Congratulations! Your video, Mark Blyth on Brexit: "revolt against technocracy", has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 24 Badge!

Your video, Mark Blyth on Brexit: "revolt against technocracy", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You can own an AR15 in NZ.

You can have high capacity magazines in NZ.

It is a popular 3-gun competition and hunting firearm.

"but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people."

Yet you still allow ownership of these items, and still have murder rates by firearm (and in general) lower than most of the world.

NZ's laws work because they stop criminal and crazy people from owning these items.

Australia banned semi auto rifles of all types and high capacity magazines outright (except for some very exceptional circumstances) yet our firearm homicide rate (and general murder rate) is on average worse than NZ's.

One can allow these items to be owned, they just need to be the right people (you already alluded to that).

Forget about the old armed populace vs tyrannical government trope. Unless you want to admit that there would be a civil war at that point (large amounts of the armed forces would revolt, military weapons in hand, against attacking their own families).

Wow. You really are speaking with authority on a subject you are ignorant about, aren't you? Look up Masai, or Inuit. Both survive on a meat only (or almost only) diet out of necessity. So much for "nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will" [be].

You are not superior. You are narcissistic. It seems that's a side effect of being vegan...you ALL have this false sense of superiority. That alone is enough reason to keep eating meat.

When people have no sense of humor about their own ideals, it's proof positive that they are insecure in them.

Vegans are not diverse when it comes to doing their little superior dance. They all do it, then all go pat themselves on the back for being a vegan douche to some 'evil carnivore' (by which they mean omnivore).

BTW, chimps are OMNIVORE, not carnivore....you know, that THIRD category of eaters that nearly all animals fall into, but which vegans choose to ignore.

BS, vegans are like ex addicts, always trying to make their bean curd taste and feel like meat. They fail miserably, but they continue to try and try....because meat tastes good and they miss it. You find the THOUGHT of meat revolting, but you still LOVE the taste.

I'd eat you and your baby in a heart beat if it meant survival for me. But the fact is almost nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will, and the more people that become vegan, the less likely that is to happen as well.

So yes, people that have made a conscious decision to not do cruel things while they are unnecessary are superior. Just like in the way you don't go around murdering people for shoes right now, even though in the apocalypse you would, makes you a superior person compared with some thug that does that now. You would probably steal food from people that need it, but you aren't doing that now, so you're definitely superior to people that do steal unnecessarily now too. But you don't see anyone telling people who don't steal to get off their high horses.....

There is no humor because the situation is so serious, not because it's puncturing a balloon of superiority. Or do you think that people who opposed concentration camps where simply doing so to feel superior too?
The other thing that makes it totally not funny is because I've heard this ignorant and false stereotype stuff so many times it makes my eyes roll. Vegans are as a diverse group of people as can possibly be, with the only thing in common is their compassion for animals, and care of the environment.

I'm also not a lion or a chimp, I don't copy their other behaviors like throwing poo or licking my own ass, so I don't see why I'd copy their carnivorous behavior either. It's a good thing I have a frontal lobe and can use reason to make decisions based on my understanding of the consequences.

Also while I would eat meat for survival, I would not be eating it for the taste. It sounds to me like you're under the impression that vegans are like ex-heroin addicts, always being tempted by that next hit. It's not like that all, taste buds adjust dramatically over time, in fact they adjust second to second - eat an apple after a swig of soft drink. It'll taste sour. Yet do it before, and the apple is sweet. I honestly find the thought of meat revolting now, just like you would if you had to eat something like a dog or rat. I feel the same way about milk the way you do about drinking human breast milk. I'm not just saying this to be dramatic or superior, I'm saying it to give you an example how easily your taste buds are influenced.

Sincere kudos to them for keeping advertising well regulated on TV.

...That being said, how can they get that so RIGHT, while at the same time Premier League jerseys are 90% billboard space for things entirely unrelated to football, MAYBE with a tiny team logo somewhere. Compare that to, say, NHL jerseys (or any of the US big 4, really). I think Canadians would rise up in revolt and/or burn Gary Bettman in effigy if he told an original 6 team to put some f*&%ing corporate logo on their sweater...

Some bits it glosses over :

Puppet dictatorship is basically a description of every US and Soviet backed b-list nation on earth back then. The fact that it's a puppet state shouldn't be used to imply anything.
For example, the U.S.S.R. had modernization programs for its satellite states, building power plants, roads, hospitals, universities, etc, in an attempt to fast forward development and catch up with the west asap. They also did this while spouting secular rhetoric.
In a general attempt to undermine soviet efforts (*both sides tried to contain each other's influence world wide), the U.S. looked for any groups within the U.S.S.R. satellite nations that would be an 'in' for U.S. power/influence. For Afghanistan, this was the people most offended by the U.S.S.R.'s [secular] agenda, and most likely to make good on foreign anti-soviet backing - the religious Jihadists. Everyone knew very well what it would mean for the local people if Jihadists took over Afghanistan - but at the time, the soviets were considered a bigger problem than Jihadists (possibility of nuclear annihilation), so better to have Jihadists in power than soviets.

Also, Assad's release of prisoners was officially part of an amnesty for political prisoners - something the people and foreign groups were asking for.
Saying that Assad tolerated AQ or Isis is misleading. These groups gained power during the Arab spring, when a large portion of the civilian population wanted a new government, but lacked the military power to force change. Militants stepped into the situation by /graciously/ offering their military strength, in exchange for economic/resource/political support to help make it happen. After a short while, these groups coopted the entire effort against Assad. Once they were established, they simply put the people under their boot, effectively replacing Assad with something even worse within the regions they held. Assad lacked/lacks the military power and support to expel the militant groups, so they fight to a stalemate. But a stalemate is by no means tolerance.
One similarity that Syria has to Afghanistan, is that the anti-government kernel within the population that birthed the revolt, did so for anti-secular reasons. In Syria's case, it was in large part people from the region that had earlier attempted an Islamist uprising during Assad's father's reign (which was put down by the government, culminating in the 'hama massacre', leaving some intense anti-government sentiment in the region).
In any case, the available choices for power in Syria are 'political dictatorship' or 'religious dictatorship'. Whoever wins, regular people lose. It's not as if regular people have the arms necessary to force anyone to listen to them. Anyone with any brains or initiative knows that their best option is neither, so they leave (hence all the refugees).

The video also omits the ambiguous alliances in the region. Early on, you had the UAE, Saudis, and Turks supporting ISIS - because an enemy of your enemy is your friend. It wasn't until ISIS started to encroach on them that they tempered their support. Turkey remains ambiguous, by some accounts being the gateway/laundromat for ISIS oil sales... because ISIS is a solution to the 'Kurdish problem' for Turkey.
If you watch some of the VICE documentaries, you can see interviews where locals on the Turkish border say that militants and arms cross form Turkey into Syria to join ISIS every night.
Then you have countries like Iran and Syria fighting ISIS, but by official accounts these countries are the west's enemy. Recently, French leadership (after the Paris bombings) has stated that they are done playing politics, and just want to get rid of ISIS in the most practical manner possible, and are willing to work with Russia and Assad to do it.

It's worth noting that ISIS' main enemy/target is 'non Sunni Islam'. U.S./Europe tend to only mention ISIS attacks on their persons/places, and it leaves western people thinking that ISIS is against the west - but in fact the west is merely an afterthought for ISIS. For every one attack on a western asset/person, there are countless attacks on Shia, etc.

-scheherazade

Sadly, it really doesn't matter what they call them, because the term terrorist has become meaningless. I've said this all the way back when GWB "declared war on vague abstract concept"

The definition stated earlier is not wrong, but you can use that term for just about anything. Americans were terrorists against the British when we revolted. We also had the audacity to not march shoulder to shoulder against the Brits as was the standard for every "civilized" army back then.

The only difference is who wins and who loses. if you win, you're a revolutionary. if you lose, you're a terrorist. and if you're white, you're a militia group.

This was a calculated move by the terrorists though. I think they deliberately picked some piece of shit building of no value that no one cared about and was unused, made sure they didn't kill anyone but yet still forcibly occupied it with weapons. It's a dare...it's an attempt to goad. They want the feds or police to go in guns blazing. They want suicide by cop because it will ultimately benefit them and gain sympathy for them. They took something that is completely inconsequential other than it was owned by "the gub'mint"

The Fox pundit thinks they're peaceful? armed occupation is peaceful now? Just because they haven't physically hurt anyone doesn't make them peaceful. They stopped being peaceful the instant they picked up their weapons.

Love all the usual buzzwords and sound bites from the fox pundit without any actual specifics. Once again, who specifically is this "left wing media?" They never actually say who. more accusations of "big gov't" without any specifics. They keep talking about these intrusions into our lives, but yet, can't seem to name them.

All fear, no concrete issues. Standard geriatric (that means old, bob) Fox audience.

People want to kill the video because it doesn't fit reality. There is an objective reality, not the one that fits anyone's point of view.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Quite honestly, while I understand both sides of the abortion debate, it's not a high priority issue to me either way. I'd rather focus on economic health and stability, national defense, etc., as those things impact more people. I respect both sides of the debate. It's a very difficult topic.

With that said, this issue is so complex and multi-faceted, it doesn't need utter BS like this mucking people's idea of what actually is reality.

If you posted this because you have a problem conducting scientific research with already aborted fetuses, then where's the outrage with organ donation, cadavers, etc. Sorry, but gaining scientific knowledge is often done with samples you'd rather not want to know, but there really isn't any moral issue using.

If you posted this because you actually think Planned Parenthood makes money by doing this, you never bothered to find out this is a viable profit center, which you would have quickly found it isn't. It didn't take me long at all. (See link above)

It's shameful you'd actually post something this revolting in how absolutely it murders the truth.

If the current Greek proposal is actually the one being published just about everywhere, they might as well sign it in the replica of Marshal Foch's carriage in Compiègne. It's even worse than the one they had their referendum on.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Jamie Galbraith substantiated AEP's claim that the referendum was horseshit to begin with.

They screwed the pooch, even I'd agree to that if they were to accept this unconditional surrender. The anti-austerity movement on the left would be compromised to such a degree, leaving only the anti-EU forces of the right credible in their opposition to austerity. The recession cult will have their permanent austerity -- and the bigots will have their revival of nationalism.

I'm actually very liberal. So much so that I consider Democrats too conservative.

When the right wingers talk about 'the civil war not being about slavery', that's part of the rhetoric that 'the south was not racist'.

I'm not making that statement.





I am saying that :

- Both the south /and/ the north were racist.

- Neither cared about the fate of black people.

- The war started over secession (to which slavery was only a contributing factor, among many much more important [to the people in authority] factors).

- After the war was on, the north used the subject of slavery to their benefit.
A) Freeing slaves in only the rebelling states, in order to incite slave revolts and use that to military advantage. (if the northern authority wins, then the emancipation becomes southern law. If the confederate authority wins, then the emancipation is meaningless. So confederate slaves were given a personal incentive to help the northern authority win)
B) Paint the south internationally as 1 dimensional caricatures of evil (war propaganda), to cut off the south's supply of foreign made arms (because they didn't make their own).

- After the war was over, most of the slave owning states had been emancipated, and the north had claimed to be champions of liberty, so in order to save face they had to emancipate slaves in the remainder of the south (plus it was no skin off of their back, so it was easy to do).

(The southern states that had been allowed to keep their slaves could not then protest their emancipation, for they were few and weak - and would get no help from the other southern states that they themselves hadn't helped during the civil war (resentment/reciprocity)).

- When writing schoolbooks at that time, the rhetoric/propaganda was repeated, and generations of people grew up repeating it, perpetuating it for future generations (like religion).

-scheherazade

That's a sentiment I've been hearing much more lately.

If enough people start saying it, it's even possible that some changes could be made.

Of course, it's also possible that Europe will just keep muddling through and make the barest concessions required to stop a revolt.

You know, I don't think the unelected part is such a problem, it's all down to the unaccountability.

A much more humane way of stealing honey from bee slaves. Colony collapse = Revolts against human overlords.

Besides, I like the wax.

Saddened and really revolted by this.