So you want me to use AIDS 'sparingly,' while you waste it on a spammer? No can do now, mötley lüeser. Give cancer a try. It knocks em dead every time, especially in the chemo unit.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Enlast gives you AIDS and is funded by Nazi war profits. Don't come back, spammer.

http://commercial.videosift.com/talk/Try-Enlast-Personal-Male-Lubricant-Risk-Free-For-Sex

Let us repeat:
Enlast Personal Male Lubricant is made from the pelts of baby seals. The entire company is dedicated to green technology funded by Nazi war profits, and all proceeds are used to fund terrorist activities domestically and abroad. Do you like to sodomize little schoolboys? Then Enlast Personal Male Lubricant is right for you. If you order today they'll throw in at no extra charge a vial of the tears they've collected from thousand of children working in one of their sweatshops. So order now!

Enlast gives you AIDS and is funded by Nazi war profits. Don't come back, spammer.

http://commercial.videosift.com/talk/Try-Enlast-Personal-Male-Lubricant-Risk-Free-For-Sex

Enlast Personal Male Lubricant is made from the pelts of baby seals. The entire company is dedicated to green technology funded by Nazi war profits, and all proceeds are used to fund terrorist activities domestically and abroad. Do you like to sodomize little schoolboys? Then Enlast Personal Male Lubricant is right for you. If you order today they'll throw in at no extra charge a vial of the tears they've collected from thousand of children working in one of their sweatshops. So order now!

I'm tending more and more to agree with the average Jon Stewart viewpoint, but this one missed the mark in my opinion. I think that it would be possible to believe that the Bush tax cuts should stay and believe that we need to work at cutting the deficit, while still remaining logically consistent. Yes, that money has to come from somewhere. No, it doesn't have to come exclusively from higher taxes.

Most of the clips of republicans shown here completely missed the point of fiscal conservatism, they are just in effect trolling for anything to criticize Obama about. But it would be possible to cut government spending, demand a higher standard of competition and reasonable prices for government funds being spent (which would hold for Bush's war profiteering cronies as much as it would hold for the "liberal elite" pet projects), and in general keep the list of "stuff we expect the government to do for us" smaller.

The lean, mean, and efficient approach to government is what initially sold me on republican ideology over the democrats methods. The problem now is that I don't think that the GOP / republican party actually want a small government any more than the democrats, they just want to toss their massive and inefficient budget in other directions. So by all means, criticize the republican talking heads for that, but don't sell me the line that there is a cut and dry "lower taxes = higher deficit, higher taxes = lower deficit" equation at work.

@NetRunner
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-Only-the-Super-Rich-Can-Save-Us
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/myriam-miedzian/is-ralph-nader-on-to-some_b_298483.html
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-interviewed-by-Sonali-Kolhatkar

http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-Things-Are-a-Lot-Worse-than-We-Thought
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-talks-about-Barack-Obama-and-Hillary-Clinton
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-is-Obama-a-corporatist-like-BushCheney
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Fannie-Freddie-and-more
http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-And-Ralph-Nader-together-on-The-Situation-Room
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Real-Time-September-26-2008
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-makes-Tucker-look-silly-once-again
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Education
http://videosift.com/video/Nader-On-War-Profiteering-Eisenhower-Would-be-Proud
http://videosift.com/video/NADER-vs-O-REILLY-Pulling-Out-Of-Afghanistan-Another-9-11
http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-Organizing-Districts-for-Change
http://videosift.com/video/Why-the-Democrats-wont-Impeach-Bush-and-Cheney

Way to go to protect US oil interests and keep the USA Free(tm) by invading other nations and killing local citizenry after labeling them as 'insurgents'. ***I blame the racketeers that run the US military war profit machine.*** I don't blame the soldiers.

In Afghanistan... are we at war with Al-Qaeda (a CIA invented name by the way), or the Taliban? Yeah. The Taliban. They may be fundamentalist religious zealots, but Saudis were on the planes in 9/11. I guess that is quickly forgotten. You don't hear Al-Qaeda mentioned all that much anymore do you?

In Iraq are we at war against Al-Qaeda? The Taliban? Neither. We are mostly killing locals who are sick of the US prancing around their country killing people. That isn't our country. We are the foreigner in their lands. We quickly forget that we are the instigators of a blind and righteous romp to 'promote freedom' through use of overwhelming firepower... of course. It changed to that story immediately after the whole WMD lie was exposed and then buried under the carpet. Thanks to short memories and a cloud of propaganda.

The Romans failed at maintaining their empire. The British failed with their empire. The Soviet Union failed in their idealistic communist crusade. Where one fails, another will ultimately emerge to fill the void. Large domineering empires eventually stretch themselves beyond their means. Without people in the USA waking up and seeing what is in front of their noses, the US will stretch itself thin in it's righteous global crusade to prove to the rest of the world that how 'we' think is how others should also think ... and buy US products and be enslaved by massive loans against US banks. Either that, or they can suck on a guided missile.

Though, don't forget. If you don't signify any economic interest to the USA, you will be ignored. Darfur anyone?

I guess since you've thoroughly lost this argument, you want to dig up an older one where you think you won?

Here's what you're characterizing as "evidence you believe in Nazism on a 'visceral level'":

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.

I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.

I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.

Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22). The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.

However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.

>> ^rougy:
"America" is not addicted to war.
The war profiteers and the Pentagon pricks who kiss their ass, they are addicted to war.

And these profiteers and Pentagon pricks run America. They are America. Not the people. It doesn't matter who you vote for; it doesn't change a goddamn thing.

The Art of War.

I know you're being facetious, but I really must...set the record straight.

"America" is not addicted to war.

The war profiteers and the Pentagon pricks who kiss their ass, they are addicted to war.

Corruption, graft, apathy, greed, four worms that have rotted the wood of our Constitution.

But let's not forget the entitlement that the nuclear war profiteers deserve.

Think of them as welfare queens - big, fat, deadly welfare queens expecting billions of dollars every year for doing...for doing what again?

Embarrassed by history.

Here is a link to the full text and English translation of "The Road to Resurgence" written by Hitler, at the request of wealthy far right industrialist Emil Kirdorf.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1878145

It costs. (I had a print copy stashed away somewhere. Can't seem to find it, sry.)

------


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkirdorf.htm

Kirdorf, who held extreme right-wing political views, first heard Adolf Hitler speak in 1927. He was so impressed that he arranged to meet Hitler at the home of Elsa Buckmann in Munich. Although Kirdorf supported most of Hitler's beliefs he was concerned about some of the policies of the Nazi Party. He was particularly worried about the views of some people in the party such as Gregor Strasser who talked about the need to redistribute wealth in Germany.

Adolf Hitler tried to reassure Kirdorf that these policies were just an attempt to gain the support of the working-class in Germany and would not be implemented once he gained power. Kirdorf suggested that Hitler should write a pamphlet for private distribution amongst Germany's leading industrialists that clearly expressed his views on economic policy.

Hitler agreed and The Road to Resurgence was published in the summer of 1927. In the pamphlet distributed by Kirdorf to Germany's leading industrialists, Hitler tried to reassure his readers that he was a supporter of private enterprise and was opposed to any real transformation of Germany's economic and social structure.

Kirdorf was particularly attracted to Hitler's idea of winning the working class away from left-wing political parties such as the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. Kirdorf and other business leaders were also impressed with the news that Hitler planned to suppress the trade union movement once he gained power. Kirdorf joined the Nazi Party and immediately began to try and persuade other leading industrialists to supply Hitler with the necessary funds to win control of the Reichstag.

------



------

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.

Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers.

...

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

-------

Oh no, no, no! You cannot delete your comment, NR! I have saved it for posterity!

>> ^NetRunner:
Okay, here's my reaction to each:
1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean the US is going to take a role of non-interference in the operation of state governments? Foreign governments? It'll let people rope off an acre of land and self-determine it into an independent country?
2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Anyone can speak on the behalf of the US government if they want to? Individuals can invade countries, whilst flying the American flag? The US will protect a US citizen's rights as we define them, even if they move overseas?
3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Same thought as gwiz. Either this is silly and obvious, or a declaration to the world that we will take over as much land as we feel we need to feed and house our people.
4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
This one just sounds a little too hard edged. Something more like "The United States government will attempt to foster an environment of high employment and economic growth, and provide for the livelihood of those who are unable to provide for themselves" sounds a lot better to me, since it leaves open the right questions for debate (things like what constitutes a growth environment, and what does "unable" or livelihood mean), while foreclosing questions I think shouldn't be up for debate (i.e. is it the responsibility of the government of the United States to care about economic issues and hardships at all?).
5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
I like equal rights. What's equal duty mean? We all work the same hours a day? All pay the same amount in taxes? We all need to take our turn in the barrel? Everyone needs to do 2 years public service?
6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
No, I don't like this one at all. I think everyone has a god-given right to be lazy. I don't like the idea of making it a core principle that one must not "clash with the general interest", either. I think the "general good" should be protected (e.g. environmental protection law, FDA regulations on food and drugs, general police protection, regulating the financial sector, etc.), but I don't think the way to do that is to say people can't act against the general interest at all.
7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.
I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).
8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22).
The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.
However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.
9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
No need to nationalize them, just bust 'em up.
10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about profit-sharing with all employees, no matter how lowly. I agree, and why focus only on the "large industrial enterprises"? The mechanics would need to be worked out, and for some people I think they'd rather have stability in their income than having it tied to profit, but I think everyone should have the opportunity to opt into a profit-driven payscale if they want it, even if they just sweep the floors.
11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We've already done it -- Social Security and Medicare. I want Medicare for All now.
12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I like supporting the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, though I don't see why this would require nationalizing malls as dedicated workers for the state...
Seems to me that there are more effective, and less heavy-handed ways to lower barriers for entry to small businesses.
13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
No. I'm curious what "ground" rent is, but no.
14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
I think this one is worded badly. "The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life." sounds kinda scary. "Education should be focused on the requirements of practical life." sounds better, since it doesn't talk about how people must be brought into line.
I believe the "education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State" is otherwise known as a scholarship, and I'm all for governments levying taxes to beef them up.
If anything, this one just seems a bit modest and unfocused. I agree that "practical life" leaves a bit too much leeway, I'm thinking it would be things like civics, personal finance, career planning, etc., and not things like shop class (though shop class is good too).
15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Some of this exists already (child labor laws), and compulsory gymnastics and sports...for kids going to school (at least in my K-12 it was). I'm not for making exercise/sports mandatory for adults, but I think we'd do well to have some types of diet and exercise programs covered by our health care plans.
16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
The way this is written, it almost sounds like they don't even want the states to run their own militias, and I certainly don't think those should be dismantled. I don't even have an issue with the idea of private military companies like Blackwater, as long as they aren't corrupt and evil like Blackwater. I would want a fat regulatory agency looking over their shoulder, with backing from the US military, but I wouldn't necessarily want to abolish them outright.
I don't care for the people who call themselves militias but are really talking about plotting a revolution against the government, or fighting off the IRS with assault rifles. Those people are criminals, not militias.
17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.
I'm not sure what half of this one is supposed to mean. Personally, I think anyone on the left talking about the size of government in the current political era is making a mistake, and adopting the preferred framing of the right.
It's good policy vs. bad policy. Government that believes it bears an important duty to the people vs. government that wants to prove government can't do anything right. Empathy vs. selfishness. We're in this together vs. You're on your own.

1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
What do they actually propose here? Isn't the UNITED states already a union? Or do they want to change something?

2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
Seems reasonable, but this is not really something that can be settled internally in the US, the "other nations" would have to agree as well. Internally, of course, anyone should be allowed to trade internationally as they please, not some people favored.

3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Either this is a painfully obvious point, or something more sinister is behind it. "We will grow stuff and farm it", well sure, knock yourselves out. "We will clear nature preserves and such to increase our use of the land" Less good. "We will only use what land is necessary to support the people." Better. A matter of interpretation.

4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
A job at all costs? Jobs can't just be created out of thin air - there has to be a reason for them. Welfare is better than a job that has no value.

5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
Well, duh.

6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Yes and no. I agree that the first duty of a citizen should be to work, but this is indirectly determined by the fact that if you don't work--> you don't earn--> you die. Whether or not something "clashes with general interest" is harder to define, because plenty of work has not been in the gneral interest, but have been useful in the end anyway. Say, stem-cell research. No matter how many people want to ban it should not matter, because it is indeed useful to the survival of the human race.

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
End welfare? Sure, but then you'll have to make up dummy-jobs, which in the end is welfare anyway. I can see the value in getting cheap labor this way, but I think this is worse than just plain welfare until a real job comes around.

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
End wars. Sounds noble enough. Confiscating war profits sounds an awful lot like theft though. What needs to be done, is make sure that there is fair dealings in companies that provide services for war - the corruption that makes sure that companies like blackwater and halliburton gets all the deals must be quelled. A company exists in part to create profit for its people - if no profit should be made on war, then the state should make its own stuff. It is the one "company" that shouldn't make a profit.

9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Uhm, what!? I think this is a bad idea. Oversight, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest are all stuff I can see arising for this. If something has gotten big, it's because people have bought their product. We shouldn't penalize a good company just because it's big.

10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Again, what the hell is this? "Oh poor apple, I see you haven't made as much profits as us.. here, have some money." - microsoft. That's just stupid.

11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
Fair. Pension should be maintained for those who need it.

12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I don't like the concept of classes - mostly because I don't think it's all that applicable anymore. People should get payed for their abilities + supply/demand of the job. And again they want to take the "evil big stores" and turn them into nice little stores. It's a dream world, Neo. They are not big because they are evil, they are big because they sell a good product. If you want to "level the playing field", then give incentives to make jobs locally and penalize foreign jobs (like sweatshops and such).

13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
"Expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation".. get the fuck out of here. This land is my land, that land is your land♫ let's keep it that way. If there is a dire communal need for some of MY land, then you can well enough buy it from me, so I can move somewhere better.

14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Education must be reformed, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. "Practical life"? There are plenty of things that ought to be taught that have nothing to do with practical life, biology, chemistry, mathematics (beyond the basics), history - we can't all go to knitting and shop-class. And in the higher educations the subjects become even more esoteric. What's "practical life" for some, is not at all for others. Hell, specialization is the cornerstone of education.

15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Mandatory fat camps! Heh, I do think that gymnastics and sports should be mandatory in school, but that's it. English is mandatory too, why not some for of physical activity? I don't think that adults should be compelled to do sports directly though - that's their choice. I would rather that incentives were made to be healthy, or maybe certain penalties for being grossly unhealthy.

16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
Of course. There should only be one army. If you want to make "Bob's army" you can go off and make "Bob's Country" and do it.

17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.

This seems to be against what's been said earlier. Now they want to MAKE corporations? Confusing. Don't they trust the states to carry out the legislation?

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^ponceleon:
Yeah, QM... by that logic we should have overthrown the tyranny of the last administration with it's false wars, lies, torture, secret organizations which are now coming to light as being above the law and nepotistic war profiteering...

Who was stopping you? Revolutions are hard to come by in a nation that's so drastically split. It's the old divide and conquer. Unless we wake up and pull our heads out of our asses long enough to form some sort of revolt, we'll continue to fight each other of BS that means nothing.


What's stopping me, is that unlike QM and this nutjob in the video, I believe that democracy can actually work over time and that it actually benefits from cycles where there are different view in power. I actually believe that while I differ in opinion from Republicans, there IS something to be gained by having them in power every so often, just as it is beneficial to counter that with the Democratic party once in a while.

The issue is that the USA is getting exceptionally whiny as a country and that people are just unwilling to favor intelligence in general. Going back to my comments about the QI program... we've reached this point where we seem to revel in our idiocy and the MEDIA is the REAL enemy. They use hyperbole to send the masses into a frenzy whereas if they reported with more truth and moderation, we'd probably all get along a lot better.

Just be thankful that Ponce isn't in office, cuz one of the first things that I would do is put serious penalties on false/misleading reporting. Just to be clear... BOTH sides of the "slant" are responsible for this crap...

Anyway, my point is that violence really DOESN'T resolve things, unlike what the brainless fuck in this video advocate.