Tags for this video have been changed from 'vera lynn, airshow, WWII' to 'vera lynn, airshow, WWII, spitfire' - edited by kulpims

1. You are correct that there is not a rights violation, which is why none of these people are seeking damages. However, as soon as they allow themselves to be identified or searched, they are surrendering their rights under the 4th amendment. Furthermore, if the DHS officers state that they are being detained and are not free to go, and use force to make that so, then they are violating their rights for the same reason.

2. Many things have been "legal" in the past and viewed as "constitutional" that have long since been overturned. You don't have to dig too far into the historical grab bag to find some examples. Slavery, internment of Japanese citizens during WWII, poll taxes, spousal abuse, etc. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Likewise, the findings of a particularly conservative and activist Supreme Court does not mean that an issue is actually in keeping with the constitution. Don't forget that our constitution as it was originally written included the proclamation that 'non-free' men only counted as 3/5ths of a person. I mean, you don't get more constitutional than that.

The Constitution is about personal freedom and responsibility. When the gov't takes your private property and gives it to another person, that interferes with my pursuit of happiness. The gov't has gone so far beyond it's mandate...which is why we are $16 trillion in debt, why $4.4 billion goes to farm fraud, why $500M goes to an electric energy company which fails...etc ad infinitum. You people who think gov't is the solution, don't forget that it was the gov't that almost eradicated the Native Americans, who locked up Japanese-Americans during WWII, etc. I waste my breath, you think the purpose of gov't is to make everything equal. Good luck with that.

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

Just bought my frist Canon DSLR last week. Interesting - as Canon is more than 70 years old, you might guess correctly that they made products for the Imperial Japanese military during WWII

I watched some of thes after someone on here put on an interview with Stone. I had no idea the Hiroshima bomb was dropped so long after WWII in Europe was effectively over. And how many Russians died in that war! Refreshing take for me.

De Gaulle at 2:33? This is 1965. So strange (for a history-challenged American such as myself, anyway) to consider some of these people after WWII.

Certainly a lot of people making these claims come across as crackpots, and one of the people (Price) I cited in my comment on that page certainly really was a crackpot... that said though, the population studies of Londoners before/during/after WWII rationing, the Nurses Study, and the non-crackpot analysis of Price's data all come to similar conclusions... eating too much processed food, fat, salt, sugar, and highly refined carbohydrates will essentially poison you. If you stop poisoning yourself in this way, the human body has a remarkable ability to heal itself. I don't know if stop poisoning yourself to reduce symptoms of poisoning really counts as a cure, but the end result is still healthier.

Exercise helps too, but diet is a good starting point.

Watching that vid, I did wonder what agenda the guy was pushing, but decided there was nothing really false in what he was saying and upvoted.

This is partly because such studies are hard, and rare. The most commonly cited one (which is unusual, as you point out) is the Nurses Study.

An interesting one mentioned by the TV show "Supersizers go..." was studies into the effects of wartime rationing in WWII London (the first episode of the series actually).

Since they have put up all the episodes on yt, I can even link to it: http://youtu.be/cCddAKnf2LI?t=7m



As they point out, although certain details change, the basic advice has stayed the same for the past 50 years... eat less sugar and fat, eat less meat, eat more fruit and vegetables. No matter which trend is in at the moment, eating too much processed food is always discouraged and, with few exceptions, eating more fruit and vegetables is usually encouraged.

Re-watching the end of the episode though, reminds me that it wasn't actually the last few minutes where they mentioned the research, it was earlier. Rats. Somewhere in the episode they did make mention of it, I'm sure of it, but I only found the summary at the end.

In his short and readable book "In defence of food", Michael Pollan also mentions research by Canadian dentist (!) Weston Price, published in 1939 and titled "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". Price studied the diets of various isolated populations that had not been exposed to modern food, and found that humans are quite adaptable and can thrive on a wide variety of diets... sadly, the Western diet does not appear to be one of them.

In the same volume he also points out that you should avoid foods which make health claims... if you look in the supermarket, the healthiest foods are likely to be lumped together in the fresh fruit and vegetable section making no claims at all. If you want a book which provides references and studies, that one is worth reading. I'm sure he is not 100% correct in every claim he makes, but like I said, the book is short and readable.

B-17 - Scary WWII Segment from Heavy Metal: The Movie has been added as a related post - related requested by jonny.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/B-17-Scary-WWII-Segment-from-Heavy-Metal-The-Movie

RFlagg,

I agree with what you've stated about CEO compensation and taxation of the wealthy. I've said the same thing for years. Reagan did the country a disservice by cutting taxes for the wealthy by half. Now, the wealthy are crying at the prospect of a few percent increase. The wealthy are as guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Republicans as the poor are guilty of an entitlement mindset which was created by Democrats. After WWII, the top tax bracket was paying more than 90% in taxes. For decades after WWII the top bracket was 70%. We need to be heading back in that direction. We also need to be reducing welfare programs by retraining and educating beneficiaries and properly educating their children.

I also believe that corporations with public shareholders should have salary caps for CEOs and upper management. Too often, shareholders lose money on their investments while CEOs receive shockingly high compensation for failed leadership. A board of directors, when voting on compensation, is not looking at the best interests of the shareholder. A board member is seeing potential for themselves in bloated CEO and leadership compensation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Brady, Haran, James, Grime, WWII, Nazi, code, codebreaker, codebreaking' to 'Brady Haran, James Grime, WWII, Nazi, code, enigma, encryption, alan turing' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^bobknight33:

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.

If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.



sorry i live in a "single payer system"

i know people who work in multiple departments/sectors of healthcare...everything from doctors, to home care, to IT

and i can say with full knowledge and satisfaction, that your statement that a single payer system drives up costs/inefficiencies is either ill informed, or completely full of bs...

the notion of competition as being the great equalizer is moronic, in a system where insurance companies spend 100s of millions of dollars lobbying to get the game rules changed in their favor... insurance companies main goal is to make profit... they do that by minimizing cost/quality of service while maximizing return... if you can't see how that contradicts the purpose of health care, you are either naive or morally bankrupt

the arguement that businesses are held to be more financially responsible than government is also a lie... a business only has the financial obligation to report accurate numbers while being fiscally sound... the government has that exact same obligation, but further more has to show VALUE for what it is doing

your argument about Coke mystically assumes Coke is the only drink, thus they could set the price at whatever they want... I assume you are making the arguement that Coke is healthcare? but a company who's goal is to sell coke to make profit... that's an insurance company.... a company who has to be accountable to the people giving it money while making sure that the MOST people have cheap and easy access to coke... that'd be the government

you can either argue that government operates the same as business (as you are trying to do with your horrible coke analogy), or you can argue that they operate differently (as most people who back the business produces better financial results than government argue)... but you don't get to argue both in the space of 2 paragraphs

you, sir or madam, have taken a big old swig of the kool-aid

>> ^bobknight33:

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.

If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.



Medicare is extremely efficient, the only thing that makes it cost more money and be inefficient is that it has to deal with the current healthcare system. Also we have examples of other industrial countries systems which are way WAY more efficient than ours and produce better outcomes for it's patients overall.

It's absolutely pathetic where were ranked in health worldwide, we should be doing better.

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.


If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.


>> ^Yogi:



>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.