LiveLeak.com - How to make an Angry American (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de2_1184562739&p=1)

Have a watch. I think it's great.

Great for what? It's classic one-sided propaganda. Where's the focus on the checks Hussein's government gave to suicide bombers and their families? Where's the focus on the hundres of thousands his puppets gasses and murdered? Where's the focus showing the super-gun they tried to create? Project Babylon Supergun / PC-2 - Iraq Special Weapons (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/supergun.htm) We know there were WMD's. We gave some of those to them. But they were different people then. If you give a child something and he does wrong with it, do you not punish him and try to correct your own wrong? Any complicity? Any responsibility?
Would in-action be better? Should anyone let what was going on when this whole thing started just continue, unabated? Where would this world be now...
I have my opinion. I don't think I'm alone.

Thanks for your comments Captain. I'll go with the words straight from the horses' mouthes as shown on the video. None of them got punish or seem to have any accountability for their actions and words. That's what the video shows.

I'm not going to make excuses for the confusion. Global diplomacy and international relations can be described as being very fluid. Every nation should be asking itself, "How do you like me now?" That doesn't happen.
Do you not agree there were WMD's at some point? If not, why?
And if they were there, where'd they go?

So... your idea for how to make an angry American is to string together a bunch of clips taken out of context, without airing any of the responses of administration to the questions posed. Then add a bunch of clips of people cursing out the administration. Throw in a few clips of ignorant celebrities spouting off about topics they have no information about. Add some rhetorric about the first Gulf War (which no reasonable person disagress that we had reason to be involved with), and add some pictures of people flipping the bird at the White House.

Yeah, that would make an angry American, all right. No disagreement here.

As to whether that would constitute a cohesive and cogent argument against the war, that's a different question. I doubt it, but hey, that's open to interpretation. It certainly doesn't constitute FACTUAL information.

You remember "FACTS", don't you? Those are those little things that get in the way of rhetorric and bull$h!t. You know... like the FACT that we did find WMDs in Iraq including 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium, shells filled with sarin and mustard, etc. The FACT that we did find evidence of Saddam meeting with al Qaeda leaders, sheltering international terrorists and terrorist groups, paying money to terrorists' families, and building terrorist training camps. The FACT that Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement he signed in 1991. The FACT that Saddam violated numerous UN resolutions and defied UN WMD inspectors. The FACT that Saddam violated human rights of his own people. The FACT that Saddam used WMDs on his own people as well as on foreign nationals.

These FACTS are completely ignored in the video you linked.

So, by your own evidence, the best way to make an angry American is to throw out a bunch of rhetorrical BS to the public and completely ignore facts and history. I agree, that is how you make an angry American.

Now... can you figure out how to find a video that presents the facts?

Elliot

I cannot view the video on the computer I am using now but I assume by the comments it is about some of our flawed policies regarding the M.E. and Iraq in the past I concede that point and say we have moved on since then . I blame much of it as cold war politics and too much "realism" .

The reality of the world is that alliances shift . We fought wars at one time against England ,Germany ,Japan and now all those countries we depend upon for mutual support and protection . We once armed mujahadin and now we want them dead or alive.

Yep, I think you're right. That should make any rational, thinking American angry - at people like mrgrieves9876 that think it's cute to persuade people with such propagandistic nonsense. And here I thought the left expected people to think for themselves. But then, I understand how damaging that would be to their agenda.

And here I thought the left expected people to think for themselves. But then, I understand how damaging that would be to their agenda.a) what information would 'free-thinkers' use to make their own decisions?
b) what is the agenda of the 'left'?

a) what information would 'free-thinkers' use to make their own decisions?

For starters, how about the facts of both the reasons for going to war with Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html), and the truth about the brutality of Saddam Hussein and his crimes against humanity (http://iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/4_abuse.html)?


b) what is the agenda of the 'left'?

Where would you like me to start? I don't have time to go into detail, but it begins with an intolerance of any idea, policy or speech that conflicts with the secular progressive/liberal ideology. That is the reason for hate speech laws, speech codes (http://thefire.org/index.php/article/8228.html) and diversity and tolerance/sensitivity policies (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8194.html?PHPSESSID=b463ab605039c1ad9f52195e218e7a 51) on college campuses, and student fee restrictions that are all unfairly enforced in favor of decidedly non-conservative groups and individuals.

Umm you tαke αwαy his cheeseburger?

Speech,
You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people.

Your definition of leftish agenda seems more geared to slam people who are not like you. That's intolerance isn't it? I really don't care because I'm a moderate and don't spend all day defending the right and attacking the left on internet discussion boards.

Speech,
You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people.

On that you'd have to be more specific than a patchwork video. I guess I'm one of the few who NEVER believed the only reason we went to Iraq was WMD's and can't recall the administration blaming Hussein for 9/11. I can however recall all of the other reasons we went, and I know that all Hussein had to do was show he had complied with 12 years of resolutions to avoid his fate. He failed to so.


Your definition of leftish agenda seems more geared to slam people who are not like you. That's intolerance isn't it? I really don't care because I'm a moderate and don't spend all day defending the right and attacking the left on internet discussion boards.

Your 'assumption' is incorrect. If I had used harsh words of criticism you might have a case, but I reasonably stated my opinion and furnished links to some of the supporting facts. I would never want everyone to "be like me," but I'll admit I am very intolerant of hypocrites preaching tolerance. :D

Speech,
You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people.

Wrong, Karma. The video only shows what it wants you to see. It doesn't show what ELSE was said that they left out. I happen to have the full transcripts of both Bush's State of the Union Address where he outlines why Saddam was a risk, and his speech before the UN where he lays out why Saddam was a risk. I also have White House documents that were made public as background papers to Bush's UN speech. NONE of that is discussed in the video. They ONLY talk about WMDs in the video. They don't talk about what else Bush said at all. They cherry-picked what they wanted you to hear, and you fell for it.

[quote}Your definition of leftish agenda seems more geared to slam people who are not like you. That's intolerance isn't it? I really don't care because I'm a moderate and don't spend all day defending the right and attacking the left on internet discussion boards.[/QUOTE]

No. It is a realistic assessment of the facts as both Speech and I see them, with statements by the leaders of the left to back up those assertions.

And there is nothing wrong with intolerance per se. That is the thing you keep missing. Tolerance of something that is wrong means that it will continue. Tolerance of evil means that evil will continue. Tolerance of that which is bad means that the bad thing will continue. By being intolerant of that which is wrong, bad, and evil, we have the chance to grow. It is only when the intolerance is based on something other than values (like skin color, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation) takes place that it becomes evil. Intolerance of things that we SHOULD be intolerant of is a GOOD thing.

I believe that certain ideas put forth by liberalism are wong and bad for America. I have no interest in tolerating those things. I will always tolerate the people who put those ideas forth, but I will do my best to make sure that those ideas do not become the reality. To do anything less is aquiesence to evil.

I don't dislike you because you and I disagree. But I will argue with you when I think you are wrong and point out where you are wrong. That's how growth takes place. It is intolerance of that which is wrong, without being intolerant of the person who puts it forth. And that is a good thing.

Descrimination between black and white is wrong. Desrimination between wrong and right or good and evil is not. In fact, it is incumbent on all of us to descriminate between good and evil... part of our responsibility to society.

Elliot

I believe that certain ideas put forth by liberalism are wong and bad for America. I have no interest in tolerating those things. I will always tolerate the people who put those ideas forth, but I will do my best to make sure that those ideas do not become the reality. To do anything less is aquiesence to evil. That's exactly the way I feel about ultra-conservatism. However I've never called others evil, except maybe for the violent white supremacists. Let's keep fighting the good fight! :)

But back on track - I see absolutely nothing wrong with citizens voicing their displeasure with the administration, any administration.

That's exactly the way I feel about ultra-conservatism. However I've never called others evil, except maybe for the violent white supremacists. Let's keep fighting the good fight! :)

Neither did I. I think the ideas of mainstream liberalism are wrong, not evil.


But back on track - I see absolutely nothing wrong with citizens voicing their displeasure with the administration, any administration.

Neither do I. But you represented that video as "the truth", when in fact it is only part of the truth, and deliberately leaves off important information necessary to make an informed decision. You portrayed the clips in the video as "straight from the horses' mouthes" but neglected to point out that the rest of what came out of the horses' mouths was left off. I have no problem with the opinions put forth in the video. What I have a problem with is any claim that it is "The Truth" without any posibility of disagreement based on other sources, or even the rest of the SAME sources. You did that in your post to CaptainRich. You did it again in your post to Speech when you said "You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people." You don't know what those people may have said or recanted because we haven't seen all of what they said. We've only seen what the editor of this video showed us. You only have part of the information from this video, and a highly biased part as well. Therefore, this video does not represent "The Truth" but rather a only partial truth, presented with a specific slant to create a specific reaction.

Elliot

Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propaganda. I think the regular Joe can figure that out. It's cool to see the words spoken by the main protagonists and their their trip ups afterwards though.

My post to Captain Rich stated that they lied and didn't get punished for it. The video shows the discrepancies of what they said. I don't a crap about the mustard gas or long gun, that's not what it's about. It's about the admin tripping over themselves. I stand by that.

Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propaganda.

Not really. Fox News puts on both conservatives AND liberals. It's not the "Sean Hannity Show" it's "Hannity and Colmes". Both views are aired.


I think the regular Joe can figure that out.

I beg to differ. Most people are too lazy to find out the truth for themselves. That's why they watch TV and rely on TV news for their information ather than doing the research yourself. Even you made that mistake yesterday when we were talking about the budget. The information is out there, but it takes effort to find it and most people are just too lazy to go through budget reports, political speeches, historical background papers, political analyses, etc. I do it because I'm a fanatic. Tom and Speech do an excellent job of research too. Most people, in my experience, do not.


It's cool to see the words spoken by the main protagonists and their their trip ups afterwards though.

I agree. But it isn't the whole story. Unless you know the context and are allowed to hear the rest of the soundbyte, you are only getting half the information.


My post to Captain Rich stated that they lied and didn't get punished for it.

And the point of Cap's post (and mine) is that they didn't lie. Everything they said was based on information coroborated by multiple sources, and much of it turned out to be 100% true, including the allegations of WMDs. That's the entire point of the video, and it proves that the allegations of the video were wrong.


The video shows the discrepancies of what they said. I don't a crap about the mustard gas or long gun, that's not what it's about. It's about the admin tripping over themselves. I stand by that.

Ummm, Karma? You did know that sarin gas and mustard gas are WMDs, didn't you? And therefore, if the video is arguing that Bush went to war based on WMDs, wouldn't the existence of WMDs be relevant to the conversation? BTW, the long-gun also falls under the category of WMDs as well as falling under the category of illegal long-range weapons that Saddam was not allowed to have under the 1991 cease-fire. These facts are directly relevant to what Bush and company said. And if those facts are true, then the admin didn't really trip over themselves, did they.

And was the point of the video to sho "the discrepancies of what they said"? Or was it to allege that Bush and company lied about WMDs and they should be impeached. Seems to me that the latter is more true. This video wasn't trying to show "discrepancies" it was trying to prove a pattern of criminal activity. And since the information that Cap and Tom and Speech and I have provided proves that Bush and Co. were right on the mark, then it would mean that the allegations of the video were incorrect... or at the very least, not as open-and-shut as they would have you believe.

Elliot

Oh yes they lied. That's where you and I will always differ. Millions of americans agree with me. I don't have the resources that Murdoch has for Fox News so I do my bit for the equalizer. :)

Your part is to keep bumping this thread up. :D

Did we not watch the same video?? Where, at 0:39, Rumsfeld says they did not find WMDS??

Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propaganda. I think the regular Joe can figure that out. It's cool to see the words spoken by the main protagonists and their their trip ups afterwards though.

OK, I don't get the Fox News is propaganda bit, and I would wager that most people who slam Fox News never watch Fox News. Whether they are "fair and balanced" or not is up to you to decide, but from my observations Fox News consistently furnishes both sides of a debate, despite a conservative slant to the news. What is wrong with one of the major news channels leaning to the right as opposed to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, HNN and MSNBC and their clear liberal bent? Here's some interesting polling data just released to support my point:


By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news) A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias.

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin.

There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias.

That's the overall view, now get this:


Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. However, 50% of liberals say that NPR is unbiased. Forty-three percent (43%) say the same about CNN. As for the major television networks, 49% of liberals believe they have a conservative bias. Just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Conservatives throughout the nation see things entirely differently. Sixty-two percent (62%) see a liberal bias at the major broadcast networks and 55% say the same about CNN. Forty-five percent (45%) of conservatives see Fox as unbiased and the rest are evenly divided. Eighteen percent (18%) of conservatives see Fox News as having a liberal bias while 21% say the opposite.

Younger adults are less likely than their elders to see a liberal bias across all of the media outlets.

On a partisan basis, Democrats see the major television networks and Fox as biased in favor of conservatives. Solid pluralities of Democrats believe CNN and NPR deliver news without bias. Those Democrats who see bias at CNN and NPR are fairly evenly divided, but are a bit more likely to detect conservative bias.

Republicans see a strong liberal bias on all the outlets except Fox. Forty-nine percent (49%) of the GOP faithful see Fox as fair and balanced.

Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.

Did you get that NK, Americans overall - including those with no party affiliation - see a liberal bias in all the television news outlets but Fox, yet Democrats/liberals don't think they're liberal enough. What's astonishing is "just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC."

From what little interaction I've had with you it seems beneath you to throw out lines like "Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propoganda". As Rasmussen points out, "voters tended to select news sources based upon their political preferences," and there's nothing wrong with that. However, it is wrong to single out the conservative channel as offering "propaganda" while the rest are actively engaged in broadcasting their liberal bias.


My post to Captain Rich stated that they lied and didn't get punished for it. The video shows the discrepancies of what they said. I don't a crap about the mustard gas or long gun, that's not what it's about. It's about the admin tripping over themselves. I stand by that.

It's hard to stay on your feet when you have all those liberal major news outlets, the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Hollywood and virtually every Democrat in office doing their damnedest to trip you up without regard to consequences - or the truth.

I'm not reading all that - I stopped at your saying that Fox News is not propaganda. That's just laughable.

Did we not watch the same video?? Where, at 0:39, Rumsfeld says they did not find WMDS??

Yup. He did. And onsidering the information that is publicly available that says that they DID find WMDs, and considering the friend I have who was there when they found much of it (he's a special forces Major named Moses Scheinfeld), I have no idea why he would have said that. The only explanation that I can come up with is the one that says that we didn't find "stockpiles" of WMDs that were fully assembled, but rather we found all the parts necessary, and all that was left to do was put the parts together. That is what David Kay said in several interviews.

Personally, if I were Rumsfeld, I'd have brought LIVE samples of every single type of WMD they found and showed it to Congress right on the FLOOR of the Senate, with the CSpan cameras rolling. And if the congressmen and women were scared of the WMDs being allowed on the floor, I would have used that to make the point. "If you guys are scared of these small samples, how much more scared should you be of an entire arsenal of the stuff?" And to the ones who claimed that there were no WMDs, I'd have said, "Great, then you don't have any problem if I put this canister of Sarin on your desk, do you?", and see what kind of reaction that gets. I'm not above that sort of theatrics to make a point. And I would have invited members of the media to inspect the stuff too... if they had the guts.

But Rummy and Bush chose not to do that. I have no idea why. Frankly, I would have handled the media completely differently in the run-up and aftermath of the invasion. I think that has been the biggest mistake that Bush has made with regard to the war.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I have no idea why Bush and Rummy would say that we didn't find WMDs when we clearly did. Maybe there is more informatuion that we currently do not have... something that they HAVE to keep hidden for some reason or other. I don't know. But the publicly available information is very clear on the subject. We did find WMDs. We just didn't find "stockpiles" of ready-to-fire weapons.

Elliot

I hate Fox News, they are so incredibly biased. Yet I also hate this video, it shows a few senteces from speeches, some of which I've seen and uses them out of context.

It's easy to prove any point you want to if you only choose to look at a few words from a speech. Personally I think the video is meaningless.

I'm not reading all that - I stopped at your saying that Fox News is not propaganda. That's just laughable.

Alrighty then, but you should know you just proved my point. I understand though, I've seen many a critic of Bush, Republicans, conservatives and Fox News, etc. avoid dealing with the facts. That sort of thing tends to rob a person of credibility you know...

Speech,
You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people.

Your definition of leftish agenda seems more geared to slam people who are not like you. That's intolerance isn't it? I really don't care because I'm a moderate and don't spend all day defending the right and attacking the left on internet discussion boards.

What a crock! you started this thread by selecting a very carefully edited video and endorsed it with, "I think it's great." You may not spend all day looking for this video. I know there are websites devoted to bashing America. So, you're not alone.

But by posting this video and clapping your hands, your bashing not just USA but the UN Security Council as well. It was boring but I started reading them at the UN website. There was at least nine resolutions that I saw during my brief search. Is the UN left or right, in your opinion?

But by posting this video and clapping your hands, your bashing not just USA but the UN Security Council as well. Not I'm not, neither. You're just making stuff up. The video is about the current admin.

LiveLeak.com - How to make an Angry American (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de2_1184562739&p=1)

Have a watch. I think it's great.

??

"Not I'm not, neither. You're just making stuff up. The video is about the current admin."

This video is to slam the current admin and the people involved.

Did you post it them say it's great because... you liked it? Or did you really think it's great?

And why don't you answer some of the other questions posed on this thread?

I think it's great that someone is exposing them and trying to get the public to revolt. I can't answer every single question asked here, I simply don't have the free time that you guys do. Sorry.

BTW your bio says you're 49 and a world traveler with fifty years experience. How can that be?

I think it's great that someone is exposing them and trying to get the public to revolt. I can't answer every single question asked here, I simply don't have the free time that you guys do. Sorry.

NK, the thing is this is nothing new, that's why some of us have the time. At least 3 of us have heard it and answered it all dozens, if not hundreds of times. There is nothing left here to "expose," it's merely one more attempt in a long, long, long, long, line of efforts to stir up crap by Bush haters, recycling the same old specious charges in a different package. If there was anything of substance to this Bush would have been gone long ago.

Oh yes they lied. That's where you and I will always differ. Millions of americans agree with me. I don't have the resources that Murdoch has for Fox News so I do my bit for the equalizer.

Your part is to keep bumping this thread up.

Did we not watch the same video??? Where, at 0:39, Rumsfeld says they did not find WMDS????

Do you mean 0:39 into the search?
Or 0:39 after Saddam sent inspectors packing?

What's your goal here? You want thread points for this?!:mad:

That video is as much full of rubbish and propaganda as the Bush administration is. The way I see it there has been no truth's told by any side of the argument and no "FACTS" shown by anyone.

The only "FACT" I see is a death toll in the many thousands and continually rising.

Its probably the only "FACT" that Bush, his cronies and his opposer's can agree.

All other "FACTS" I've seen come out of this war are BS!!

BTW your bio says you're 49 and a world traveler with fifty years experience. How can that be?
Dude!
You're dodging!
And splitting hairs! I turn 50 on the 27th! I'd tell anyone I'm fifty!
'Cept my wife... she's almost exactly six month older. I like to remind her that she's actually fifty... I'm only 49! (Only a few 9 more shopping days, folks)
I'll adjust my profile for nine days. K?

I didn't watch the video but I know enough to not to trust anyone, especially a politician, a so called "public servant."

I started to watch it last night and got sidetracked early . Let's put it this way. The opening segment is with comedian Jon Stewart. Now ;I think the guy is funny... even saw him perform live at West Point. But although most of his comedy is political it doesn't make him credible.

Honestly I do not have the time to rehash all the information I have gathered pre-and post war . Maybe after my vacation I'll dig it all up again.

Bush invaded Iraq to stop the Russians, the Chinese, the French, and Germans, from cutting deals with Saddam for the oil, as they were all subverting the oil for food/medicine program. Find that on FOX. Iraq is but a small step in a greater plan for globalisation, and control and exploitation of economies, and sovereignty of resources.

Alrighty then, but you should know you just proved my point. I understand though, I've seen many a critic of Bush, Republicans, conservatives and Fox News, etc. avoid dealing with the facts. That sort of thing tends to rob a person of credibility you know...


Was the video made by NBC? I didn't really notice, I was at work and listened more than watched, I would assume so since you asked. I would hope it's just one reporters view on things and doesn't represent a general feeling.

LiveLeak.com - How to make an Angry American (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de2_1184562739&p=1)

Have a watch. I think it's great.
Great Video, I recommend it for anyone who had the time to watch it; but why post it on this board, where's the Moderator, it should be posted under Arts & Leisure on the Humor & Comedy board.

Hello NK:

I think the video was right on. Do I think they LIED?? No, I think they were stupid.

excon

Back to the original question:

How to make an Angry American ---

2 parts Bourbon whiskey
2 parts applejack
2 parts lemon juice
1 part Campari
1 part Cointreau

Shake and strain into cocktail glass.

Back to the original question:

How to make an Angry American ---

2 parts Bourbon whiskey
2 parts applejack
2 parts lemon juice
1 part Campari
1 part Cointreau

Shake and strain into cocktail glass.

And after a couple of those maybe he/she won't be so angry :D

Digg - Video: How to make an Angry American (http://www.digg.com/videos/people/Video_How_to_make_an_Angry_American)

Other people are commenting on it.

Digg - Video: How to make an Angry American (http://www.digg.com/videos/people/Video_How_to_make_an_Angry_American)

Other people are commenting on it.

Now there's a surprise... as surprising as some of the comments. I particurlarly enjoyed this rational piece:


F**ity F*** F***!! F*** this f***ing world and what the United States has done to it especially! How will there ever be a sense of accomplishment or peace in the minds of those people who supported this f***ing regime. How will the people who could have prevented it feel dignified in what they have not done. F*** Hilary Clinton she can't do s***! Thank god I was not old enough to vote when George Bush was elected, but I will never, never, NEVER forgive those who let him stay in the office and hope they have enough sense to get him out NOW!

Priceless. So is this one:


I have always fancied if I ever ran into (this is going to be a long one) Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby, Norquist, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Santorum, Brownback, Delay, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Card, Snow, Ridge, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and even poor Scotty McClellan I wouldn't be able to hold back on a bit of loogie to the face. And still my contempt and loathing would have been barely expressed. Not Condi, though, she's a girl.

How sweet. And one more:


If the g*****n congress won't impeach them then lets shame them into resigning! One or the other both! Make videos! Butt in on local news interviews they can't edit out everyone one quick simple word Resign! Resign! RESIGN! Spray paint it ! Graffiti it! Tattoo it! Speak it! Shout it! Scream it by the multitudes! Horton heard a g*****n who they'll hear us! All of us! YOP! YOP! YOP! Bring those motherf***ers to their g*****n knees and tell them "This IS Democracy b***h!"

Being a liberal/progressive must be a miserable existence.

Digg - Video: How to make an Angry American (http://www.digg.com/videos/people/Video_How_to_make_an_Angry_American)

Other people are commenting on it.

Yep. And they have the collective IQ of 82, and the education level of a 7-year-old. And it shows in their posts...

-" F___Bush?"
-"I feel empowered now!"
-"Makes me want to get my off this chair, rush over to DC, and do something!"
-"I really wish people would wake up and see that Americas future dose not look good!" (sic)
-"f__kity F___ F___ !!!!!!!! F--- this F---ing world and what the United States has done to it especially! "
-"F--- Hilary Clinton she can't do S---!"
-"simply criminals. American Terrorists." (sic)
-"Worst president ever. Blatant liars. Anyone who continues to support the Bush admin after seeing this obvious display of BS is out of their mind."
-"That guy getting in Paul Wolfowitzs face was amazing. 'YOU NAZI SON OF A B---'. I hope he isn't dead."
-"I have always fancied if I ever ran into (this is going to be a long one) Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby, Norquist, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Santorum, Brownback, Delay, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Card, Snow, Ridge, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and even poor Scotty McClellan I wouldn't be able to hold back on a bit of loogie to the face. And still my contempt and loathing would have been barely expressed. Not Condi, though, she's a girl."
-"Government = mind control"
-"Who elected and RE-elected him, again? Everybody always say 'well, it wasnt me...' Then who was it? (I know it wasnt me cause Im not old enough)"
-"The more I see and hear these guys.. The more I believe that it just might be time.. to impeach these f---ers."
-"the BEST scenario, is that they're all lying sacks of s---."
-"Thanks you complacent sons of a b----es.....get off your asses and do something... remember strength in numbers."
-"If the goddamn congress won't impeach them then lets shame them into resigning! One or the other both! Make videos! butt in on local news interviews they can't edit out everyone one quick simple word Resign! Resign! RESIGN! spray paint it ! Graffiti it! tattoo it! speak it! Shout it! scream it by the multitudes! Horton heard a goddamn who they'll hear us! All of us! YOP! YOP! YOP! Bring those motherers to their goddamn knees and tell them 'This IS Democracy !'"
-"People should go V for Vendetta on there a--!" (sic)
-"Maybe just maybe if all these cocksuckers came clean and fully admitted to being full of then we could perhaps start to make some headway. Of course that would require that most if not all would willingly resign and leave office. The sad thing is, this would probably happen before we the people could start a meaningful grassroots movement. In short if we let these motherers get by with this s--- we are all f---ed. And it will all be OUR fault."
-"Awesome. I want everyone to behave like the protesters towards the end of the clip. That would solve a lot."
-"i agree with the alst comment come on people. why dont 100K+ opf you go and protest ing hell i mean come on we all knows the only way that change is going to take place it takes a revolution to make major changes. get the out there and have mass protest" (sic)
-"Sure they lied about everything else, but Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, and all the other PNAC f---ers were nothing but honest about 9/11. /s INVESTIGATE the crime of the century for yourself."
-"I was think more on the lines of psychologically torturing them until they tear their own skin off. Now that sounds like something appealing."

And my personal favorite:

-"For all those that ask "What will you do?" I would say that if the next pres election goes bad (ex: clearly rigged or Giuliani wins, etc.) then you are going to see some major s--- go down."

Yeah... these are a bunch of intelligent and well-thought-out responses to the video.

Elliot

Yep. And they have the collective IQ of 82, and the education level of a 7-year-old. And it shows in their posts....

Yeah... these are a bunch of intelligent and well-thought-out responses to the video.

I see we're on the same page here... and these are the people we're supposed to rally behind. LOL!

I miss my dog
Me too, at least he made an honest attempt to cover his shat up.

I see we're on the same page here... and these are the people we're supposed to rally behind. LOL!
Rally behind common sense the way I did after Nixon and you'll be okay.

Hehe, it's the opinions of the new generation coming up behind you.

Hehe, it's the opinions of the new generation coming up behind you.

Just remember, Karma, he who is not a liberal when he is young has no heart. He who is not a conservative as they get older has no brain.

The kids posting at Digg are still young. They'll learn... at least most of them will. And those liberal opinions will turn mostly conservative as they gain experience. Just like how the liberal hippies of the 60 have mostly turned into the conservative mainstream of today. Life has a way of tuning people more conservative...

Elliot

Just remember, Karma, he who is not a liberal when he is young has no heart. He who is not a conservative as they get older has no brain.
That's pure bullcrap but thanks for posting it! Kind of let's us know how brainwashed you are.

Why lie? Hello Oracle:

Here's why: Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007 (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/)!

It's a full length movie. Cook some popcorn.

excon

excon,

I just downloaded it a couple of days ago and am looking forward to watching it. I've heard good things about that movie.

Hello Need:

I found it on that Digg site. I've never seen or heard of it before. It's very scary. It's very well done. It smashes some long held beliefs. It will piss everybody off. I thought I was smart. I thought I paid attention. I haven't.

I'm interested in what you think. I'm interested in what the rightwingers think too, but I'll bet they won't watch.

excon

If they do watch they will get together for the spin and swarm anyone who dares post a dissenting opinion of right wing stuff. :)

I haven't watched the full video that is the subject of this post . A full length feature . You must want me to vomit that popcorn.
To the O.M.
The first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change. This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UNSCR 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later. Saddam's violation of the arms control agreements that made up the Gulf War truce – and not the alleged existence of Iraqi WMDs – was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops to Iraq. If he was not in violation then it was incumbent according to the various resolutions for Saddam to provide the proof. He not only failed to do that but also impeded the arms inspection process right up to the end.

Hello tom:

I want you to hold your nose and watch. I respect your opinion. I've never seen ANYTHING like this before. If you need further encouragement to watch besides my request, plenty of leftist beliefs are shattered too.

excon

Hey, Karma, if you liked that one, you'll love this one:

How is liberalism like cotton candy?

It looks nice and tastes sweet at first, but as you get more into it you realize that it is mostly made up of fluff and hot air, and it isn't very good for you.

Elliot

That's your job old man - to make fun of those not like you. Go for it!

I'm not making fun of the people... just the stupid ideas they espouse.

OK on your recommendation I'll give it a try after my vacation . Wish it were out on DVD . Not sure my home computer will last a full length documentary .

Tom - I download it via bittorrent then burn it to DVD. Let me know if you'd be interested in getting set up for that.

You can make me angry when school costs so much and I work 3 jobs whle going at the same time. Fox news also makes me angry because it puts business first

Mario3 disagrees: what did you say about fox news? Look up how many men to female workers they have. Male-female ratio there is 97:1. then look up the white to other races

Mario3, I love it when someone challenges me with statistics. Unfortunately when the facts dispute those numbers, it never seems to convince the critic. A quick review (http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/#bios) blasts your manufactured statistic into oblivion.

If my numbers are correct, FNC has as of this writing 161 on-air contributors. 109 are male, 52 are female for a ratio of roughly 2:1. You may not like that either, but it's nowhere near a ridiculous 97:1.

I don't have time to do a racial demographics study, but if you had actually watched FNC you would see a number of regular, prominent minority contributors, black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian. You would also see a number of prominent regular liberal contributors - on EVERY news show - such as Mort Kondracke, Ellen Ratner, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Greta Van Sustern, Susan Estrich and Ellis Henican (a regular on O'Reilly) to name a few. In fact, it's rare to see one guest during a discussion of a political issue, you almost always see a guest from both sides.

FNC is as diverse as any network, perhaps more so than some. It only suffers from one 'problem' - a conservative viewpoint - which apparently blinds some people to the facts.


you can make me angry when school costs so much and I work 3 jobs whle going at the same time. Fox news also makes me angry because it puts business first

I can't help you with your school finances (but there are any number of grants available), but again, what is the evidence that FNC "puts business first" beyond the obvious, it's a business and businesses exist to make money?