How much more do you think some need to dislike us before they act on that hatred? I would say we've created plenty of victims that are on that razors edge and only need a nudge to make their reasonable hatred become action....and giving them nothing to lose by acting, not a good idea.

If people begin to act in a hostile manner because a country decides not to let them in, then I think it shows the true nature of those people.

It's like a bully saying, "give me what you have, or I'll hurt you."

Why would you want someone with that mindset in your country?



Not that I agree with any of Trumps policies, they're totally ineffective.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

I can see the value in trying to relate to people's experiences in a video like this by taking a very first hand approach rather than talking about it in a very detached / clinical manner. If the description of his feelings seem irrational, it's probably because they were and it's important to convey the nature of that manic thinking.

@asynchronice @Engels
this is opinion that just happens to be on RT.
the opinion is coming from chris hedges,a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent for 20 years for the NYT.who has been extremely vocal in his criticism of american neoliberal policies.

he also has a show on RT called "on contact".

as always,the answer is discernment,and for that to happen there has to be a basic understanding of what propaganda actually is,and to dismiss hedges analysis simply due to the venue,is intellectually dishonest.

example:
it has been known for years that FOX news is a meme machine,a message of the day producer of misinformation and obfuscation.

does this mean that every story FOX covers is false? or manipulated?

of course not.

conversely,does this mean that every story RT posts should be taken at face value?

again,the same calculus applies.

i find that when RT deals with the russian state,and stories regarding putin,they tend to lean towards state "message of the day",but when they cover stories that are critical of american foreign policy,they tend to source and back their conclusions in a solid journalistic manner.

in regards to the washington post and their latest appeals to power and influence,is just a symptom of a much larger problem.

if you recall back in 2003.when the bush administration was pushing for an invasion of iraq,the washington posts editorial board was possibly the biggest cheerleader.they outshine even the new york times in their desire to please their masters in the white house and pentagon,and because at that time print news still had credibility and washpo was,indeed,considered a beacon of stellar journalism (remember watergate?).they almost single handedly handed the war powers to president bush to execute an illegal war,based on lies.

so in my opinion,the washington post last it's credibility over a decade ago.this is also a main,driving factor why i abandoned corporate news media.

i prefer independent news outlets.the very same outlets that washpo,and their un-sourced propornot,targeted.

lie to me once...shame on you.
lie to me twice..shame on me.

Not to my ears. If you're sure (and care), give me a second count to listen to. I heard many sounds close to that, but never that word, after 3 listens. Remember, these are kiwis, not Americans, they are much better mannered.

@C-note

i am trying to unpack your comment to formulate a response,and then i realized that the reason i was struggling is because your comment makes no sense.

it just a generic,and lazy mish-mash of of inflammatory jargon slapped together to appear well-thought out and salient.

but in reality,it is gibberish,in my opinion.

your comment is a stream declarative statements based on nothing presented in this video.

1.o'neill is racist....to which there is no evidence.

2.o'neill is a misogynist....to which there is no evidence.

3.o'neill is a troll....while this may be a true statement,i see no evidence that what he is postulating is for the single and simple goal to get a rise out of the audience.

4.o'neill is using false equivalencies to justify rhetoric......i suspect you do not understand what "false equivalency" and "rhetoric" actually mean.especially in the context of this particular video.

5.o'neill is debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting.

no he is not debating someone "right" to hate speech,and here is the point where i suspect that you simply did not watch the video.you did not listen to mr o'neill's argument.you did not consider his points and the inherent problems when we begin to restrict language (because you didn't watch the video).

now you are certainly within your rights to disagree with mr o'neill,but you need to at least listen to his argument in order to formulate a cohesive and viable response.

i suspect you read the title,had an emotional,knee jerk reaction and responded in a very generic and lazy fashion.in fact,your comment actually makes mr o'neills argument.

instead of listening to his argument,you responded in the very manner that mr o'neill addresses,and criticizes.

you accused him of:racism,misogynism,troll and using false equivalencies to justify a point he never made!

and when you react by name-calling an insults you diminish the conversation,and shut down all interactions.

now i do not know you,so please take my comment in the humanity it is written.
if you disagree with mr o'neills argument,than can you please express your points and clarify why you feel his argument is flawed or outright wrong?

i am sincerely interested.

@bareboards2
pure and utter sophistry.

and i resent the fact that you slyly attempt to imply that i will just sit back and remain silent to injustice.

when i feel quite confident my records on this site prove the exact opposite.i have vociferously and aggressively taken on those who would bully,berate and belittle anyone who would voice their opinion.

i believe i have come to YOUR defense on more than one occasion.

what i found disturbing in your comment and maybe i should clarify is this "As Homeland Security says, if you see something, say something."

this is LITERALLY what was posted on almost every open venue in east germany.

and for you to tacitly excuse this statement by dismissively stating that "the stasi operated in secret".as somehow being evidence of your own righteousness belies an ignorance of just how oppressive and fearful those people were living in those conditions.

so you are morally superior because you openly called to out,and i quote "benevolent dictator with a light touch",and did not do so in private?
THIS is your justification?
THIS is the evidence you present to me to...what? exactly?

if you truly feel that you have somehow struck a blow for justice and taken a stand for moral integrity,then i submit that you have no clue what free speech really entales,nor do you understand the implications when we,as a community,start calling in the big daddy in the sky every time someone writes an offensive potty/racist or bigoted word.

and just LOOK how you consumed @gorillaman 's comment.
you made no reference to his salient point,but rather focused on ONE thing:nigger prince.

now was this appropriate?
taken singularly i would have to agree with you.
no..it is not appropriate.

but when we take our understandings of @gorillaman,who has been a contributing sifter for over 10 years,and consider his humor..which is dark and incredibly dry (like sahara dry),then with this context added to the mix,we can conclude that he was probably making a joke...you are certainly within your rights to find that joke in poor taste,and with this community,you are also within your rights (and even encouraged) to take @gorillaman to task for his poor taste.

but instead you called for big daddy in the sky to bring the hammer of justice down,and punish this dirt potty mouthed racist.his crime?
racist verbiage.

no consideration of who was writing it.
no consideration of his history on this site,which you openly admitted is a community.
you just..focused..on..the..word.

and then you preen like a peacock thinking somehow you have struck a blow of righteousness?

please sister.....you accomplished nothing except to put dag in an awkward position,and came across as a self righteous moralizer.

when you simply could have done what other sifters here actually DID.
you downvote his comment.
and if you felt so inclined,and it appears you ARE so inclined,directly call @gorillaman out for his poor choice of verbiage.

look BB,
i actually find you to be a sweetheart,with a huuuuge propensity for empathy and compassion,but every time i engage with you my sphincter tightens up like it is preparing for a colonoscopy.there is this ever-present apprehension that my words will not be taken with humanity that they are written,or the open honesty i am trying to convey.

i am sure that if we were actually sitting in a cafe,sipping that delicious coffee you guys are so proud of, i would not experience this anxiety when engaging with you,but it seems EVERY time i disagree with something you post,or an opinion i may take issue with,i offend you in some manner.

you ..and i am sure this is not done on purpose..make it incredibly difficult to disagree with something you post,because i always feel i have hurt your feelings somehow.

real or imagined...i am just being honest here.i always approach any interaction with you as if i am walking on eggshells,underlined with landmines.

i am simply disagreeing with you here.
calling for a ban on gorillaman because of a joke made in poor taste,while simultaneously disregarding his contributions to this site,and taking his personality into consideration,is simply an over-zealous reaction and in no way deserves the attention of dag.

because if gorillaman deserves to be banned for an offensive phrase,than i should be banned as well.

free speech is just that...free.
of course we are free to ridicule that speech.
yaaay free speech!

Wrong and wrong.

There is such a thing as an accidental discharge. It is labelled as such on purpose.

You could term the same thing negligence in some situations (if an accidental discharge happened in a manner that could reasonably be foreseen and people were in danger from it). After seeing hundreds of thousands of rounds go down range I have never seen this happen with my own eyes. I have seen ADs.

This was equipment malfunction. It was probably hammer follow. The fact that he installed aftermarket parts himself is of no consequence without proof that he did it incorrectly. The part could have been faulty. Something else in the firearm may have failed causing the AD. I've had hammer follow on my firearm after receiving it back from a very competent gunsmith.

Interesting to see how similar their mannerisms are to house cats. "New type of bird?" "It's mine!"

colour grading as in DI is "new" and related to digital film but colour timing, which is the analogue method, goes back to the start of film making.

i've done work for several marvel films, their DI is generally pretty subtle. the raw footage def. has blacks (and negative values in the blacks). the new cameras used wont change this unless they want to change it. the colour gamut has been wide the whole time. OCIO colour may have a certain effect but i can't see it having the colour effect wanted here.

@AeroMechanical is exactly right. the new cameras aren't going to change shit. they're still going to grade the movies to be consistent with past movies. and they've fully had the latitude to grade them in a more vibrant manner the whole time.

and as far as rereleasing them as "UHD Blu-Ray box set" (i'm assuming 4K UHD), they can't. they were all done in HD or 2K (at least the ones i've worked on). uprezing is possible (4K outside of a theatre is actually pretty bullshit, you can uprez HD uncompressed to 4K without that much effect) but resolution doesn't change colour grading/DI.