The only problem I have with this is that William Ayers was fucking right.

He's been proven right countless times.

The Pentagon was lying. Daniel Ellsberg and Seymour Hersh took great risks to shine the light there, as did many thousands of others.

And millions of civilians died, at the hands of the Pentagon, and Ayers didn't kill one single person.

I love to see Hannity shit his pants, but this is yet another example of pussy Democrats shitting on their supporters to appease their opponents.

>> ^Xax:
Shouldn't the title say he was too early for the Darwin Awards?


Perhaps this video just means he'll be right right on time for the next train?
To meet Darwin...
Or something...

>> ^dag:
Enzo, the Fermi paradox accounts for the probability of no faster than light travel. The milky way is at least 13 billion years old. That's more than enough time for thousands of civilisations to arise and colonise other stars using space ships that only reach a small fraction of the speed of light.

Yea but that's also so much time that many intelligent life could have lived then died. The key to finding life isn't just being in the right place, it's being there during the right time as well. It's important to realize we may be alone...right now. Or if there is life out there it may be in very primitive stages and not yet intelligent (we're still waiting for intelligence here on Earth). Our time here on earth is nothing more than kleenex skeet compared to the age of our galaxy.

This video should be put in front of anyone who belives that the media is free and balanced. It should mandatory viewing for all journalists.

For anyone interested in the horror story behind the case, see www.schapelle.net. The censorship is against someone whose human rights have been systematically abused. Schapelle Corby never had a chance: she has been in her cell for going on 5 years, with 15 still to serve (she may well not survive).

For the Australian government, their strategic relationship with Indoensia trumps her human rights every time. The media play ball.

>> ^jonny:Eklek is a benign Archivist and part time Eagle Scout (Cub Scout?).

Quite right:) full time archivist and
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/swampgirl/Sift-Newbies-in-Need

good. Wall-E wasn't as entertaining as I hoped it would be. I guess this is their way of saying 'alright, let's do it RIGHT this time'

Yeah, I've thought about that before and I wouldn't call it meaningless. I think if you are talking on a national scale (which is highly fictional), the element of surprise used on Katrina victims would be gone after the first round of confiscations. Also, the amount of force the federal government would have to employ with fully complicit local agencies of all types to perform a nationwide confiscation is a serious deterrant to it ever happening. The risks and problems outweigh any rewards. Once it was known that weapons were being taken, you can bet the general reaction would be much more violent than during Katrina. It would be far easier and more realistic to achieve the same goals by slowly erroding gun rights over time and pushing for legal means to disarm.

Also, I don't see why someone who fears that the government *could* take weapons by force if they wanted to would think it was logical to support bans and unreasonable restrictions. I'm not saying you in particular since you didn't really mention specifics on your position, but it's something I've noticed having this conversation with others. It just seems incongruous to me since this argument of "you couldn't fight back anyway" comes up a lot. To me it is like saying, "I don't think I could stop them from illegally taking my guns if they wanted to, so I'll support laws that make it legal for them to do so." I think if private firearms are going to be taken en masse in this country it will be through slow and calculated legislation "for our own protection," not by force.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Well, I'm glad for that. And while I'm normally anti-gun and having never once held a gun in all my 40 years, I watched all the footage of the Sheriffs taking people's guns away in sheer horror. The NRA had the chance to litigate this issue afterward only because the worst had not happened.

But imagine for a moment (taking the founding fathers' original intentions of the 2nd amendment and applying them to today's world, something I never thought we'd have to do), that if the time ever comes that we'd need an armed populace for the purpose of defending the Constitution, a job normally done by our elected officials...then the government has proven that all they need to do to prevent that from happening is to merely walk up to that armed populace and literally take their guns away.

It took a hurricane to demonstrate to the powers that be that the 2nd amendment is meaningless. After the "big moment" has passed us by and the population has been disarmed, there will be no court date.

Again, I'm normally anti-NRA so you can imagine my disappointment.

In reply to this comment by Lurch:
>> ^shuac:
Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?


Well, the NRA actually took that to court and got all the firearms returned. They're also currently fighting in DC over making sure the government follows through after the ban was overturned. So, in the end, the NRA still prevailed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_re_us/katrina_confiscated_guns
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/

*Timeshift might work best, because I believe Sarzy is right. GASP! *Time might confuse people. Hell, anything to do with history could be improperly labeled *time, for example. A video with a clock prominently displayed in it might be labeled *time too. There will always be some confusion, because some people are....slow. Still, we should do our best to avoid confusing people if we can.

I like the brevity of *time, but brevity shouldn't be the best feature of a channel name, IMHO.

, LoL, LoL, you might be right, last time I said something like that my post was hijacked into a serious porn discussion and thus managed to get almost on top of my list, so maybe I should be more careful...

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
you underestimate the depravity of your audience, madam.
In reply to this comment by Octopussy:
Thanks! Still not sure it will get beyond my pq, though...

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
*promote

she woulda' gotten a doublepromote, except, well... you know.

>> ^MaxWilder:
It's hard to not be arrogant when people are constantly in your face proving how stupid they are. If the logical fallacies don't convince you that religion is wrong, then the hypocrisy of the "faithful" should.


Oh that's so astute. He gets people proving him right every time someone speaks to him, how on earth can he not be arrogant?!

I like the yellow highlight, chog. Is that a reserved function or something?

According to dictionary.com, NR uses 'titular' correctly (see adjective item #3). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/titular

Lastly, what does everyone think of Rachel Maddow? She reminds me of my Jr. High School gym teacher, only more attractive. "All right boys, time for some squat thrusts."

blutruth - I think you're completely right. The time to rise up has come and gone, in my opinion; Americans have given away much of their rights in recent years without any significant fight. Many of them are okay with it, as they see it as supporting the greater good. As for your second point, we've seen this demonstrated time and time again in history, including Nazi Germany and more recent American conflicts. I don't mean to be so simple as to compare modern America to Nazi Germany, but there are very clearly some ominous parallels.

and i would like to add, that unjust wars discredit the perpetrator, so that if a real war is necessary in future, you're fucked and you can't do your brave valiant democracy defending even if you are in the right next time.

The communists invaded many countries during their reign of terror, because capitalism was "unjust" and "exploited the worker." 100 million dead later, thankfully one of the two major communist countries is no more.

I'm sure every convicted killer on death row feels that the State putting him to death is an "unjust" act. No matter what the USA does, someone ain't gonna like it. What's done is done, and some will condemn it and others approve.

Before 9-11, the USA foolishly neglected its duty to protect itself. After 9-11, the hands-off approach wasn't going to fly. For the record, I'm not tying 9-11 directly to Iraq but to the increase in danger of the world's political climate.

so why not prosecute the war in iraq justly if justice is your cause?

By doing what, exactly? Saddam had 12 years to comply with inspections. What did all those UN Resolutions do to thwart him? Nothing.

Have you noticed the UN is worthless?

Militarily they're a toothless lot of blue-helmeted security guards.

On the political front, it's elected a host of 3rd-world savages and despots who conveniently blame "the West" for their own despotism.

You're confusing the garbage UN of now with a fictional enlightened future world-body.

Would it be reasonable to say that you can't have a world community with yahoos like Saddam running around threatening neighboring countries and firing rifles into the air?

SO perhaps we can agree that there is such thing as a justifiable war, but this is not it, and this has fucked things up bigtime.

Before 9-11, I'd agree with you that invading Iraq would be too costly, especially with unclear goals. Not that we ever should've taken the islamofacist threat lightly, after 9-11 we weren't going to wait around for another attack. And so we've erased a pesky dictator and helped a Middle East nation take its first baby steps toward a government that serves its people, and it's to the USA's disadvantage that we're helping build a republic and not another monarchy. The Iraqis' problems now are the problems of freedom.

I served in the RAF cadets by the way. Hardly pacifist. But i didn't join the regulars because I was nervous about politicians sending me to my grave in a fucking corrupt oil war, pretending i am defending liberty while cynically profiting from my death.

That's your personal choice based on your life experience. Fair enough.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
and i would like to add, that unjust wars discredit the perpetrator, so that if a real war is necessary in future, you're fucked and you can't do your brave valiant democracy defending even if you are in the right next time...

thank you!!! I think I got it right this time...

In reply to this comment by Eklek:
Hi, I think you forgot to replace the embed?
Cheers,
Eklek

In reply to this comment by laura:
hey I like that idea, being as it is the same story, and people vote for the story content in a case like this....I will be nice, but I mean... ahem...
http://www.videosift.com/video/Crazy-Raspberry-AntsElectronic-Eating-Short-Circuiting-TX
please?
I didn't see this 'til just now!

Yup, that's right. MG just said he would register as a democrat.


Well, the nice thing about the electoral system in most states is that you only have to declare a party during primary season, and can vote for whomever you please in the fall, so you can hide your secret shame and vote your conscience. I myself a longtime Democrat registered as a Republican (and my, has my junkmail gotten interesting since then) just so I could bump Ron Paul's profile up a smidge. I don't for a second believe in most of his libertarian ideas, but at long last we had a candidate who was forcing us to talk about REAL issues, based on silly little things like, oh, the Constitution.

As for the content of this video--sigh. As someone else said, the difference between racism in the North and South was that in the South, Blacks could live near whites, as long as they didn't get 'uppity', but in the North, Blacks could get uppity, as long as they lived nowhere near whites. What I'm seeing here is people reacting poorly to the unknown, people who believe that life is a zero sum game, that social justice for Blacks and Hispanics means less opportunities for whites. Someone needs to point out to them what Bill Hicks said so many years ago: Poor whites have much more in common with poor Blacks than they do rich whites, and rich whites do everything in their power to make sure neither side sees that. Before there was What's the Matter with Kansas, there was Bill Hicks, getting it right every time.