Your video, Hachiko, A Dog's True Story of Love and Loyalty, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 6 Badge!

*related to the true story
http://videosift.com/video/Hachiko-A-Dogs-True-Story-of-Love-and-Loyalty

Hachiko, A Dog's True Story of Love and Loyalty has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

He makes a persuasive argument with regards to the length of campaigns in the US vs elsewhere.

I somewhat disagree with the idea that we need people with government experience to be elected as presidents, senators, representatives, etc. though. Mainly because "government experience" is just bullshit code for "been in Washington long enough to be bought and paid for by some mega-corporation and its lobbyists".

...Not to say that Carson or Trump are ideal (or, you know, even "adequate") candidates because they don't have government experience. However, someone with zero experience but having good intentions, a reasonable amount of common sense, and a High School Civics class level of knowledge about how government is supposed to work would likely end up being a better candidate than either of them (or Hillary, or Sanders, or whoever else). Especially if we could keep lobbyists away from them for a while.

Right now, especially for the Legislative branch, lobbies get way too much bang for their buck buying the loyalties of newbies that are very likely to become entrenched incumbents for years if not decades. Sweep everybody out after a term or two and at least they would have to try their luck buying off somebody new (and hopefully a bit more idealistic) every election cycle instead of letting it ride for years and years...

The problem with that idea is, to be a cop in today's climate, you must have some level of loyalty to your fellow officers over your loyalty to the public/law. Those few that have publicly displayed the reverse have been driven out of their jobs, if not out of law enforcement completely. I've never heard of a case where that didn't happen, but I would be happy to read any you might know of.
That means that, at best, the 'good' officers turn a blind eye to the actions of their 'bad' workmates...or get driven out. Sadly I don't see a third alternative where they are whistleblowers against their workmates but continue to successfully work in the same force with the bad cop's friends afterwards....that simply doesn't happen in any report I've seen.
I already explained why 'turning a blind eye' makes them bad in my eyes.
In my opinion, that makes the supposition that there are no 'good' cops far more supportable than the absurd, easily proven false claim that there are no 'bad' cops. It's possible it's an overstatement, but if so not by far, and as I see it it's a reasonable position to take until whistle blowers always keep their jobs and those that harass them lose theirs more often than not...and that's absolutely not the case today.
It's not just a personality issue, it's a systemic issue.

Nothing new.

And the soldiers of the Confederacy weren't necessarily the bad guys. They were people loyal to their states. Robert E. Lee sided with the Confederacy because of his loyalty to his state. Loyalty is inspiring.

Losers of wars are underdogs. We root for the underdog. Usually. It's a unique position to observe the human spirit.

They are like Ronin, emotionally fraught PTSD survivors living a waking nightmare, with no satisfying role in society left to fill. What can they do?

They will fight.

With youth having more disposable income than other demographics it no wonder that they are catered to by media. Besides gaining brand loyalty at an early age is cheaper.

Kids are not smart they just have the dollars.

"There is nothing that states can do that needs to be done that markets cannot do better. The current technology trajectory is proving the point, many times over. The result is political instability. A paradigm shift. Obsolescence of the public sector. The growing irrelevance of power. Ever less dependent on, and hence loyalty to, the coercive power structure and ever more cultural, economic, and social reliance on the structures that society creates for itself." via.

An example of this technology is Bitcoin which is now where the internet was in 1995. Back then, the confused mainstream didn't get it, but will soon find out why (the likes of) Federal Reserve Notes are to (the likes of) Bitcoin what the radio is to the internet.

The left will keep their blinders on. Better said would be keep their heads in the sand.

Nope nothing to see here. Keep moving forward off the cliff in in blind loyalty.
Just the racist right with their boogie man bogus crap.

Pontius Pilate: You're a funny guy Judas, I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last.
(later)
Pontius Pilate: Where is she, Judas?
Judas: Kiss my ass!
Pontius Pilate: I can't hear you!
Judas: I'll say it a little louder, get fucked!
Pontius Pilate: [holds Judas upside-down over a cliff by his leg] Listen, loyalty is very touching. But it is not the most important thing in your life right now! But what IS important is gravity! I have to remind you Judas, this is my weak arm!
Judas: You can't kill me Pontius Pilate! You need me to find your daughter!
Pontius Pilate: Where is she?
Judas: I don't know. But Jesus knows, I'll take you to where I'm supposed to meet him!
Pontius Pilate: But you won't.
Judas: Why not?
Pontius Pilate: [holds the hotel key he stole from Judas that Jesus is staying at] Because I already know. Remember, Judas, when I promised to kill you last?
Judas: That's right, Pontius Pilate! You did!
Pontius Pilate: I lied.

You are empirically incorrect. You are proposing an impossible scenario, that somehow 1.5bn world wide are perfectly aligned, have some say over the actions of all the other people simultaneously and ergo bear some responsibility for any actions committed under the broad umbrella of "Islam"...

http://enews.fergananews.com/articles/2698

To speak of “Islam” as a homogenous phenomenon is analogous to speaking of “Christianity” as a single whole that includes Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Copts, and countless other sects, including such marginal ones as the Mormons, the Scientologists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, we never do so, because we intuitively recognize that the label loses all meaning when forced on to such a diverse group. We seldom have such qualms, however, when it comes to Islam, even though the label “Islam” covers just as wide a spectrum of geographic, cultural, and sectarian diversity as the label “Christianity.” If anything, it is even more internally diverse than Christianity, which crystallized around an institutionalized Church from the very beginning. In Islam, such an institution never developed. There is no religious hierarchy and no single individual qualified to pass final judgment on questions of belief or practice. Within thirty years of the death of the Prophet, the Muslim community had split on matters of doctrine. Since then, there have been multiple and simultaneous sources of authority among Muslims. Authority is located not in church councils and such, but in individuals who derive their legitimacy from their learning, piety, lineage, and reputation among peers. This gives Islam a slightly anarchic quality: authoritative opinions (fatwa) of one expert or one group can be countered with equally authoritative opinions, derived from the same sources, of another group, or one set of practices devotional practices held dear by one group can be denounced as impermissible by another. In more extreme cases, such conflict of opinion can turn into a “war of fatwas,” fought out, in the modern age, in the press or in cyberspace. (If Islam were held in a more positive light in the West today, this diversity would be described as a “free market of ideas”!) To speak of Islam as a homogeneous entity ignores this fundamental dynamic of its tradition.

This pluralism extends to the most basic level of belief. The major sectarian divide in Islam, between Sunnis and Shi‘is, goes back to the very origins of Islam. The two doctrines evolved in parallel, and therefore it is incorrect to see in them an orthodox/heterodox divide. All Muslims share a number of key reference points (the oneness of God, loyalty to the Prophet and his progeny, the need to prepare for the Hereafter, to take a few examples), but they have been played upon in different ways by different sects and movements. Nor do the two sects exhaust the diversity, for they both have many branches and various theological and legal schools within them, while many modern ideological groups straddle the divide between the two sects.

Or
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-myth-of-homogeny-in-islam/

I could provide link after link, discuss Sunni vs Shia, or any one of the innumerable other sects (70+ iirc), discuss Islams war with itself throughout history etc, all demonstrating that you are wrong.

You are portraying (demonising actually) Islam in the same way the two morons in the video are, by making all Muslims responsible for any action committed by a Muslim. You talk about enlightenment, but your post reeks of bigotry, hardly the hallmark of an enlightened person, right?

Incidentally, the "popular" view of Islam is of a homogenous group of people, us vs them, a group to be afraid of, or to attack. The average person on the street (ie. plumb ignorant, much like yourself) would not be aware of just how complex it is, far more so than Christianity. It's exactly why the talking heads who got schooled kept trying to make out that Islam was homogenous, and were proved wrong...

But give it your best shot trying to shoot down the considered opinions of Phd's, scholars, philosophers etc if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

Your video, Southwest Says: Loyalty Goes Both Ways - You Owe Us, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 11 Badge!

Fast. The US is highly militarized. And its military/police are much better funded than in Mexico.

"a mob of random untrained angry armed strangers"

If they are my friends and neighbors, I would not call them a mob (I don't know how you view your friends but I don't see my friends like this) and I would trust them more than the police. So did the American Revolutionaries. They trusted their fellow colonists more than the "well regulated and trained" British Army. But even then, many trusted the establishment, the Red Coats.

And who are you even talking about? Because, to each other, they are not "random strangers." The police are the "random strangers!" For most people, anyway.

This scene comes to mind.
Like Corleone implies, it's good to know where your loyalties lie. And that of those who engage with you.

"I will trust the police. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. (and make no mistake, I don't trust the police much at all) That's just me."

Yep, that's just you, and some others, for sure. So what?

"I don't know about you"

Now you know.

And like I said: Good luck with that. I wish you the best and that you never have to 'rely' on the police to 'protect' you.

Hee, hee, hee.

I prefer cats, but I've also had dogs for most of my life. Love cats for their intelligence, independence and character. I love dogs for their loyalty, obedience, and utility (guarding, hunting, trainability, etc). I've never understood why people prefer one over the other.
My partner and I just adopted three kittens, and one them of completely has the demeanor of a dog. She completely resembles this guilty look whenever you admonish or berate her for her behavior. Just makes us love her all the more.

So all you X-Men fans can relate to the character of Loki being the bad-guy nemesis of all things righteous and earthly/human, right? He comes down from Asgard with no checks or balances from his own universe and attempts to lure mankind through force into a slave-like existence of servitude stating the obvious as to the true nature of humankind and their desire to be led, fed, bred and in essence, dead...He offers nothing but his will over theirs and demands only from the lower creatures obedience and the servile future that is in fact, their destiny in robotic loyalty to their nature.

Imagine if you will, the planet as a chessboard with the majority of humans aboard as pawns with the ruling elite acting as the Asgardian rebel, and you have the state of affairs on planet now. These minor diversions and illusions of personal freedoms and human rights portioned-out in small doses by those who control the illusion that these concepts actually exist for humanity when in reality, countries and nations are mere herd pens for the game-makers to contain their stock.

Wrap your heads around this and you are closer to the true nature of the current paradigm than most care to deal with.

That there is some tangible or meaningful dichotomy between the males and females of the herd is part of the illusion created through the propaganda of mass media...it's but another well-honed tool to keep humans distracted by bullshit and keeps humanity easily controlled.