Kids Channel by James Roe
Sandbox for Sift Tots. This is a realm for videos that are suitable for children to enjoy. Non-kid-friendly videos that simply happen to contain a kid do not belong here.

He is intentionally posting adult content on the channel reserved for children after repeated warnings by multiple sifters and a short hobbling for the same thing. Perhaps another longer one is in order?

And because he continuously misassigns videos about racism as war on terror......

War on Terror Channel by raven

This Channel is for the aggregation of all videos related to the "Global War on Terror"...
As defined by Wikipedia.org:
"The War on Terror (also known as the War on Terrorism) is a campaign initiated by the United States government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions ostensibly taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States... Both the phrase “War on Terror” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law."

This Channel aims to become a place that will foster discussion of the war, and the numerous controversies surrounding it as well as the video material coming out of it; both in the form of News Media reports, and videos shot by the soldiers themselves.

and look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me...cause he keeps mumbling weird shit and motioning in my direction. I don't know, but this dude don't like me. could be my music taste. anyway, luckily, under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in preemptively planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?

or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.

Family is family, right?

I've been saying Obama is a Republican for a while now and it's telling that Republicans hate him as much as they do.

Let's review...
- Endorsed indefinite detention, charges not required
- Supports preemptive war and nation-building (Congressional approval optional)
- Nationalized Romneycare
- Lowest taxes since the 50s
- Gitmo is open for business
- Supports Military Tribunals for accused terrorists

What exactly are the Republicans so pissed off about? That someone from the other team enacted all their policies for them?

@blankfist, umm, which liberals support preemptive war? For that matter, which liberals think bailing out corporations is something we love, and need to do more of?

I don't understand why you seem intent on disputing what overlap there is between liberals and libertarians.

Neither of us want a war on drugs.

Neither of us want a war on terror.

Neither of us want our government to be able to wiretap us without a warrant.

Neither of us want our government to torture anyone, for any reason.

Neither of us want a global military empire.

Neither of us want corporations to be unaccountable.

Neither of us want government to be unaccountable.

Neither of us want to discriminate against people.

Neither of us want to limit free speech.

Neither of us want our government to be corrupt.

Neither of us want indefinite detention without trial for anyone.

You dispute many of these, for no rational reason that I can discern.

There's plenty of stuff that we really disagree on that we could debate. I'm not sure why you can't seem to find a way to argue against my real positions.

For example, I think government should make sure children's toys don't have lead paint on them. I presume, since this is a law "against free individuals who have not created a victim", you are opposed.

What do you propose we do to keep children safe from lead paint on children's toys?

@NetRunner. You also forgot that we don't like preemptive wars, bailouts of corporations and banks, laws against free individuals who have not created a victim, which goes against your modern "liberal" ideas of preemptive safety. If that's a witchcraft approach, I suppose I'll go dance around the fire and sacrifice my goat for rain.

>> ^rougy:
Words and promises.
That's all we ever get.

Well to be fair, we occasionally get preemptive wars too. =)

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/Your-Opinion-is-Requested-on-a-Court-Case#comment-848241

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
>> ^blankfist:
Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.
Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.

dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"
What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?


Right to drive? Since when do we have that?

>> ^inflatablevagina:
hundreds of dollars is excessive and it does not deter me from speeding.


Try as I might I fail to see the logic in that sentence.


>> ^blankfist:
Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.

So from your argument it would appear that for you all preemptive actions are morally wrong, is that right? Or is it just preemptive action by a government/military action? In that vein - do you agree with what most critics of the Bush doctrine have said - that Iraq can more accurately be described as a preventive war rather than a preemptive one (I do)? Also, what do you think about the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - should the U.S. NOT have engaged in preemptive action and created the blockade to disallow further buildup of Soviet armaments? I'm just asking these questions to see where you stand, buddy, no antagonism here.

>> ^blankfist:
Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.
Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.

dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"
What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?


Right to drive? Since when do we have that?

Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.

Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.


dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"

What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?

I just have to giggle at seeing yet another person say "Obama is doing things he said he wouldn't do". Which things are those?

There are things lefties didn't like that Obama clearly promised to do (ramp up the number of troops in Afghanistan, "look forward" with regard to Bush administration crimes, refuse to try for a single-payer healthcare plan, etc.). There are things Obama had promised that he hasn't done yet that we wish he'd move faster on (close Guantanamo, overturn DADT, implement cap & trade). But he hasn't started any preemptive wars, or implemented any kind of health care reform, much less one that "forces other people to pay for it" (which isn't in the offing at all if you're paying even casual attention to what both sides are saying).

It's not like Obama is a monarch. Those of you who claim to believe in limited government should be just fine with the idea that Obama can't snap his fingers and reshape the country in the first 6 months after becoming President.

This country's left-leaning grassroots are trying to build popular support for our ideas, so we can put them into place. Libertarians and Republicans seem to think they can skip that step for some reason. As far as my own political agenda is concerned, I hope you continue to think that for decades to come.


>> ^ponceleon:
I'm not saying that the democrats have it right, I'm just saying that the erroneous title of this video doesn't change the fact that the conservative right in this country is out of touch and has no real solutions to the problems we are in, still they have nothing but criticism for an alternative view, rather than trying to do something different and giving it a chance...

>> ^blankfist:
I'm a bit confused. Libertarians aren't conservatives. They're classic liberals.


Okay then, if libertarians differ from the Republican-style right wing with regard to ponce's critique, what are the issues that people are most concerned about, and what are the governmental policies you would enact to solve them?

Jaco - Same here man.

What exactly is wrong with not fearing idiots? So the retard in the room who doesn't know how to wipe his nose or tie his shoes says he's going to blow up the world - we should all panic as though the words were uttered by Lex Luthor?

Rational responses to threats require that graded measures be taken based on the facts of the case. These guys (the four in NY) needed to be arrested but hardly justify warrantless wiretapping, abrogation of rights, preemptive war and all the other bill of goods we've been sold.

I've tried watching this show but found it intolerable as much for the banal "witty" banter as the insipid, vacuous "points" that are made.

Oh and nearly everyone looks like a mutant... I particularly like LavaBoy at 3:45.

"As a religious person, I am offended by this."

And I'm offended by Viagra commercials, Mormons continually asking me if I've heard about Jesus, unilateral and preemptive war, gargantuan SUVs, Proposition 8, and a myriad of other things. But you don't see me protesting billboards for them.

>> ^MINK:
i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.


I forgot what it meant, too.

Essentially, it's the policy of preemptive war.

Which is another way of saying that Bush can now order a strike on any country based on his word that the country is a threat.

>> ^Psychologic:
>>Back before 9-11 when Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty and rejected the Kyoto protocol (somewhat of a change in foreign policy), that was seen as the "Bush Doctrine" of the time. Then after 9-11 it became the "with us or against us" attitude of unilateralism. It wasn't until we invaded Iraq that the "Bush Doctrine" included preemptive war. That's why I said that the term isn't very specific... you can't just look at its first use and claim that is the answer, because it was used well before preemptive war was even mentioned. Personally I thought the current Bush Doctrine was that it is our duty to spread democracy throughout the world.



Yea, that's all I was saying. He was trying too hard for a "got ya" moment. Even after he explained what he meant by it she still tried to avoid answering the question. I'm in no way trying to defend her, but when I was watching the interview and saw him ask that question I was admittedly asking myself "which part of the Bush Doctrine". Perhaps that is a lack of experience on my part.
Either way, I'm in no position to question Palin's abilities, especially with her being the USA's most experienced energy expert and all that. =P



What i'm saying is the first time the actual term "Bush Doctrine" was formally used was in a paper about that speech and it clearly defined what the Bush Doctrine was from that speech. I'll see if I can find it and i'll post a link. From there people have just used it to involve various changes to foreign policy for political expediency.

You've pointed out a perfect example of what i'm saying. You thought the Bush Doctrine included spreading democracy, this just wasn't the case at the time of the speech and the original debate about the Bush Doctrine. The speech was given September 2002, before the US "preemptively" invaded Iraq. Now at this point the reasons for the war were not to spread democracy but to stop Saddam from taking out American cities or giving weapons to terrorists that will. When it turned out there were no weapons suddenly the war wasn't about preemptively taking out someone that was about to kill Americans, it became about liberation and spreading democracy. People thus altered the Bush Doctrine from being focused on preemptive strike to focusing primarily on "spreading democracy." Essentially Bush was bailed out from being called on his bullshit because the media bought this new reasoning for the war and then the doctrine was changed, almost 1984 style except that instead of just erasing "preemptive strike" they added "spread democracy." You're right in that now you could claim spreading democracy is part of the Bush Doctrine but I would call it something different because that's what it is from the original understanding. The original Bush doctrine explained the original justification for the war in Iraq. Following the invasion I would call it the "New Bush Doctrine" or "Post-Invasion Bush Doctrine" or "Bush Doctrine 2.0"


I think we're still arguing the same point, that the Bush Doctrine has been confused. My stance is that it shouldn't have been. And it's no one's fault but the Press and opposition in the US. Bush should have been and should still be getting hammered for the reasons for going into Iraq. Claiming a preemptive strike and then when it turns out they had nothing claiming it was all about spreading democracy and freeing subjugated people. All bullshit and McCain will bring the same when he invades Iran.