You obviously didn't read my previous comment.

Mentality made it seem like the US only does what's in the United States own best interest. I say, it was in our best interest to stay out of Iraq. If both those statements are true, than we would have stayed out of Iraq.

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
>> ^deedub81:
Mentality: By your logic, it would have been in the United States best interest to make friends with Saddam regardless of how he was treating his people? With the amount of money we've spent in Iraq, we could have made Saddam's Regime VERY friendly with us.

eer, how old are you, 12? US was very friendly with Saddam's regime just a few years before the first Gulf war. look it up


I don't think your arguments are exactly on point.

well, I think you don't know what you're talking about

...which brings me back full circle: I don't care what the motives were then (actually, I do. I don't want history to ever repeat this mistake). I want to know what the future President is going to do to make Iraq a better place to live. Starting...yesterday.

can't wait for your post-Iran war commentaries

The Founding Fathers who created the checks and balances in this country had it right. The more we stray from their ideals, the farther we stray into the gray areas of morality. We can breed and encourage better politicians by insisting on abolishing ear marks and voting for a smaller government with fewer unchecked powers.

don't care what you do (meaning the US) just stop meddling into affairs of other nations. you and your fucking moral high ground...

>> ^deedub81:
Mentality: By your logic, it would have been in the United States best interest to make friends with Saddam regardless of how he was treating his people? With the amount of money we've spent in Iraq, we could have made Saddam's Regime VERY friendly with us.

eer, how old are you, 12? US was very friendly with Saddam's regime just a few years before the first Gulf war. look it up


I don't think your arguments are exactly on point.

well, I think you don't know what you're talking about

...which brings me back full circle: I don't care what the motives were then (actually, I do. I don't want history to ever repeat this mistake). I want to know what the future President is going to do to make Iraq a better place to live. Starting...yesterday.

can't wait for your post-Iran war commentaries

The Founding Fathers who created the checks and balances in this country had it right. The more we stray from their ideals, the farther we stray into the gray areas of morality. We can breed and encourage better politicians by insisting on abolishing ear marks and voting for a smaller government with fewer unchecked powers.

don't care what you do (meaning the US) just stop meddling into affairs of other nations. you and your fucking moral high ground...

In Lord Acton's words, "Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."


Mentality: By your logic, it would have been in the United States best interest to make friends with Saddam regardless of how he was treating his people? With the amount of money we've spent in Iraq, we could have made Saddam's Regime VERY friendly with us.

I don't think your arguments are exactly on point.


...which brings me back full circle: I don't care what the motives were then (actually, I do. I don't want history to ever repeat this mistake). I want to know what the future President is going to do to make Iraq a better place to live. Starting...yesterday.


The Founding Fathers who created the checks and balances in this country had it right. The more we stray from their ideals, the farther we stray into the gray areas of morality. We can breed and encourage better politicians by insisting on abolishing ear marks and voting for a smaller government with fewer unchecked powers.

Nice. I wrote a little follow-up comment too.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Movement conservatives don't like to admit to being wrong, so when they can't think of a decent argument, they will try to find some way to insult the source, or attack the style in which the information was presented, or declare that 'both sides are wrong'.

As you can see above, qm has still failed to provide any kind of rebuttal rather than emotionalism (everyone hates me-a Bush favorite) and a vague link to some fringe site that doesn't seem to address the content of this video anywhere on the front page.

Rather than get worked up, why not enjoy the aimless flailing of a frustrated person with no argument. By displaying your own anger, albeit genuine anger, he can take pleasure in knowing he has gotten a rise out of you and lap up a nice big bowl of victim pity for all the cruel 'LiberalSift' persecution.

I think it's better to publicly analyze these types of rhetorical styles/devices in order render them useless in the future. Frankly, this is good advice for qm too, as all side of the argument use rhetorical styles. If he's going to take time out of his life to participate in this site, he might want to consider ditching the childish 'Keef Overbite' playground-rhetoric and try to make a sincere point.... which brings us full circle: Movement conservatives don't like to admit...........

Movement conservatives don't like to admit to being wrong, so when they can't think of a decent argument, they will try to find some way to insult the source, or attack the style in which the information was presented, or declare that 'both sides are wrong'.

As you can see above, qm has still failed to provide any kind of rebuttal rather than emotionalism (everyone hates me-a Bush favorite) and a vague link to some fringe site that doesn't seem to address the content of this video anywhere on the front page.

Rather than get worked up, why not enjoy the aimless flailing of a frustrated person with no argument. By displaying your own anger, albeit genuine anger, he can take pleasure in knowing he has gotten a rise out of you and lap up a nice big bowl of victim pity for all the cruel 'LiberalSift' persecution.

I think it's better to publicly analyze these types of rhetorical styles/devices in order render them useless in the future. Frankly, this is good advice for qm too, as all side of the argument use rhetorical styles. If he's going to take time out of his life to participate in this site, he might want to consider ditching the childish 'Keef Overbite' playground-rhetoric and try to make a sincere point.... which brings us full circle: Movement conservatives don't like to admit...........

Come on, Gordon, get with the program, dude! Just kidding. I'm just starting shit.

Jeez, everyone is getting pissed about this. Let's slow our roll, shall we? It doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with all this. We're not going to solve anything in this little video message board. I commend MaxWilder for taking the first step in doing research, and, although, I'm pretty sure his point-of-view won't be changed, at least he's trying and he's listening. That's huge.

And, to you, TomStall, I'm a bit disappointed by your comment above because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. I'm not altogether sure your comment is true when you write, "The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it". Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.

I don't care enough to convince you to go dig up all the research or expert's names that oppose the conventional perspective of 911, but they're there. All you have to do is scratch the surface, and please understand you will see a lot (and I mean A LOT) of unlikely and implausible perspectives of 911 (such as the remote control birds I spoke of earlier). Those are par for the course whenever a government's theories are questioned.

Notice how all these clips always show the same edited segment of the WTC7 collapse, from the same convenient location? That's because:
* The building was very much on fire at that time.
* As noted above, there was no detonation or explosion.
* It actually took 30 seconds for the building to collapse.
* It actually spread debris over 150 meters.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Fell%20in%20convenient%20pile?

While we're at it, here's some actually researched information on the subject (as opposed to edited clips of footage found on Youtube):
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
(This is not the first time these two websites are brought up on Videosift. Apparently some are much more comfortable with having an opinion than with having the actual facts)

The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it. And then you'll have to start all over again. With them, everything is about beliefs and dogma, nothing is about facts. Reminds you of another kind of people? That's right, they're behaving just like creationists.

loaded with explosives?? smokeless explosives I see... balsa? Recognize the wood type by the sound of the crack from a crappy camcorder eh?

I would give this guy the benefit of the doubt, folks. First of all, he's doing an airborne 540. Second, he is wearing a black belt. Now, you dont even see a lot of black belts doing airborne 540 triple kicks, so, you can think, hey - he is probably pretty damn good. Third, you will notice he is pretty fast. I bet that leg coming full circle at that speed has more than enough power to break a board and throw some confetti (the confetti flies in the direction of the kick mind you...) or do you think they aim the "explosive" charges to shoot the confetti in the direction ofthe kick?

Well, as president, I would promise to drag pharmaceutical company's CEO's, into the street, and bludgeon them to death with a human femur, on national television....

I would then put agri-business, back into the hands of local and regional farmers, then repeat step one, with the CEO's of Con-Agra, Archer-Daniels Midland, Dow chemicals, and their many subsidiaries....

I would then outlaw fast-food restaurants (slow-death troughs) replacing them with memorials to the fallen.

I would then bring an awareness of the human condition full-circle, through subsidizing holistic, naturopathic, and nutritional awareness.

I would do away with the FDA.

I would create, in short, a country, where fools need not rely on the establishment for their peace of mind, rather, their own awareness of systems already in place, which could give them less fear of living, and more confidence in dying.

Sorry about the cancer, an unfortunate combination of unhealthy living, genetic predisposition, and a nation fucked from birth, with business-as-usual, diversion.

His argument is that all this advancement should be targeted towards making us happier. What if that's not the real goal? Seems selfish to me and puts us back, full circle, to thinking we're the center of the universe. What if the real goal is borne out of a collective thinking and is as far removed from our own concerns as our brain's consciousness is to it's individual neurons.

Food for thought.

I really don't understand the outrage in these comments. Saying "No" gets checkbooks out across the Midwestern and Southern USA, so many variants of Protestantism coming full circle to buy salvation with a "donation".

Brownback's the only guy I actually believe when he claims NOT to accept evolution. Even Bush's denials ("the jury's still out") sound evasive, like he's just being sensitive to the beliefs of his base.

Sending money to Christian causes makes old people and religious nutters feel slightly less afraid of death. That's how that works.

Well I guess it's come full circle. Today, instead of a diverse and attractive bunch of actors being sour, now it's all pimply, mumbling, piss-faced sour adolescents watched over by a tall fat slimy guy with glasses, a haircut from 1972, and a moustache.

Wow... What's funny is how things go full circle... Not only did I post this but I also worked on the early stages of the cell technology at SONY in San Antonio, Texas (up until they shut down the plant) :-(

At the time, we were just creating the cell technology and the PS3 was to be the launch of this new technology that was "supposed to change the world" the way cell phones and the internet did... At least that's what the hope was.

Don't know if that will happen with the yields being so low... I guess time will tell. I do know it's taken 6 years so far to make. :-/

Thanks for posting the links Dag & Conan! :-)

(Even more ironic... I work at INTEL now and my work is also helping change the world) Muhahahaha... *sigh*

Plot Summary for
Spin (1995)

Pirated satellite feeds revealing U.S. media personalities' contemptuous plans for their viewers come full circle in Spin. TV out-takes appropriated from network satellite feeds unravel the tightly spun fabric of television, a system which silences public debates and furthers the intolerance of anyone outside the pack of journalists, politicians, spin doctors and televangelists who manufacture the news. Spin moves through the L.A. rebellion and the floating TV talk-show called the 1992 U.S. presidential election.