Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

No, that wasn't my intent or message. Sarcasm noted BTW.

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument.

I can't agree with that assessment because conservatism factors in something liberalism doesn't: facts. For example, it's been fairly well proven that every time the minimum wage is raised, prices go up and businesses hire fewer workers and still fewer inexperienced workers, such as teens entering the job market. But the genius of liberalism is people are emotional animals. What graph or chart is as colorful or loud as one "activist" screaming about hungry children, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? So, the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and once again, the media can blame higher prices and unemployment on...well...whatever's handy at the moment.

Republicans have failed to properly emotionalize their arguments, and even if they did, they'll always have a harder battle to fight, because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Liberals don't believe that because they're selling what they believe to be permanent solutions.

Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You're young yet and will have to find your own answers, of course. Being raised in a Republican household might very well have been a handicap, because the family unit is communistic by nature and now you're out there, seeking knowledge for yourself as you make your way through life. Conservatism and other -isms are being cross-examined by you, put through your tests and yes, through the filters of your experience.

Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, and could probably match your laundry list of what's wrong with him. It's all ebb and flow, and there are going to be low points, for the party and the nation. Research what America was like during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

If the R's want to survive, they'll find a way to get back to what matters. Or they'll die out. It may take people like you leaving for greener pastures for them to wake up. Hell, maybe you won't come back. I believe that things balance out, eventually. The Soviet Union, as bad is it was, fell because it was beneath human dignity to live like that. Hopefully China will also lose the Red.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course).

If it could be proven 9-11 was an inside job, my first reaction would be to find out how the conspirators managed to keep the silence and complicity of thousands of people, many of them government workers that can't even deliver the mail (a line from Maher). The problem with conspiracy theories is that when there's no evidence, the theorists say, "That just proves how good the conspirators really are."

For the sake of fun, let's say it was a conspiracy. If so, it backfired in several ways. If Bush was seeking to become a tyrant, his perceived inability to protect New York was not an asset. People like me, already pissed-off at the size and power of pre-9-11 government didn't suddenly relax now that there was going to be more bureaucracy to protect us.

Second, if Bush was seeking the tyrannical power that the left claims he has now, he failed to go far enough. There was no mass censorship or government seizure of media and Homeland Security did not suddenly have thousands of stormtroopers at its disposal. The message was, "Live your life like always, in spite of the attacks."

Lastly, Bush united an opposition that, if they agreed upon nothing else, could blame Bush for everything. He was still in trouble with leftists before the attacks due to the 'stolen' election, and he couldn't placate the left fast enough spending OUR money.

That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

True on all counts. Thus my new policy. There's enough going on at VS not to bother with it anymore.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

The American form of government is unique in world history and remains one-of-a-kind today. The 3 branches make it extremely difficult for any one individual or group to consolidate too much power, too quickly. It "survived" Bush and if Obama gets in, democracy will hobble his efforts at trying to change things overnight.

The creation of an "Other" for government to consolidate power is a given throughout history. However, when there are not imagined barbarians at the gate, there are real ones.

Our opinions differ on the war. I happen to think history will show taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but no, I can't "prove" it any more than scientitians now can prove with climate models that global warming is man-made.

I get the subtext of your message.

We all like to believe that the people who disagree with us are unread, inexperienced, missing obvious truths, buying into lies, etc. It's simply not so. There exist people on every side of the issues that are intelligent, well-read, etc. But being human, we will be biased toward one side: ours.

It all goes back to Patrick Moynihan's timeless saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Ancora Imparo.

"I've spent so much time with spiritual advisors, so much money on crystals and weird drugs. To think Cthulhu had been living in Hollywood Hills this whole time. He's saved my career."
--W. Axl Rose











In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument. Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine. Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course). Most political arguments are just that... heated arguments which lead to nothing. True debate is almost nonexistent because usually one person or both are just completely incapable of objectively examining someone else's viewpoints. That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

I'm thinking about the psychological makeup of the submitter. Let's go inside their head: they've just posted yet another lopsided fake newsman like Colbert or Maher or the despicable Keef Overbite, bashing Bush or criticizing the war in unproductive fashion. The same 5-10 kudos arrive and everyone's in agreement.


Liberals take their worldview very, very seriously, to the point there are no other valid points of view. So, I says to myself, I says, even if you're trying to "educate" among the fun-poking, none of these people signed up to hear from you. And so I says to myself, "Self, you're right."

And that's where we are today. I don't expect anyone after these few comments to even bother. Another month and no one will know I was there. There's enough music and tech and stuff not to bother with election '08 and beyond.

I'm still around and my views remain the same. But just as I wouldn't walk around Target or the (hated) Wal-mart telling strangers what I think of Bush or Colbert, now it has its place. That's all.

So... Is the WWII-imagery there to remind us that McCain lived through both world wars and the fall of the roman empire, or...?

A note to anonymous: good luck with that.

History has shown that religions when subjected to persecution pretty much always just give up and go home. Witness Christianity, it has failed completely due to the attacks it received in the first and second centuries in the Roman Empire.

I find him rather annouying, honestly. He speaks about the beginning formations of a type 1 civilization, when all it is the cultural effect of the American Empire. I bet there were people like him running the Roman Empire talking about how Latin is the World Language.

Hah, He then labels anyone who disagrees with him as Terrorists. PLEASE!

Also he quickly and effortlessly skims over the serious humanitarian problems of the EU, NAFTA, and other like globalization programs. Not to mention that the american economy is tanking and will probably take most of the world with it.

This guy has got his head soo far in the clouds that he doesn't see the details of the world going on below him. He's giving false hope to alot of blind people in rich countries.

When it comes to talking about the future, I'm just gunna stick with George Carlin. "The planet is fine; the people are fucked."

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

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - eventually. We're only human so succession has to be factored in. But sorry, although I know there have been and are benevolent despots in the world that worked- I cannot agree that it would ever be a good choice for starting a new government - because we're human.

Of course I recognize the irony that VideoSift is not a true democracy. But the analogy between a community website and a country only goes so far. I can't chain you to your computer if you decide you want to leave.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
heh - can't slip anything by you, can I? I was intentionally vague, but I was talking about democracy. I think certain authoritarian governments of the past have proven more effective. The problem with them wasn't a particular ruler, but the method of succession, which inevitably would produce a ruler that was not just ineffectual, but harmful. Augustus was an incredible leader, but ultimately, the method of succession in the Roman Empire would lead to someone like Nero.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

heh - can't slip anything by you, can I? I was intentionally vague, but I was talking about democracy. I think certain authoritarian governments of the past have proven more effective. The problem with them wasn't a particular ruler, but the method of succession, which inevitably would produce a ruler that was not just ineffectual, but harmful. Augustus was an incredible leader, but ultimately, the method of succession in the Roman Empire would lead to someone like Nero.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Evil Disco Man, I love you. I read the same posting, thought to quote and respond with that exact phrase, and you beat me to the punch.
Just because a mythology was thought up 2000, 4000, 6000 years ago and has survived, doesn't make it more legitimate, frankly. Don't forget that Christianity was a "dangerous" underground cult in the Roman Empire until it converted the Emperor and suddenly became the status quo.
Religions gain value when they become mythologies-- like the Greeks--and when we stop believing in their literal truth.

Raise the queue limit to 20? So what you're saying is that you don't want choggie to ever publish a video again? He publishes some of the more interesting stuff here, and I'd hate to see videos like his disappear. Sarzy's right; this place would become RonLOLcatSift.

Maybe you're just highballing with that number arvana, just so we can then "negotiate" a lower number that you really wanted in the first place. Fine, I'll play along. I say we lower the magic number to 2. Now let's negotiate a compromise by averaging those two numbers. That gives us 11. Deal?

Seriously, which one of these videos makes a greater contribution to the Sift: This one about life in the Roman empire, or this one about a machine gun briefcase? (Yes, they're both mine, only because I didn't want to drag anyone else's videos into this unwillingly.) Personally, I'm prouder of the Roman empire video, but that would never have made it under your proposed threshold. I think virtually all long videos would be a thing of the past as well.

However I do think cutting queue time would be a good start, but cutting it in half might be pretty drastic. I concede that it could work, but as others have suggested before maybe we should cut it down to 3 first before we try 2 day queues. And maybe a requeue limit might be good too, but I think we should try that only after a new queue time has been firmly established first. It's possible that I'm being too cautious, but I have feeling that if we adopted all three changes that you suggest at the same time there might be quite a few pissed sifters.

@snoozedoctor & arsenault (if you really care to learn why sending missionaries to Iraq stirs up so much trouble)

While I think you have made a somewhat valid point... I ask you not to forget that our great and wonderful nation of 'free-peoples' was only gained via the slaughter and removal of an indigenous population. The rationale for this removal often was that it was completely legit due to the fact that Native Americans were 'heathens' and 'pagans' and therefore not children of God blessed with all the divine rights that the good people of America were inherently imbued with... and don't forget our 'Manifest Destiny, which was essentially God's will that America stretch from coast to coast and become the leading power in this hemisphere. Historically, American armies may not have been have entered battle under the banner of a crucifix, but the justifications for their deployment have often been laced with the rhetoric of spreading 'Christian values' and thereby civilizing the heathen peoples of the world... so, even though this country is not technically a 'theocracy', which is a nation governed by a religious body who forcibly imposes one faith upon all of its citizens (which the Ottoman empire was NOT, by the way- political and ruling powers lay in the hands of the Sultan and his heirs, the Caliphate only established to give their dynasty legitimacy, and by and large the Empire was comprised of peoples of MANY faiths- it was no more a theocracy than was the Holy Roman Empire, or any of the Medieval European States, in fact, in a lot of ways, it was probably much less of one. That corsairs or an envoy operating under its aegis chose to justify their actions by using the Koran is no different than the thousands of other actions carried out by European kings, and conquistadors who chose the Bible as their umbrella), the justifications for the actions of the American military have in the past often been aligned with 'Christian' motivations or agendas (once again, see the conquest and 'taming' of North America)... and given the discourse in American politics today, I think it is hard to deny that there is a great portion of this population that would very much like to see it formally defined as a 'Christian Nation', with Bibles in the classroom and Commandments at the Court House, so the perception abroad that Iraq is a 'Christian War' is not unsurprising, its like to spring up anytime a predominantly Christian country sets foot in the Middle East.

But back to history and the motivations of international shenanigans of the more recent past.... Its not only America that is guilty of working in tandem with the motivations of religious institutions and their rhetoric... throughout the Golden Age of Imperialism foreign missionaries more often than not preceded the armies of Western nations throughout Africa, Asia and the Pacific, establishing churches and converting portions of the population. Attacks on these outposts of Western thought and culture would often then be used as an excuse for a Western nation to move in and establish a military presence before moving on to full blown colonization (see the French takeover of Indochina/Vietnam if you don't believe me).

In regards to this situation then that pattern is important to keep in mind, because I think it helps explain some of the anger that is being raised by missionary activities in the region. Given the prevailing attitude against Western influence in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries (due mostly to the experience of having been subjugated by Western Imperialist powers in the past), it should not be so surprising that these FOREIGN AMERICAN missionaries would be viewed by Iraqis as a threat to the sovereign identity they are trying to create for themselves. It is not that the Iraqis who might strike out at these people are doing so entirely because they are averse to Christianity, after all, there has been a long standing population of Chaldean Christians within Iraq that has gotten by just fine for centuries- it maybe hasn't been on top and they were pretty fairly discriminated against under Saddam but they certainly have never been outrightly persecuted for not being Muslim. Even today, despite all the turmoil in the country, those who have remained are pretty much just hanging in there and riding things out while the various Muslim factions around them blow one another up.

So, a large component of the problem is that many Iraqis ultimately feel that they are being 'invaded' by Imperialist Western influence, on many fronts, militarily, politically, and via these missionaries, religiously. So, therefore, this conflict of interest goes beyond simply just religion and it is important, I think, that Christians (missionaries and otherwise) realize this, the situation is not just Christian vs. Muslim- Iraqi Muslims are not just angry or striking out because the people of Jesus have dared tread on their sand to convert their neighbors. There are many many other factors involved in this that explain why they would not want missionaries from America to be active within their country... especially at a sensitive moment in history such as this.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rome, roman, empire, hidden history, terry jones' to 'rome, roman, empire, hidden history, terry jones, archaeology' - edited by kronosposeidon

The Roman Empire: Neither Roman, or an empire. *discuss
For reference: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Social-Stealth-Assassination

The Roman Empire. Neither Roman, or an empire. *Discuss.

Hmm. Doesn't work for me. I see a white box where it should be, but that's all there is.

The Roman Empire. Neither Roman, or an Empire. *Discuss.

from the google description:
This is the mindblowing 5-part video documentary series Evidence of Revision whose purpose is to present the publicly unavailable and even suppressed historical audio, video and film recordings largely unseen by the American and world public relating to the assassination of the Kennedy brothers, the little known classified "Black Ops" actually used to intentionally create the massive war in Viet Nam, the CIA "mind control" programs and their involvement in the RFK assassination and the Jonestown massacre and other important truths of our post-modern time. The U.S. Government's Orwellian "Office of Public Diplomacy" has been in existence in various forms and under various names since World War ONE. The union of American governance and American corporate interests began in Abraham Lincoln's day and the massaging of "public truth" began even before the Roman Empire. The more you know about "real history" versus "official history", the better equipped you are to see behind the lies of our times, even as they are told to you. Evidence of Revision sweeps "official truth" into the dustbin of history as it may be revised even as it is being written. Each part cca 100 min. long, 8 hours all together. A must see for everyone

Part 1: The assassinations of Kennedy and Oswald as never seen before

Part 2: The "Why" of it all referenced to Viet Nam and LBJ

Part 3: LBJ, Hoover and others. What so few know even today.

Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before

Part 5: The RFK assassination continued, MK ULTRA and the Jonestown massacre... all related.

This is only $20 for 5 dvd's... if you dig it, you should buy it! http://www.wingtv.net/evidenceofrevision.html

Hail the emperor of the US of A! Roman empire anyone? Lets 'elect' (if you can call it elect) our next emperor.. you all know the result of the next one already.