>> ^EvilDeathBee:

God the Cayenne's an ugly son of a bitch. The people that drive them obviously have more money than taste.


Yep, ugly ass car that is mediocre at everything. I once worked out that for the price of a top of the range cayenne, you could buy a decent spec BMW 5 series and a land rover defender. Hell you'd nearly have enough left over for an Ariel Atom. All of which kick the Cayennes ass.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Alright, what have we learned today kids?


If you're going to do something stupid, do it on camera!

>> ^KnivesOut:

Alright, what have we learned today kids?


If you have money you get to do whatever you want.

Lest anyone forget, the truck driver is also a douche for driving so terribly fast around a tight turn. He nearly toppled over onto that car that narrowly slipped past.

@Porksandwich all good points. There is corruption and a lot of collusion between government and corporations. Can we consider the possibility that this collusion happens mostly because the role of government is not well defined, because the economy is a grey area, because businesses covet the power politicians have?

I don't see churches fighting over privileges with politicians, not since a clear separation of church and state was established.

I don't see big media networks fighting over censorship rights with politicians, because freedom of speech mostly outlaws censorship by the government.

Do you see where I'm getting at?

The businesses that hold a monopoly, most of the time, hold it because of regulation. If you remove the regulation, you remove the obstacles for competition. The business might still hold the monopoly even for a long while, maybe decades, but any dissatisfaction by consumers is an opportunity for competitors to step in, slowly pushing the monopoly to be more efficient or risk being toppled.

If we dial back regulation, that doesn't mean there won't be any regulation, that the industry will only answer to itself. Regulation will come from consumers, clients, advertisers, consumer groups, unions, shareholders, and competitors. Didn't GoDaddy pay dearly for supporting SOPA? That's a great example of society punishing a business for an unpopular decision.

Besides, we can't consider it unfair for a business to establish a monopoly or a cartel, if we're ok with workers forming a union. That's a double standard because, in essence, they're basically the same thing. I don't judge either to be good or bad, fair or unfair, it's all part of the market and the right for people to freely associate.

You are absolutely right when you say people are held to more standards than just making money, but who establishes those standards? Are there laws dictating that we shouldn't be dicks, that we should never take advantage of others or "negatively impact people"? Those aren't laws, it's social pressure and your reputation that ****regulate**** you to act as a better person.

Let society and people hold businesses to better standards, not laws and politicians.

This is a cool video. I wish every country in the world would create something like this, and force every American to watch them all.

That said, they are still pretty young, and have a bit of a naive mindset. US Soldiers saving Iraqi's from the Hell that is Iraq, and the US's foreign interests being to topple dictatorships and export it's 'democracy' are only what the lowest common denominator believe, if even they believe it. It's been pretty clear going back as far as the Korean war (or some might even say the first World War, as I have heard multiple vets from that era explain), that US motivations have always been primarily conquer, control and capitalization.

I agree with most of what you say but I also believe that most Sifters realize what RT News really is. That being said, FOX screwed up; in this case, RT seems to be reporting the truth (although perhaps with some skew ).

Obviously you can't take anything (especially news sources) at face value, there is always some degree of interpretation involved. I don't think anyone is getting tricked by RTN.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Seeing RT posted constantly on VideoSift worries me as it is a state-run network and clearly a mouthpiece for Kremlin propaganda.

It's especially funny seeing an interviewed 'expert' on RT here talking about the western media taking cues from the government when this is clearly what RT is engaged in, damage control after the Russian elections.

The general narrative taken for this story is generally pretty hilarious as it desperately tries to make a loose link from (1) 'Fox fuck-up' to (2) 'western media is out to get Russia' to (3) 'western governments which control the media are out to topple foreign governments and were instrumental in the Ukraine/Georgia movements'.

Notice also how the presenter uses the term 'rally' not 'protest'.

Seeing RT posted constantly on VideoSift worries me as it is a state-run network and clearly a mouthpiece for Kremlin propaganda.

It's especially funny seeing an interviewed 'expert' on RT here talking about the western media taking cues from the government when this is clearly what RT is engaged in, damage control after the Russian elections.

The general narrative taken for this story is generally pretty hilarious as it desperately tries to make a loose link from (1) 'Fox fuck-up' to (2) 'western media is out to get Russia' to (3) 'western governments which control the media are out to topple foreign governments and were instrumental in the Ukraine/Georgia movements'.

Notice also how the presenter uses the term 'rally' not 'protest'.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?
And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.


From you that's a compliment.

The evidence of Gaddafi's pending genocide is undeniable, from his own public declarations of it, to his deputy minister to the UN, do Gaddafi's forces deliberate actions to attempt and implement it. What evidence do you have of the rebels genocide? So far, the only source claiming that was Gaddafi's own media, which got really silent on the matter now...

Oh, and before you show any dead bodies remember there is a distinct difference between war crimes like massacres that likely did occur on both sides in the fighting in Libya, and a genocide. A genocide is a concerted effort to track down and exterminate a specific group of people. There is zero evidence the rebels have or ever did have any such plans, while Gaddafi announced his publicly from his own mouth. The fact you can't accept this says something very sinister about what ever glasses taint your vision.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.


You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?

And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.

>> ^messenger:

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.



I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.

He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

So what, we have to accept the legitimacy of leaders who are actively exterminating their own people now? I was against Afghanistan. I was against Iraq. Gadhafi was right in the middle of killing Libyan citizens, those citizens asked for aid, and we decided to help them install a government that won't butcher civilians? How dare we! Sovereignty is a convenient concept for regulating actions between nations. It isn't a moral necessity. This was a case where the moral choice was not the one that respected sovereignty.
I don't see a world in which puppet governments are making us a colonial power, though I won't deny that Bush and Cheney hoped for that. Iraq is now aligning with Iran. Karzai is so far off the reservation that if Afghanistan were Vietnam, we'd have assassinated him twice by now. Most critics of the Libya action are worried that the transitional government is a bunch of Islamists who played nice to get our help and now intend to train terrorists and pick fights with Israel. The truth is that Libyans will probably be a lot friendlier to the US and Europe than they were a year ago. But maybe, for once, that's because we've earned it.
>> ^criticalthud:
I'm a little weirded out too by what just happened in Libya. As much of a fucktard as Gadhafi was, this was yet another leader of a sovereign nation felled by a U.S. and oil-interest-backed coup. No one is really talking about that. Instead, even Jon Stewart is taking an "atta-boy" attitude towards this administration. and relishing in how little it cost.
the next Lybian regime will be a democracy in name only and friendly to US and European interests: light, sweet crude.
Then the IMF will come in under the pretext of "re-building" the country and really fuck the people.
I think we are still a little complacent about our country essentially waging aggressive war.



we have of course, actively supported dictators who have exterminated their own people or violently put down any protests. and we continue to. it's happening right now. The point is, "revolution" in the name of democracy only occurs when US interests are favored. otherwise the US categorizes 'rebellion' or 'revolution'...or even dissent as a terrorist action against a legitimate state. When it favors the US or other high powered interests, "revolution" is simply a pretext for us to topple regimes that are unfriendly to US interests.

I'm not sure what to make of this video, really. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

In Syria, Bahrain, Libya, and Iran, the mere act of protesting was declared illegal. IIRC, in all four of those countries, violence was the only police response to protests, and in all four countries it escalated to police/military/paramilitary forces firing bullets at protesters.

That's not happening here.

In Egypt, the police didn't really crack down on the protests themselves. There were attempts to use agents provocateur to provoke violence to give the police some cause to shut down the protests, but that never worked. There were some touch and go moments when it seemed that the police were going to try to storm Tahrir square to forcibly end the protest, but that never happened (largely because the military stepped in and made sure that didn't happen). The result of the protests and accompanying strikes ended up toppling the Mubarak regime.

In America, things are a bit different. People who want to uphold the status quo want the protests ignored, and they know that violence and arrests will only help the protesters in the long run. So the OWS people have had to resort to a little provocation of their own. It's noble and self-sacrificing that they're doing so, and it does make the police look bad when they arrest people for innocuous sounding things (like directly protesting in on the steps of the NYSE itself, or blocking a bridge), but they're intentionally doing so to draw attention. It's called civil disobedience.

So really, I'm left a bit confused by the video. The title of the video is "I'm not moving", but spends a ton of time highlighting police violence at the protests here and abroad (and it's mostly abroad). When they finally show the guy who says he's not moving, they don't show him getting arrested or beaten, they just hear him begging to get arrested, and seemingly being ignored.

So is the point "I have a point to make that I'm willing to get arrested for" (i.e. "I'm Not Moving") or is the point "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are hypocritical tyrants because the police arrest me when I intentionally try to get arrested to make a point."

You can't really have it both ways.

I'm not going to spend more time than this on your conspiracy theories; the link is there, and that's only one of many sources. As for being intellectually disabled... if you can't tell wild conjecture and paranoid delusions from evidence and logic, than that insult coming from you weighs nothing at all.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Oh yeah, the Arab Spring revolts were such a NATO conspiracy. They really had to spread it, topple a couple of other dictators peacefully, all that to be able to... whatever it is they're scheming to do.

Also: "It's already been admitted that NATO had special forces on the ground from the beginning of the "humanitarian mission"." --> [citation needed]
As for the WTC, people far more informed than I have debunked the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding it (first site Google offers, for some among many examples). But hey, those are all just guv'mint paid shills perpetuating the lies, and the evidence they present is really just very, very elaborate smoke screens, right?




>> ^marbles:

>> ^hpqp:
I already gave you links to journals debunking these 911 conspiracies, under one of your other vids. And yes, I did watch the video, although skipping through it, because I've heard all these conjectures before. Nothing new nor convincing has been added to the truther delusions so far.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
The tags are almost right: the claims made in this video are indeed lies and conspiracy theories, that have been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Not that I actually believe you watched the video, but care to be more specific on what "claims" you're talking about and cite where they have been "thoroughly debunked over and over again"?


No specifics then? I didn't think so.
Run along now, no time for the intellectually disabled to start thinking on their own.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.