@MarineGunrock,
i dont think you quite got what i was attempting to express.
i was stating that this was a protest,you may disagree with his methods,i dont.
Noam chomsky said this most succinctly"the man pulling the lever at the gas chamber in auschwitz may be a fantastic individual,a good husband and father,but he was still responsible for the execution of untold jews.gypsy's,gays and christians".
it is the silent,passive consent that i was talking about,not taxes.
this man was polite,never raised his voice,he was protesting.
dont you think he had a point?
when did non-violent protesting become an offense that merits jail?
how..HOW in the supposed land of the free can we have more people incarcerated than any other country COMBINED?..HOW?

i do,however,totally agree that people need to make a living.it is by choice that i refuse to work for some institutions,but thats MY choice.if i have to dick you over for some cash...well..thats something im not willing to do,and i pay the consequences by not having the most stable income.
i do not judge those who DO choose those jobs,but at the same time..they chose those jobs.and if that means dealing with a protester who may make them feel uncomfortable about it...well..so be it.
because thats the only beef i really see in your argument.
that this man was interrupting "business",but when asked to leave by the police,thats exactly what he did.
made his point..moved on.
you disagree with him...
i do not.
i believe in our forefathers intent for free speech,and redress against the government.sometimes protesting is the only way to get your message out.you ever try to speak at a city hall meeting?
good luck with that.
these are some articles that i employ often:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
hope that cleared things up MGR.
peace.

>> ^rougy:
What did he say wrong?
If you lowered his IQ sixty points and gave him lips made for kissing rich peoples' asses, then he might be a Beck or Hannity.


I don't think he said anything wrong, and I agree that to really make him Hannity he'd have to be dumber, and to be Beck he'd have to say that the Republicans are treasonous Nazi's looking to send GM workers the American Dream to the gas chamber, but he's the closest thing to a mindless TV demagogue the left has.

He's not consistent about it, but he's very prone to use "with us or against us" framing for his questions to guests, and he gets his facts flat out wrong sometimes.

Other times he's as sweet as can be to right wing hacks who deserve a firebrand, and then he'll use the firebrand on people who probably don't warrant it (like Ron Paul).

He's best when he just rants, in my opinion. He's real good at populist outrage.

Well after a small amount of research it appears that the nazies used Carbon monoxide as well as cyanide. so there goes his large chimney and and sealed room theory ore at minimum his necessity for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber

"homosexuals, physically and mentally disabled, and intellectuals. In early 1940, the use of hydrogen cyanide produced as Zyklon B was tested on 250 Roma children from Brno at the Buchenwald concentration camp.[4] On September 3, 1941, 600 Soviet POWs were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp I; this was the first experiment with the gas at Auschwitz.[5]
One of the destroyed crematoria at Auschwitz concentration camp

Carbon monoxide was also used in large purpose-built gas chambers. The gas was provided by internal combustion engines (detailed in the Gerstein Report).[6]"


"The gas chamber at Auschwitz I was reconstructed after the war as a memorial, but without a door in its doorway and without the wall that originally separated the gas chamber from a washroom. The door that had been added when the gas chamber was converted into an air raid shelter was left intact.[10]"

In all fairness saying that Jews didn't die in the holocaust based of of the evidence is not antisemitism.

this guy might be a racist ore whatever in reality i don't know.but from this video you cannot know and everything he says in this video is fine, if in fact you cannot prove that there were any gas chambers then that's not racism to say people were not gassed. you would have to check the sources he sights and then present to him sources that prove otherwise , in fact the interviewer dose a disservice to the audience in not actually presenting counter evidence.

What i think is sad regardless of who died and in what numbers the fact is that a bunch of people were killed. I don't see why its important if it was Jews ore not, u don't need to know and in realty alot of gays disabled and many other people died so who cares.

U don't need to know in order to avoid killing people in the future and repeating history as any idiot knows its not good to kill people/groups of people for whatever reason.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
But do my users do the IMPOSSIBLY simple task of calling in their problem or writing a simple email? Fuck no. Instead, they would rather stop me in the hallway, complain to me about how their computer is slow/program is broken, etc, taking up my time, and delaying me when I'm on my way to helping someone who has followed the correct procedure and placed a ticket.

This is what happens when you let statist bureaucrats run things. Mindless regulation just builds up unnecessarily, and when some libertarian heroes decide to disregard these unjust fetters on their liberty, and instead of helping them, you tell them to fall in line. Before you know it, you're going to inevitably become a jackbooted Nazi forcing everyone to follow procedure, or go to the gas chamber.

If I were you, I'd set aside your authoritarian statist ways join those people stopping you in the hallway in their righteous protest against the never ending encroachment of these rules, and go Galt.

Seriously though, I sympathize. Lots of people out there have some tremendous aversion to filling out forms, or even just going through an intermediary when they need things. Just explain to them that you're "not allowed" to do anything to help them until they go through the proper process.

I have a hard time saying no to people who make simple requests of me, but the easy trick I've found is to basically say you have to get the request properly or you'll be "in trouble" in some way. Then they can think of going through the extra hoops as helping you, instead of just red tape.

>> ^ponceleon:
Hitler was a pioneer in animal rights...


Hitler and Himler walk into a meeting with the rest of his high ranking generals. They'd obviously been arguing but nothing was said. Hitler walks to the head of the table and says "Gentlemen, we are going to build gas chambers to kill one million Jews and one dog!"

The rest of the generals look puzzled and Goebbels says "Why one dog?"

Hitler turns to Himler and says "Ha! I told you no-one would care about the Jews!"

This fucker cites the work of Fred Leuchter as evidence that gas chambers didn't exist. (Fred Leuchter's story was documented in the fascinating Errol Morris film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.). His so-called "expertise" is a joke, and his "investigation" of Auschwitz has been completely discredited. This bishop must certainly know this about Leuchter, because he's not a complete idiot. Nonetheless he lies through his teeth simply by claiming Leuchter's investigation is valid in some way.

Fuck him. I think he's anti-semitic, and he's using the Leuchter bullshit as confirmation of this. This is called confirmation bias. Who would want to support such an outrageous claim? I can't see a way around his anti-semitism.

This doesn't surprise me, sadly. I went to Catholic grade school and high school, and I encountered more than a couple of nuns and priests who, how shall I say, weren't fond of the "Christ-killers." One more reason I became an atheist.

>> ^Hex:
people would also call this torture
I mean if tasers didnt exist in their current form right now and you would show this video to the public for the first time, what would the reaction be


The general public would probably say they're a bad idea. But, it's a much better alternative to shooting people.

And it's not exactly torture if they volunteered for it. They're not being hazed, they're being educated. Before you can dispense CS gas, you have to experience it in a gas chamber. Before you can pepper spray someone, you have to get sprayed in the face. Same thing with the taser. You have to know and understand what it is you're doing.

I'd say that it is a ghetto created, controlled, and maintained by the intolerance of the Arabians around them and that Isreal's defensive measures are a convenient scapegoat. The difference is that Isreal has very good reasons for implementing its defensive measures, and the surrounding Arabians have NO excuse whatsoever beyond thier political goal to have a bunch of angry Palestinian stooges do thier dirty work.

Israel is trying to create secure borders. The Arabs are equally at fault for not allowing the Palestinians to cross borders, get jobs, or make a living. Don't focus myopically on the rock and completely ignore the hard place.

Isreal is there, and isn't going anywhere, and that is the only excuse these Hamas and Hezbo thugs need to instigate violence. Isreal is entitled to defend itself in any way it sees fit from aggression. Comparing Jews in 1939 to what Isreal is doing to defend its citizens is patently absurd. Jews in 1939 were not lobbing rockets at Germans, and Isreal today is not marching Palestinians into gas chambers.

Heathen, I'm directing that assertion at all the theorists frankly. You can be offended all you like, but the reason is as follows:

What does all this bullshit about it being an 'inside job' do to relatives of people who died on the day that have been unable to properly grieve? Thinking that there may be some unpunished crime that lead to their child's/father's/mother's death.

Ok, lets say what you're implying is true... lets say the US government, or clandestine parties within, hijacked four planes and flew them at four targets within their own borders. How can it be that NO official document has come to light in the last eight years with even a hint of any of this being orchestrated, nor has even a single whistle-blower come foward. Also... the Republican party risks being caught! If they were implicated in masterminding this, it would have them all sent to the gas chamber or shot by firing squad, with no exception! There is no way they would take the chance with a plot as risky as that.

By the way, do you really think a government that has bungled the Iraq/Afghanistan wars so badly, that we know so much about, could be pulled off by the lunatics currently in power?

Again, this is not just directed at you, but you must realise what entertaining the idea of what is suggested implies. And no, I didn't watch all of this, I just can't... it's such a frustrating grind to sit through so much waffle. If there was thermite in the dust everywhere, then there must be another logical explaination. Period. And by the way, the building did not just fall in it's footprint. There was extensive damage and fires cause in surrounding buildings, which is completely unlike a controlled razing.

I do not normally downvote videos, as I feel they need to be within a certain threshold of unsuitability for VideoSift. But I will now, I'm getting really sick of this disappointing garbage.

I very, very rarely downvote videos but this gets my downvote for a number of reasons.

The video and title mock a legitimate and very serious issue that plagues many of the war-torn regions of the past century, and largely in places marred by poverty. The victims of landmines are most often civilians and most incidences happen long after the conflict is concluded. Their use has been viewed as an attack on population rather then on military.

As much as the song often adds humor to otherwise mundane situations, it does not add humor to tragedy. You can comment on the quality of the video, of the acting or that such an incident in North America is essentially impossible, but in reality there is no more humor to the issue then that of rape, or other heinous crimes.

Adding Yakety Sax to a video of jews being marched into a gas chamber "to make it humourous" would be an insult to anyone who did not survive such horrors and even more so to those who did. It would be like saying that the atrocity is okay. It is not okay.


>> ^NordlichReiter:
Death is funny to me. Because its inevitable.

You can laugh at death, all you like. Hell, I do to sometimes. But this isn't about death. It is about life.

The things we do in life are more important then how we die. Arranging for a ten-year-old child, or anyone else, to have their legs ripped from their body (or worse) is a terrible thing to do to someone else, or the life the want to live.

Benny Hill does not make that funny.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Iraqi kurds is an example of a force differential. Chemicals weapons versus light arms fire. Same thing happens when you have light arms fire versus unarmed fists. Genocide cannot occur when both sides are equally armed.

Well I hope you've got some pretty huge guns then, because right now your force differential is looking pretty bad versus the mightiest army in the world.

if the CIA/secret service decides to round me up, what else are my options? Surrender and walk myself to the gas chamber? At least with a firearm I would have some sort of chance to fire back and flee the state/country, and they would be hesitant to round people up if at every house they were met with a barrage of gunfire

They might hesitate for about ten minutes whilst they wait for the flame tank to burn you out. How many people do you think would resist after the first 100 or so were slaughterd with their families. Causing hesitation isn't enough. The end result is the same.

the government could have killed Japanese-americans, but they were deterred in part by the threat an armed American populace who does not condone genocide. if the government is already okay with rounding people up into prisons based on race, is it really that unthinkable that the next step would be genocide? there are roughly 300,000 active troops, but there are almost 300,000,000 citizens holding 150,000,000 guns. that is a very powerful deterrent that is also rather transparent to most people.

The deterrent is perfectly transparent to me thank you very much. If I was China/Russia thinking of a US land grab I would definitely think twice against a 150,000,000 man war. My whole point is that in a domestic situation the people being oppressed are usually the minority so half of those guns are actually pointing AT you. Your notion that Americans would've risen up against their government if it commited a Japanese genocide is very honorable, but not realistic IMO. My original point was that many Americans didn't much care for "Japs" and would probably have swallowed whatever propaganda the government fed them about "spies" etc. Let's not forget that exactly what we're theorising about did happen in Germany and barely a handful of people did anything about it. It wasn't because they lacked guns, they lacked knowledge and those that had it lacked will. At the end of the day when most people are faced with a choice between their morals and their life they choose the latter.

There are at least two dozen examples of mass genocide in the last century with full, detailed historical accounts available. There are plenty of books on the subject, one of which is the one I sourced above. Please read it into yourself, you know what they say about history and those who do not learn from it.

I can't guarantee I will find time to read it, but if you post the name and author I'll see if I can find it this side of the pond.

when you become defenseless and depend only on the government for protection, you are essentially living your life on faith--and I don't believe in faith, I believe in facts. a gun will protect me, faith will not.

On the contrary; you are the one that has faith in your gun. Guns are offensive weapons, not defenses. You can have your shoot-out, but the best you can hope for is to kill a few bad guys before they get you.

^Iraqi kurds is an example of a force differential. Chemicals weapons versus light arms fire. Same thing happens when you have light arms fire versus unarmed fists. Genocide cannot occur when both sides are equally armed.

if the CIA/secret service decides to round me up, what else are my options? Surrender and walk myself to the gas chamber? At least with a firearm I would have some sort of chance to fire back and flee the state/country, and they would be hesitant to round people up if at every house they were met with a barrage of gunfire.

the government could have killed Japanese-americans, but they were deterred in part by the threat an armed American populace who does not condone genocide. if the government is already okay with rounding people up into prisons based on race, is it really that unthinkable that the next step would be genocide? there are roughly 300,000 active troops, but there are almost 300,000,000 citizens holding 150,000,000 guns. that is a very powerful deterrent that is also rather transparent to most people.

There are at least two dozen examples of mass genocide in the last century with full, detailed historical accounts available. There are plenty of books on the subject, one of which is the one I sourced above. Please read it into yourself, you know what they say about history and those who do not learn from it.

when you become defenseless and depend only on the government for protection, you are essentially living your life on faith--and I don't believe in faith, I believe in facts. a gun will protect me, faith will not.

>> ^Dadeeo:
...a open prayerful mind...

Yet another religous oxymoron. Once you start being prayerful, your mind closes like the door on a gas chamber. Go bleet elsewhere, sheep.

If a therapist tells a client to kill themselves, and the client does so, that person didn't need to live. So in that case, I'd thank the therapist for ridding the earth of a weak person who took the advice of anybody in authority because they were too weak to make their own informed decisions. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

If a leader orates beautifully about killing millions of Jews, but he is speaking to an empty room because everyone is at home enjoying time with their families and neighbors, where does his message go? Do six million people end up in gas chambers? It's the people who propel the leader, not his message. That is why I absolve the leader of much of the blame, but condemn the followers. If the German people hadn't been so easily manipulated by a flatulent meth addict because they were reeling from a devastating loss in World War I, Hitler would have been reduced to nothing.

Some people would argue that Hitler was just as much to blame as his followers, but he was just a man with ideas. He couldn't have sent ten million people to their deaths by himself. And Charles Manson couldn't have massacred seven people on his own, either.

You think if he'd said to bake them brownies, instead of murder them, those people would still be alive?

That depends on how well the Manson Family could bake.

Squeaky Fromme tried to assassinate Gerald Ford, if you recall. I don't think Manson told her to do that. Some people are just crazy on their own. Maybe the murders would have still occurred, but maybe not. *shrugs*

>> ^Crosswords:
I'm very glad you have high moral standards and a strong will, not everyone does. In fact some people are pretty easily influenced by authority or their peers. And while this doesn't belay that these people are responsible for their actions it also doesn't exonerate those who push them into said actions. If somebody worships the ground I walk on, and I turn around and tell them to go kill some people, am I not responsible for how I used my influence over them? Isn't my influence and direction over them the catalyst? Again unless the influenced was coerced under extreme duress, they still retain responsibility for their action, but person who told them to is also responsible, it was their actions, their misuse of their power that caused the other person.
If a therapist tells a client, "wow you really don't have anything to live for, you should kill yourself", and the client does, is the therapist not responsible? Didn't they, in a position of authority, give the emotionally vulnerable client instructions to do something that would cause irreparable harm?
I would also like to add people can go to prison for conspiracy to commit murder. If somebody told you to kill someone, and you said no, then told the cops that person had tried to get you to kill someone and had solid evidence to the fact, that person is going to jail for a long time, if not life.
So I guess to sum things up, yes the people who actually did the killings were responsible for what they did, and as far as I know, none of them went free. But Manson, who directed them, is also responsible for his actions. You think if he'd said to bake them brownies, instead of murder them, those people would still be alive?