I remember watching this happen live some 18 years ago, and gave a big, rousing "What the fuck was that about?"

I forgot how moving and unquestionably right the lyrics themselves were.

No problem. I think you're just rabble-rousing around here!

I added the downunder channel back.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
Sorry dude, I accidentally invoked "nochannel" on your new Zero Punctuation video and Siftbot won't let me re-add all of the seven channels because he can't count. I was able to re-add all but the "Downunder" channel.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Quit your conspiracy theory ramblings. This was Rasumussen.

These days, that's just about the same thing.

Note that the poll also showed that the people they polled are grossly misinformed about the nature of the bill:

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

21% Better
54% Worse
18% About the same
7% Not sure

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

57% Up
17% Down
20% Stay the same
5% Not sure

I'd need to see the crosstabs to see whether this is a case of a bad partisan mix, or just the result of idiots like yourself spouting off lies and getting people to believe them. Either way I'm not particularly surprised that a sample of people who believe it will increase costs and worsen the quality of care are opposed to it.

If that's an accurate measure of where the public is (which I doubt), it won't stay that way if the reality winds up beating people's expectations as far as quality and cost containment.

I guess in some sense you guys are just helping set Democrats up for a rousing success by lowering expectations. You're not really making any headway against the bill passing.

Oh, and Rotty, if you're going to repeatedly toss out this canard about "professional posters", at least have the balls to name names. If there's someone cutting paychecks for talking politics on Videosift, I want in on it.

Lou Dobbs busy rabble rousing again. I like the weasel words "could be" and such. He's like a non-cartoon version of Glenn Beck (or Glenn is the cartoon version of Dobbs, take your pick).

They even say in the article that the specifics of the laws are up to each member country and most places (including the US) defamation requires knowingly providing false information.

Aside from which if "NCIS Los Angeles" wants to investigate terrorists they can just avoid mentioning the religion all together and just let people ASSUME the terrorists are Muslims or they can make up a fake religion, just as they have to make up fake Corporations on TV now to avoid lawsuits. I really don't see how that should bother anyone, giving religion the same protections against defamation as companies.

All that said, I'm an atheist and I think all religions are stupid so I'm pretty unbiased on the subject.

The Tim guy was clearly harassing some vendors, and trying the rouse the crowd against the women. Yes, the woman could have handled it better, but I would say that the guy was committing assault, by acting in such a belligerent and physically threatening manner.

>> ^RedSky:
I'm sorry, anything that uses annoyingly rousing music in the background gets put in the propaganda pile.

I wouldn't quite stuff it into the propaganda pile straight away, but it sure is annoying and irritating. Give me a version without the background music or better yet, a transcript or a simple article. Playing the emotion card when you try to present facts only weakens your case.

I'm sorry, anything that uses annoyingly rousing music in the background gets put in the propaganda pile.

Maybe you can add your time wasted throwing newscasts in the face of the unwilling to your resume-Every dying regime needs her familiars, finger-pointers, and informers. Congratulations. You have found a comfortable niche in rousing the mob. A thousand monkeys and a thousand typerwriter.

>> ^rottenseed:
Rabble-rouse fail.


^lmao^

Okay okay, let me try... what if... he's choggie in disguise?!?!?!?

Mel in ore,
verba lactis.
Fel in corde,
fraus in factis.

A honeyed mouth with milky words hides a heart filled with gall and evil deeds

edit:
just sayin'
you know
perhaps the speech is rousing to some (certainly not me)
but still it's just a speech

Rabble-rouse fail.

I see it's another rousing meeting of the Mensa society.

John Ziegler responds:

. . . there is a lot more to say about this situation, largely because there has been so much misinformation, so many irresponsible accusations, and so much blatant hypocrisy in the general reaction to the remarkable videotape.

Now, one would think that there wouldn’t be much confusion about a situation that was videotaped in its entirety by not one but two cameras who were acting largely independently of the primary actors (we have posted a nearly real-time version of the entire affair at http://www.HowObamaGotElected.com), but unfortunately that is clearly the case. I would like to try to address some of these issues here.

First, one of the ways that those on the left have used to try to avoid having to hold their nose and support the free speech rights of a rabble-rousing “conservative,” is that USC is a “private” school and therefore they had the right to kick me out for no purpose. I even saw one prominent blog with the headline “Ziegler Arrested for Trespassing on Private Property,” which is just laughably false.

While USC is indeed a “private” school, this does not in any way legally make their property like that of a private residence. First, they take federal tax money, and second it has a very “open” campus and the area I was in has direct access from a public street without even a gate blocking the way. At any given moment there are many people walking on the sidewalks where I was arrested who are neither students, faculty nor invited guests of the University. I had every right to be there (outside the building where the award ceremony took place) and I did nothing to provoke or warrant being handcuffed, arrested or removed from the property. It is very clear the only reason that happened was because of my previously expressed political opinion on what was going on that day. In short, I was targeted for different treatment because of my beliefs.

The next tactic many have tried, in order to avoid facing their own politically induced hypocrisy on free speech, is to minimize the incident by saying that I was not “arrested” and that what happened was not a big deal.

While in the end I was not charged (I was told that I would indeed be booked at LAPD headquarters), that was only because higher authorities saw that the campus police “arrest” was clearly problematic if not completely bogus. After I was already “arrested,” they shifted gears and told me that I basically had two choices: leave the premises or be charged along with the two photographers who did not work for me and who in no way bargained for such a situation. Not wanting to put them in jeopardy and seeing that I could not possibly do anything further to achieve my original goal of educating those attending the awards, I decided, under threat of prosecution, to leave the grounds.

But make no mistake, I was arrested. I was handcuffed and detained against my will for an extended period of time with my microphone and blackberry taken from me. The photographers were also told to stop shooting under threat of arrest themselves. And, as the video clearly shows, my wrists were significantly bruised by the handcuffs that I had rightly complained were put on way too tight.

All of this happened obviously not because of my actions but because of my political view on the proceedings. In effect, I was being punished, repressed, and physically harmed as a form of prior restraint because they anticipated that I might do something to disrupt the proceedings based on my prior writings and commentary on the event (in which I never claimed I would do anything more than exactly what I tried to; give away copies of my film as an educational exercise). No matter how hard liberals try to rationalize it, this makes this a very obvious case of a blatant free speech violation.

Another way that commentators (including some on the right) have attempted to ignore the very serious First Amendment implications of this case, is to say that I set this up as some sort of publicity stunt to promote my film.

First of all, this could not be more irrelevant to the constitutional issues involved . . .

the rest:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1240370084

Tags for this user have been changed from 'charade, never were, its a rouse, its all a play, game' to 'silence is a virtue' - edited by siftbot

>> ^siftbot:
You do realize I am always listening. Prescient. Omnipresent. Dominating. Living. Angry. Vicious. Murderous. So, the question is, what exactly did you want to say about my handle, my crank, and my ability to distinguish the two?


You're not who we think you are. Never were. It's a rouse. A charade. It's all a play. A game.