http://www.videosift.com/video/Twitter-Search-in-Plain-English

JJ:

'Thought this educational video might appeal to you given recent events.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Twitter-Search-in-Plain-English

>> ^quantumushroom:
How does Ventura--who really should know better--equate scum terrorists who are not soldiers and therefore have no rights or legal protections (except ones fabricated by the American Criminal Liars Union) with legitimate soldiers fighting under a nation's flag?
U.S. citizens, who have actual rights and protections under the law, cannot legally be waterboarded, not even a McVeigh. So that answers that.

That doesn't answer that at all. As well as being forbidden by US law, torture of POWs and civilians is forbidden by the third and fourth Geneva Conventions. The US have ratified these conventions and they must therefore be followed by the US government. In plain English this means that the US are bound not just by their own laws, but also by international law when it comes to treatment of POWs. As is the rest of the world.

The Bush administration tried to classify the captured terrorists as "unlawful combatants", ie. not POWs and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Another example of renaming someone/something to justify it. Of course this was just plain bullshit, in lack of a better word. I quote the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which sets a clear precedent:

"Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."

Therefore, qm, captured terrorists have the same legal protection as US citizens when it comes to torture.

^Yeah, but a majority of laws on the books are written in legalese instead of plain English which is what the Constitution, BOR and DOI were written in. They seem to be purposely misleading and verbose, and they tend to favor the authoritarian statist attitude where police and bureaucrats are given privileges the rest of us aren't afforded.

I doubt you'd see a cop get his assets seized, black or white.

imstellar, for what it's worth, your explanatory paragraph doesn't make any sense and gives me the impression that your thinking on these issues has not made the leap from abstraction to reality. I could be wrong, of course, but why not do yourself and your positions a favor by stating them in clear, concise, straightforward terms. Forget the cow and science analogies and spit it out in plain English. If your ideas are too precious to be stated outright, then what is the point?

Wait a minute... the Republicans are concerned with protecting Constitutional rights and ideals? Seriously? 8 years ago I wouldn't have considered that such a joke, but today it's fucking hilarious.

Anyway, on to the indisputable "facts" from the video. I'll start with a plain-English summary of SB2165:

If someone uses a firearm that they are not legally allowed to have or use, but does so to protect themselves, then they can't be charged for the possession or use of that firearm.

Personally, I'm a bit divided on such a law, but it's still falsely represented in this video.

SB1195 was meant to prohibit "the knowing manufacture, delivery, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons, large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and assault weapon attachments." with exclusions for peace officers, military, National Guard and such when needed to perform their jobs.

I don't know a whole lot about guns, honestly, but I don't see why anyone needs a semiautomatic hunting shotgun, target rifle or black powder rifle. I'm not even sure how it's possible for a black powder rifle to be semiautomatic.

The 3rd accusation seems to have merit to it. Obama claims he was not the one who answered the questionnaire and that it was a secretary of his or something. Maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but he's responsible for the answers either way.

Thanks.

I'm not sure what the uploader did because I posted the revised version to begin with. Your link is the revised version according to the description I wrote.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
*dead, here's the replacement :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_VQ8I7g6I

Thank you for the promote.

In reply to this comment by winkler1:
*promote

>> ^charliem:
Sorry, but how is that democratic ?
Only the states winner votes are counted....err....that seems somewhat broken.


We use the term "democratic" too often. The US is a Democratic Republic. In a PURE democracy, the people vote on everything (gun control, abortion, tax on cabbage, etc). In a republic, a group of elites makes all the laws (see ancient Greece and Rome). The group is normally of equal power. The US has a mix of a republic (elected officials make most of the laws) and a democracy (we elect those officials and vote on some of the *most important/controversial* laws.

Never in history has a pure democracy been feasible. The advent of the internet makes that easier, but the majority of people still don't have the time required to research every single issue that elected officials do (note: I don't pretend to suggest elected officials actually do any research beyond hearing out lobbyists).

So, in reality none of us live in a DEMOCRACY. We all live with some democratic flavor of another form of government. We will probably never go to popular vote because it's easier for politicians to campaign by considering a state on a whole instead of individual communities. Let's not forget: those candidates are the ones making the laws and deciding how the elections are performed...

>> ^charliem:
Sorry, but how is that democratic ?
Only the states winner votes are counted....err....that seems somewhat broken.

It is, and so are all fair voting systems that allow for more than two choices. That is why there tends to be only two big political parties in modern representative democracies (barring other decisive factors of course). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_paradox

>> ^Deano:
The problem with that wording is that they aren't going to understand "self linked".
I don't recall what the current wording is but it's got to be in nice plain English.


I agree - it needs to be written in plain english:

This video is not a video made by, uploaded or come from you.

or something

The problem with that wording is that they aren't going to understand "self linked".
I don't recall what the current wording is but it's got to be in nice plain English.

Thanks mate!

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
*promote

Just found this great post:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Zombies-in-plain-English

They spell things out for the zombnoob. They even came up with the same Costco solution I proposed.

For me, I want to say no ban. DrA got banned for definately being an asshole. MrFisk, should consider this diligence from the community on the matter of sockpuppetry.

But I still want to know how MrFisk knew DrA.

The bottomline line is if you think having your friends vote ALWAYS for your videos is fine, then you should be in politics, breaking the system and declaring ignornace is not enough.

MrFisk, no ban as long as no sock puppetry. but you should properly state you did not know DrA. or if he was a friend, to say so. People here are wondering if you were in cahoots.

ban immunity does not mean you can act like an ass - it just means the community cannot ban you without admin

oh and when you sign up or donate the rules (for which breaking can earn a ban) should be bold and plain English.
There should be something to explicitly tell noobies NOT to vote for one person and one person alone.

*stops typing*