This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by lurgee.

great video!
..and *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Whitest-Kids-U-Know-American-Pledge-of-Allegiance

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by grinter. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Mmmm... I've been reading about this story in several Canadian newspapers and watching different news shows from different allegiances and in both official languages (Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, La Presse, CBC, CTV, so on) and they're all pretty much saying the same thing Stewart is saying. So go ahead and tell us, please, what's REALLY going on. I'm dying to know.

I wish this conflict were as simple as the courageous young woman reporter in this video portrays it but it doesn't take much research to discover that the FSA is increasingly being co-opted by anything BUT pro-democracy elements, namely Islamic jihadists allied with al-Qaeda.

For example:

"Hundreds of fighters under the command of the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) have reportedly switched allegiance to al-Qaeda-aligned groups, in a move described as a huge blow to moderate rebel forces.

Activists and military sources have told Al Jazeera that the 11th Division - one of the biggest FSA brigades - has switched allegiance to the al-Nusra Front in Raqqah province, a border province with Turkey.

A video was uploaded to YouTube on Thursday purporting to show members of the 11th Division parading through Raqqah with Nusra fighters.

In the video clip, a voice can be heard saying in Arabic, "Raqqah ... September 19, 2013 ... The convoy of Nusra ... God is great ... Nusra in Raqqah province."

The switch, if confirmed, tightens Nusra's control of Raqqah just days after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) attacked members of the Free Syrian Army in Azaz, on the border with Turkey.

The Reuters news agency, citing sources inside Syria, also reported that entire units of the FSA had joined Nusra and the ISIS in recent days.

The Raqqah Revolutionaries - which is part of the 11th Division - has about 750 fighters in total, according to a source close to al-Qaeda linked forces.

Abdulhamid Zakarya, military spokesman of Chiefs of Staff of the FSA, denied that Division 11 had joined Nusra. However, he said it had signed an agreement to collaborate in military operations.

In a separate statement, the FSA also condemned the ISIS for its actions in Azaz, saying it was going against the principles of the Syrian revolution.

“ISIS no longer fights the Assad regime. Rather, it is strengthening its positions in liberated areas at the expense of the safety of civilians. ISIS is inflicting on the people the same suppression of the Baath party and the Assad regime.”

Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Antakya in neighbouring Turkey, said that if proved true, the switches of allegiance would be a serious blow to the FSA's strength, and could have significant implications outside of Syria.

The US State Department designated Al Nusrah Front a terrorist organisation on 11 December 2012. There are financial sanctions in place.

"This means that the FSA has suddenly lost serious amounts of loyal fighters ... it's basically being swallowed up by Nusra," she said, adding that it would be very difficult for the West to support a rebel army dominated and commanded by al-Qaeda linked groups."

I'm hearing a lot of "mosts" and "somes" there.

Yeah it's easy for the mouthbreathers to whine and bitch about gov't who hasn't? Even when they do their jobs well, people still bitch. Even if the IRS did their job perfectly and completely fairly, people will still whine. Even if the supporters of flat tax got their way. people whine. When you have that sort of phenomenon, ultimately that means you need to tune some of that bitching out and learn to discern the valid complaints from the bullshit ones.

So whining about politicians are what people do in the cheap seats. The armchair wannabes. They're currently known as Libertarians.

If you actually give a damn about how things actually work and actually give a damn about making things better. That requires actual critical thinking. That actually requires picking a side and doing what you can and actually get involved. Something the wannabes and pundits won't actually do, because you know, that actually requires effort. Can't have that now can we.

You have two organizations and they claim their goals are to represent people in gov't. Now hey, I agree, I have long argued that parties should be abolished. I'm an independent. I owe no allegiance to either party. I think parties are....bad.

That said, I definitely lean toward one more than the other. since government is made up of....people. Parties are also made up of....people. Regardless of how you feel, there is going to be one group of...people you find at least the slightest less detestable than the other group.

To argue that they are completely the same is what we call a fallacy. And since it's the Libertarians that typically make that cop out, err I mean claim, then it's on them to prove it and going a little bit further than anecdotal evidence is required.

@enoch

Well, note that the "governs best, governs least" quote IS Thoreau speaking, and although I think it's nonsense (I don't personally want to live completely outside any social structure, I don't think it's practical to separate myself from all of the advancements of society), I DO still think that Thoreau was a brave and noble person for believing in something and seeing that belief come to fruition. That's freedom.

But, when you're constantly putting down a system that you seem to wholeheartedly disagree with, but still support, that's hypocrisy, again, acc to me.

I brought up the issue of taxes because that's what Thoreau did. It's not terribly complicated. He felt that the system of government he was a part of was corrupt and restrictive, so he chose to not participate in it by not paying his taxes. He was jailed because of it, and when his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson bailed him out of jail he was upset. He WANTED to remain in jail because he didn't want to contribute to the social system he disagreed with so.

So when blankfist compared himself to Thoreau: http://videosift.com/talk/Gov-t-stopped-funding-charity-private-donations-surge-500#comment-1185054

I felt, and am reminded every time I see this type of propaganda, that there are a few ways of looking at this american libertarianism and those who follow it:

1) They don't believe in the government, but still support it through taxes.
2) They don't actually believe in the principles outlined in their own philosophy, and that's why they support what they affirm is a corrupt, freedom crushing, system, and that explains their support of it.
3) They believe in their ideas, but want to change things through the current system of government, which seems like a bit of a weird Catch 22.
or
4) They just want to have a theoretical discussion.

I've asked and asked, but he maintains that he's a freedom fighter who supports the government that he hates (through the payment of taxes, etc.)

There are other options I've probably considered along the way that aren't mentioned here, but I really put more thought into this than trying to tear blankfist down. It's genuinely confusing to me for someone to seemingly believe something so strongly and not act on those feelings.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. My first teaching job was in a very rural part of the US. Word got out quickly to the principal that I didn't say the pledge of allegiance in the morning (I have a variety of reasons for this, but the main one is that I am an atheist and don't agree with the phrase "under god"). I was brought into the principal's office after his stooge assistant "stopped by" my room several days in a row before and after the announcements. He wanted to know why I wasn't saying it and the conversation was respectful but went something like:

"Well, I choose not to, and I make sure everyone, including myself, is respectful during that time of the day, but I make it clear to the students that they don't have to as well."
"But don't you think you're setting a bad example for the students?"
"Well, no...? (at this point I knew they basically wanted me to just fall in)"

Long story short, at the end of the year, my job no longer existed. They moved the journalism teacher to another building and my position went from Eng teacher to Eng/Journalism teacher (I don't have a journalism license). Since I didn't have a license for that, I couldn't stay. :-/

It was hard to deal with, impossible to prove, but I'm better off 7 years into my career not being surrounded by those people anyway. They REALLY wanted me to just say the pledge, but it wasn't in my job description that I had to say the pledge every morning, and today, I'm happy to be in an inner city school with a more diverse and understanding population where I don't have to.

That's one BIG example from my life, and I'm no Thoreau, but neither is Blankfist. Now if he would just admit it.

I take it you are not familiar with the Oath of Office for the US government?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So when the government breaks it's oath, breaks faith to the people and demands of it's soldiers, those men and women who are ready to pay the ultimate price, that they commit atrocious crimes, what worth is there honouring your oath to them?

More importantly, Nuremberg proved that "just following orders" ie. adhering to your oath as a soldier, was not a defense. In the recent debacle in the Australian Defense Force, the chief of armies has explicitly said that people who received the illicit emails and deleted them rather than reporting would also be held responsible because they didn't blow the whistle...

You can waffle on about honour and adhering to ones oath, but the truth is you're advocating the path of the coward. Stay quiet, don't speak out, be a good little lap dog to the establishment. Allow evil to happen because you don't have the cojones to do anything about it. Take cold comfort in the fact that you "honoured" your oath.

Defending the poor is all well and good but that costs money too. If the poor aren't contributing to the economy, who ends up being penalized here? The inherent problem here is with irresponsible people. People who have children when they don't have enough money to support them. It seems like such a simple consideration yet so few seem to heed it. Don't start a family unless you have a steady and secure job that can support one. Think of the long-term expenses that a family entails, save your money whenever possible and make safe investments. If people did all this, both poverty and crime would decrease significantly.

Also, the pledge of allegiance is ridiculously antiquated. What exactly is it supposed to accomplish? Loyalty to the nation? When kids only regurgitate it as a matter of routine at the start of the school day, it holds no meaning. It's not like religion which is ingrained through constant reinforcement and conditioning both at home and in church.

Listen, I consider myself to be as critical of the Israeli state as I can be short of wishing its total eradication from the map. I am sympathetic to Galloway's views, and I respect his passion. But it seems that this man is mistaken in his logic. On the one hand, he outwardly refuses to debate with Israeli citizens. This means that he drawing a line (a rather flimsy one, I might add, according to his own logic) between Israeli citizens and the rest of the world. So, if he doesn't recognize Israel as a state, how can he disavow the very citizens it claims as its own? Okay. That is the most basic point. Very basic. The problem that I see here, ultimately, is that his refusal to debate with this kid is NOT actually based upon an objective distinction between Israeli citizens and those who have no formal allegiance to the Israeli state. What he is doing is making a distinction between himself and people who fundamentally DO NOT agree with his views. He makes the point early on that he has had plenty of Israelis on his show. He seems to think that this validates him somehow, but it in fact invalidates his whole position, and reveals it as being wholly ideological, and, I might add, narcissistic and self-promoting. Without debate and disagreement, politics is nothing. I can respect Galloway's ideas, but I totally reject his understanding of politics and debate.

I've been meaning to give this a go, but my allegiance to the Mighty Boosh and Julian Barratt has prevented me from taking the plunge.

This is the Mighty Boosh version of when Lennon and McCartney separated, except instead of Lennon writing sanctimonious, self-indulgent wank-pieces, it's Noel wearing gold spandex and a cup on his chin, riding side-saddle on a shiny unicorn in fantasy land.

Ohhh, it's a simple formula really lucky-bot, you got so many factors at work here what with your cute appeal in the form o' cute avatars (perhaps a generic cutey snapshot) and yer kitty-cats and puppy-dogs, hedghogs and beaver videos....Allllll those PM's that read like a personalized Hallmark cards.

These two, Wiliamina E. Coyotes' know EXACTLY what they're doin'!

Bet if we search hard enough we'll find all manner of blogs they have gained control of, using other patron's emotions like universal internet credits!!!

SIRENS!!!

Allegiance, Oh great Eris...HAIL CHAOS!!

>> ^Stu:

We all know why Americans wouldn't care if they caught him and/or killed him: because they don't. Jokes aside about the selfish nature of Americans, it goes way beyond living in a bubble of self content. It's change. Who likes change? No one. You can apply this same line of thought to almost any large group of people, be it countries, religions, etc. People think they want to know everything. They don't. If they knew everything they'd be accountable. Could you imagine the responses you'd get if you held every single United States citizen accountable (for which they are) for the economy crash? It's far easier to blame someone else and easier still to blame the government.
Blind allegiance to an unknown cause is the biggest plight of any civilized society. It's s joke you hear a lot around election time: "Why do we only get 2-3 candidates to pick from for the leader of our country, but we get 50 to pick from for Miss America." If elections were more about issues and ideas and less about money and promises, the world would be a much better place. Instead of having a lawyer run things and having the world's smartest people being advisers it should be the other way around. It won't however, because the smart people don't want the job. It's kind of a catch 22. We want smart people in power, but the smartest don't want it.
It all comes back to this case. It's easier to just get rid of a problem by shooting it than to talk it out. I say give Assange his own tv show, radio show whatever. Why? Obviously the guy isn't afraid of talking. Then again, that kind of bold disregard also comes with the usual disregard for most things, like his "other" issues of douchebaggery.
People always laugh when I say there is at most only 5-10% of this world that should be allowed to make crucial decisions because they would be unbiased and objective, but they never want to be in that group.


It's not necessarily that they don't want to be in the group, it's that unswervable people who can make decisions without bias are least suited to getting into power. I totally agree with you, but i go one further. There's probably only about 1% of people you'd ever meet that you could trust to act entirely fairly and honestly in every possibly situation.

Politicians are surrounded every day by opportunites to skim a little off the top, make life a little easier for you and your loved ones, how many people do you know that could resist that whilst working tirelessly for others? That should be a requirement for leadership. The term is public servant.

We all know why Americans wouldn't care if they caught him and/or killed him: because they don't. Jokes aside about the selfish nature of Americans, it goes way beyond living in a bubble of self content. It's change. Who likes change? No one. You can apply this same line of thought to almost any large group of people, be it countries, religions, etc. People think they want to know everything. They don't. If they knew everything they'd be accountable. Could you imagine the responses you'd get if you held every single United States citizen accountable (for which they are) for the economy crash? It's far easier to blame someone else and easier still to blame the government.

Blind allegiance to an unknown cause is the biggest plight of any civilized society. It's s joke you hear a lot around election time: "Why do we only get 2-3 candidates to pick from for the leader of our country, but we get 50 to pick from for Miss America." If elections were more about issues and ideas and less about money and promises, the world would be a much better place. Instead of having a lawyer run things and having the world's smartest people being advisers it should be the other way around. It won't however, because the smart people don't want the job. It's kind of a catch 22. We want smart people in power, but the smartest don't want it.

It all comes back to this case. It's easier to just get rid of a problem by shooting it than to talk it out. I say give Assange his own tv show, radio show whatever. Why? Obviously the guy isn't afraid of talking. Then again, that kind of bold disregard also comes with the usual disregard for most things, like his "other" issues of douchebaggery.

People always laugh when I say there is at most only 5-10% of this world that should be allowed to make crucial decisions because they would be unbiased and objective, but they never want to be in that group.

To clarify this issue, a friend of me pointed me to a snopes.com article that explains that Obama didn't initiate the free cell phone idea. http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp Similar information can be found in the last link on the webpage obamaphone.net. The problem that this video and other media clips illustrate, however, is that this woman and numerous others of her ilk (regardless of race) believe Barack Obama reached out and handed them a free cell phone. As such, she and others have pledged their unwavering allegiance to the man and will vote for him in November. And Obama has not bothered to step up and tell them he's not responsible for their being duped into casting a vote by living off the largess of taxpaying workers in this country. Oh yeah and don't miss her brilliant analysis of Romney's campaign!