 thisnamecantbetaken says: Be careful what you read online?!? Damn, I protest this! Sheesh, according to the Patriot Act § 802 and the definitions of domestic terrorism, legitimate protest could be prosecuted as terrorism! I kid you not! Hey, maybe this very clip could put me i Guantanamo! Folks, you'd better not pop this clip or they'll probably accuse you of giving me "material support" and end up in the cage next to mine! Oops, too late, if you've already read this far... Sheesh! Where will it end?!? Oh, well...orange suits me :o( (please send care packages) Addendum: How would people know what they shouldn't have read, BEFORE they've read it? And what exactly shouldn't be read? "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"... Anyone feeling free and brave enough to pop this? If not, I suppose Bush's fear campaign has done it's job.... Thanks for the support Djiezes! I'm guessing you too would rather die standing than live a life on your knees. And I'm gonna keep standing. Standing for freedom, freedom to think, freedom to speak out against injustice and freedom to peacefully protest a fascist government. So there! Right, what you said  See you in Guantanamo  It must be really puzzling and amusing to those living under real oppression--such as the recently protesting Iranian students--when they see those living in freedom posturing and pumping their fists at imagined oppression produced by paranoid fantasy. Oh, we're getting there! If you can't see it, it is YOU my "friend" who lives in a fantasy world. Posturing and paranoid? I was taught, that if you can't say anything nice about someone, then you shouldn't say anything at all and as not to repeat myself, my comments on my clip "UK want to drop "War on Terror" term" would totally apply to YOU right now. So just let people have their say, get off my clip it doesn't suit you, quit your Ad Hominem attacks and go be nasty somewhere else if you have nothing constructive to contribute. Bye bye now! ...chuckle chuckle "I speak not to convince people who do not know... but to support those who do" Oops! I forgot an important word: "I do not speak to convince people who do not WANT to know....but to support those who do" Actually, it was a sentence, not a word. From your prior comment to Godfrey Daniel - if you were taught to say nice or not say anything - did you actually learn that or you're just stating it for others to follow? I know you're relatively new here, perhaps you don't know how this works... you make the clip 'private' if you want to 'own' it. Otherwise it's fair game. Getting back to the clip - if what you're paranoid about was true - you'd already be arrested and on your way in some black helicopter to one of the secret prisons... where they'd torture you until you couldn't pull up Clipmarks any longer... chuckle, chuckle be arrested and on your way in some black helicopter to one of the secret prisons... where they'd torture you until you couldn't pull up Clipmarks any longer... Might not be a bad thing @RecordSage: No, it wasn't the a sentence...it was just the word...or two actually, if we're gonna be nitpicking. The words "WANT to" And I DO know how it works, but thanks anyway. They're not added to my private clips because of the very statement: "I do not speak to convince people who do not WANT to know....but to support those who do" My private clips ARE kept private, but according to comments I've read on the whole privacy issue, that would incur that I must be hiding something or have something devious up my sleeve. I wear clothes and underwear too, to cover fx my PRIVATE parts from the public eye, so I guess my private parts must be terrorist related or "evil-doers" , acco... (Chuckle chuckle...sorry, I couldn't resist putting in a bit af humour) Then you're absolutely right! I am (relatively) new here and may not know the "rules" because I thought clipmarks was supposed to be "bitesize bits of information" and a fun place to clip and be clipped. I didn't think is was supposed to be a "hate forum". I can't understand why people can't just be civil and talk nicely and discuss things in an orderly and polite fashion.... If you've been here so much longer than me (haven't checked) could you then explain it to me, because maybe I'm just too dense? Is viciousness the name of the game then? Educate me!!!! Maybe I'm just old fashioned and raised to believe on... paulday said:Thanks dude!! You just helped make my point! Chuckle chuckle... I have recently been playing a game based on Greek/Roman and Egyptian gods ... And it got me thinking - there have been a number of civilizations like the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans - super powers in their time. Could it be that we will witness the fall of the latest super power - maybe even in our own life time? It seems (IMHO) that America is heading for trouble, making poorly thought out decisions. And what of the 'terrorist' (another name for freedom fighter) - I'm not supporting their action - but I would like to know what has 'pissed them off' so much - maybe we can do something to repair the situation?! Nuke the bastards Thanks to those who pop and still dare speak out, despite the "obvious risks" be it from Big Brother or the "unagreeing"... (or the unagreeable? Let's say both)  Lovin' it!! Ha ha ha ha ha @StevenJohnSteele: StevenJohnSteele said:Listen especially from about 3:20 into the video, Dr. Stephen Hawking comments on this. It seems to support your assumption. BE careful this namecantbetaken, the thought police are not amused Oops...did I forget the link to the Stephen Hawking vid? Here it is: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=178f89d3d9987efabcf31c6fb8364fd6.654968&fr=yvmtf No SocraToad, I don't suppose they are Some people have a knack for bringing out the best in others. You do this with admirable wit and resiliency, thisnamecantbetaken.  Don't let those whose best is hate and heavyhandedness keep you from supporting the rest of us. Cheers Gee, thanks for that comment gingembre.... although judging by the comments I get, I sometimes feels more like I'm bringing out the worst in people Wit? Been bashed for that too... And as for resilience? You just gave me some more... Cheers right back at ya, mate Nice clip. Don't let the comments get you down, they're just doing their thing too. People here are really quite decent, but you have to be prepared for some pretty bare-knuckle political discussions if you post about politics. @enbar A little late to warn me now! ... chuckle chuckle Anyway, as you can see from my ranting, I'm okay with bare-knuckling. The issues are so important, that this is not the time to just lay down and give up. I could so easily just give it up, clip non-contraversial stuff only and stick to forums that have moderators, but I've never been one to walk away from a challenge... Freedom is never given, it is won and has to be fought for if you want to keep it or there are those just waiting to snatch it right out from under you. A lot of my friends had never even HEARD of the Military Commissions Act or even KNEW what the Patriot Act is about and that sort of shocked me into ha... Here's the problem with your little rang, thisnamecantbetaken - when you engage in 'hate' as you define - you consider that to be the norm. You dump on the President, dump on the troops etc. etc. - that's normal. That's legitimate 'democratic' dissent, something very healthy and needed in your mind. However, when someone challenges you - that's immediately hate and personal attacks. Slightly hypocritical... because by your own definition either you're the one projecting 'hate' or I'm not. As for 'fair game' - none of your definitions seem to fit, even the last one, although I admit it was kind of cute to include that one. Fair game simply meant that anyone can comment on your clips a... ...royally screwed. Something I'd rather not see, especially considering my two little kids as part of the equation. "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" Benjamin Franklin http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin Sigh....here we go again. RecordGage said:Outrage, protest or dissent does not equal PERSONAL attacks. As for my view point being challenges legimately? Where?!? I must have missed that. ... And nextly: said:That is a purely biased and a concocted assumption and drawing of your own conclusions, with which you in NO WAY can substantiate! Can you? Then by all means tell me how? By my phrase "We", I'm talking about "The Coalition of the Drilling" (as stated in other comments!) or at other times meaning "We, the West" or the democratic world. Neither have I at any time EVER said "my" government, but only "THE government or "the US government". (They would never be "mine" by any account, since I would never have voted the neo-con criminals into office in the first place, so it's... As for why the terrorists hate us so much (meaning "we" in the West", just in case you didn't grasp it the first time) COULD it be perhaps be, because of the lack of tolerance, understanding, respecting of minorities, be they religious or whatever) and other peoples view points?!? Because WE want to force OUR way onto others. Because WE wade into other countries and FORCE ourselves on them, whether they like it not, killing anyone who gets in our way? Could THAT perhaps be part of the equation? Could the horrendous behaviour of the scandalous soldiers in the video about the Iraqi kids being taunted (who ought to be court marshalled), perhaps be FUELLING the ever increasing number of people c... SteveJohnSteele made an interesting comment about 'just trying to figure out what pissed them off so much'. The answer is very simple - they hate your guts because you don't subscribe to their religion, don't live according to their understanding, set foot on their land and support their enemy. If you change all of these to their satisfaction - then maybe you can live.yes but the USA government also has a long (looong) history of interfering in other countrys - like doing a deal and financing the underdog in order to overthrow a government ... and then screwing the new government (former underdog) - and so the circle repeats. as for 'religion' most would agree that there is... I apologize to every one else for "shouting" but the accusations of troop bashing and other unsubstanted ludicious ravings just weren't something I could ignore. good luck with your cat, thisnamecantbetaken. now that your true face emerged - we'll leave it at that. If you actually supported the troops, perhaps you'd post videos of 99+% of them who are daily putting their neck on the line, building schools, roads, HELPING Iraqi children. But no, you can only muster showing a video of a few losers who somehow eeked into the US Military, out of hundreds of thousands that are there, and you think beating yourself in the chest in UPPERCASE letters will somehow show anyone anything. I don't know where you are and obviously you're too chicken to announce it, citizen of the world. You want to blame us for being 'intolerant' - go tell it to Nick Berg's f... You see, now that apology was funny... you're right - you do have a sense of humor... ...some of them (a lot of them) hijacked straight out of highschool to fight in an illegal war. So respectful. Illegal according to what law? You really are in a parallel universe. Under laws that were co-created, co-signed AND upheld by among other the US at the Nurenburg trials stating that no country must attack in acts of aggression or preemption against any other nation!! (paraphrased) AND which several US attorneys are now are asserting in their defense of innumerable US consciensious soldiers who have defected to Canada and how are now being called deserters and cowards by the neo-.cons and who risk prosecution under the "new" US stance and who REFUSE to fight in the ILLEGAL Iraqi war anymore!! Do your research!!! Who's living in a parallel universe now? Chuckle chuckle I think people usually tell us "internet is freedom". things change =) And I WOULD post "good" vids of the brave soldiers if I had the time and didn't have to deal with people, who speak nonsense before doing their research!!! And might I add .... that had Bush been put on trial for these crimes under these exact same laws in full efffect until Bush changed them more to his liking after 9/11...he would have been hung! So there! What now, eh? Got more you need answered? And before again trying to futilely disregarding this...DO THE RESEARCH!!! Sheesh! Ignorance should be a crime too... ...defected to Canada and how are now being called deserters and cowards ah, these are your "respected soldiers". You didn't make that clear previously. You are just a common variety internationalist of the type which howls and whines at any and all military action taken by the US or Israel in response, and have little or nothing to say in criticism of the true aggressors of the world. By the way, your all caps and multiple exclamation points match nicely with the silliness of your perceptions and opinions. And I hope my face HAS emerged showing that I don't speak of things I know nothing about and that, (unlike others who so obviously are making it very apparent that they HAVEN'T), I do my research! I did make it perfectly clear. I said "consciencious soldiers"... Can't you read? If you want to talk to one of our friendly CIA staff, just order the right books at amazon.com! We visit you at home - no need to call us! Go off and google about the so-called deserters and defecters (Neo-con phrase - DEFINITELY not mine) You'll find all you need to know there... Anyhow, gotta go... Argue among yourselves for a bit RecordSage said:RS, you do know, don't you, that both of the people you mention are on record as opposing current Bush administration policies? I do know that, enbar. However, let's not forget that it wasn't the George Bush or his administration that cut off those people's heads - you do know that, right? Are you trying to imply that just because their relatives don't agree with Bush administration - they don't mind terrorism and terrorists killing their relatives? I sincerely hope you don't, but you're making it sound like you do. thisnamecantbetaken considers himself well researched, although clearly both the agenda and his lack of logic on a number of things points otherwise... he doesn't quite measure up to our frield Ali, but as long as he continues with his 'research' - I'm sure he'll catch up. I don't mean to get into a... sorry, 'friend' and 'sea' and 'out of a'... will we ever get post-submit comment editing? sure would be nice. RecordSage said:Well! Again I see you just can't resist jumping to your own totally unfounded conclusions about something you know absolutely nothing about (as usual) and making yourself look a fool. You're just totally givin' it away RecordSage , this just too easy:How do you know that I'm not female? Chuckle chuckle (because I'm probably too chicken to tell, right? Ooh, I'm so scared! ) Oh. give me something REAL to work with here RecordSage! Ha ha ha ha ha...but yes, I DO consider myself well researched...as I know you can't help but see, since you don't seem bringing me any evidence to disclaim anything at al... ARTICLE 1 In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereafter called "the Tribunal") for the just and prompt trial and punishment of major war criminals of the European Axis. Are you still with me here? See, it says among others, the US? Okay, next bit: The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression,... Are you still with me here, or are the words too big? Chuckle chuckle.... take a real close look at (a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances See? That means preemption. Are you man/woman enough to admit I'm right amd you're not...again? Chuckle chuckle, no, I'm not expecting anything honourable from you, so just read it and weep instead. The Iraqi war is illegal and there's no ranting from you, that'e evr gonna change that. Unless of course you know something the whole international community doesn't? Then please, by all means, enlighten us? But as usual, you cant To make another point of mine clear: Here's a an articles for you to chew on about the first political refugees ever to escape OUT of the US, instead of into: "Flight from the fight": http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1190714,00.html There are plenty more where that came from, if you need more info. But on with the show. I'm off to clip an article about how the US government has covered up, that the actual number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is more than double that of which they're telling us. Confirmed by offiical reports and the DoD I might add...but hey, don't take my word for it. Try blasting me on that one, which you probably will...so see ya there! Bye bye now! chuckle chuckle Oh, by the way, later the laws created during The Nuremberg trials went on to become a major influence in the development of international criminal law, by which Bush indeed is quilty of "Crimes against Humanity" and "Crimes against Peace" punishable by death. So, are you now willing to admit that the war in Iraq is illegal? Yes or no... a simple question. Need time to research a bit before you anwer? Fine... I'll be waiting (PS) RecordSage said:Untrue and purposeless? As for the untrue, I have already made my case. As for purposeless? Exposing the injustice of it all, the lies, the coverups and deceptions of the the Dear Leader Bush and his merry gang of murderers in the US administratiom and speaking out against it, are the ONLY way to stop it and acheive any "decent resolution". If your solution is to remain silent of these atrocities, sheesh, then Hitler would have ruled the world! Bu... I know there are some people who no matter how much evidence you present them with, will STILL refuse to accept what is indisputable. So my clips are for those who don't know or would like to know know more. If it's not to you're liking then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that. Closemindedness is not a disease I have any cure for... Again: "I speak not to convince those who do not want to know, but to support those who do" and this very clip started off challenging the validity and saneness of the Patriot Act and other clips of mine will continue to challenge these new and facsist and totalitarian laws. What you're writing about thisnamecantbetaken, is something that was put together in a very different time frame, for a very different situation. If you think WW2 was won by dissent from people like you - you need to keep researching the subject. WW2 was won by sheer will and brute force of the Russians, with some help from the Allied countries. Even though the Partisans were very courageous and brave - they were no more than a tick on elephants shoulder. The peace agreement signed after WW1 didn't do its job and the fact that the world stood by and let hitler build up his weaponry and start the next world war was a major mistake, because if the world have intervened - there really was a... Different time, different situation true, but the International Criminal Laws (Built on the Nuremberg trials) are still the same today. No country may act in aggression against other nation. It's as simple as that, whether some deraged president says so or not. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act 2006 were put into place by the "Decider". Does that make it okay just because he says they are the law when it flies in the face of everything humane, decent, fair og moral? Is it okay that the Constitution is being dismantled under these "laws"? Is it okay the "law" be allowed to take away your rights to freedom. To having a fair trial? To having the right to confront your accusers? T... Patriotisme is not just blindly following some government, it is always challenging them to make sure they stay on the right track. To hold them accountable. Not to just follow along like sheeple because some leader tells you to, when everything inside you says it wrong. I will not accept that torture becomes acceptable. I will not accept that people aren't allowed a fair trial. That, is why I intend to defend the right thing, decency an the right to freedom as long as I have a breathe in my body to do so, and I wish everyone would do the same and speak out for what we all know to be true. An example: The law in Afghanistans forbids women to speak or think or educate themselves and forces them to wear a burka. Oh, it's okay then, because it's the law... no it isn't. Another example: In China, if you dare speak out, you're sent to jail to rot forever. Is that right? (Though the law) Is that what we want? No!. So challenge these laws! We've got to keep the president accountable...we just have to. Can't you at all see what I mean or are you just hell bent on not agreeing with me no matter what. And could you PLEASE stop making assumptions about me, you know nothing about? such as: Why weren't you yelling at the hezbollah for starting the war in Lebanon? Again: How do you know what I did or didn't do? Stop throwing accusations and lies at me that have no basis in reality. Just quit it. I protest any injustice...you should know that by now. And I would do that for anybody, of any religion, nationality, gender or whatever. Injustice is injustice. Show me where you have? That's what linking is all about. I'll be happy to retract my comments - just show me where... all I see is your vehement hate for Bush. And speaking of him - the guy can't pass any laws. What the heck are you talking about? Certainly he can push for some to be enacted, but it's up to Congress to do so and even then the Supreme Court can say 'nah, that's not flying here' and boom - back to the drawing board. I'm not saying that the President doesn't have influence, but to blame him alone for laws passed by someone else isn't right or you have to blame everyone in Senate, House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. I think if there was something illegal - he... This is really good! Thanks RecordSage, see now we're getting somewhere... The law was passed by Congress in October of this year, right about the time the whole Foley scandal was unfolding, so no-one really noticed. I've a got clip called "Long Live King George" that's got links. Otherwise just google "Military Commissions Act 2006". You'll find a link to the Act itself, but I warn you, it's pretty lengthy and tedious reading. There are also a lot of places you can find a concised version made by legal analysts that tell us what it all means in laymens terms. Ooh, this is really great, you want to know more. (There's stuff on google video too, a little easier to digest in the late nig... The Act has also been denounced by critics who assert that its wording makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President. The wording of section 948b[17] of the act appears to explicitly contradict the Third Geneva Convention of which the United States is currently a signatory. The Act also contains the suggestion that unlawful enemy combatant refers to any person "who, before, on, or after" (see this is scary too!) the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. (PS) The Tribunal mentioned is also people solely chosen by the president. That is also stated so... scary stuff! Scary indeed... so are you going to respond to my request by just pushing more of the same or actually respond? What on earth are you talking about?? Request for what? For "proof" that I defend injustice? Sheesh! This clip is one! You can't be serious! If you're expecting me to post my name, emails I have sent, give you my logins to various sites that defend human rights, animal rights or environmental issues, then you are sorely mistaken. Other than that, then you're just getting too ridiculous. It doesn't seem to me, that you want to learn anything at all.... that's too bad. Now I see, that all you're interested in is mudslinging and in that, I will not participate. I just lost all faith and patience with you, so don't expect me to respond to you anymore. You are clearly not worthy my time. Goodbye and good riddence. Moving on.... Forgot a word. No, not a sentence, just a word: For "proof" that I defend AGAINST injustice? Done. Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein No, I wasn't asking about that, I was asking about your anti-terrorist stand (hezbollah in particular). You accused me of accusing you, I was simply trying to see where I missed your condemnation of those characters. At least you're capable of quoting Einstein... ie not a total loss. |
View the Top Clips from December 13, 2006
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||
