Our ability to go further in debt in a semi linear upward fashion depends on GDP to parallel that line of the graph.If oil triples in price The GDP line will go negative and we will get stagflation.The 15 trillion debt can't weather that. The game will be over. That why we spend billions defending those oil fields. As long as the world is addicted to oil, not much will change.
Might makes right will stay in international politics for one reason. There is no higher authority then a state. UN is not a government, it does not have any powers over its member states. You break the law and the police comes, you break international law and who comes running? Nobody, most of the time. And i dont see states giving away a large part of their sovereignty to a supranational entity. International law works only because US, Europe, China and Russia play along 8 times out of 10.
Pft, if even that! - China aren't *exactly* going along with International Law in terms of Press Freedom and Human Rights, Russia's War Crimes in Chechnya and against its own people including Putin/Berezovsky's Kleptocracy, America's decision (Under Clinton, also a War Criminal) that they can rescind the Geneva Convention, Britain's decision that they can ignore the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.. I largely blame the U.S for the Culture of impunity though.
I understand John Lennon. You have been there. You had your friend shot right? Then feel all people that are not Islam need to convert or die. It is known the financial means of the war is coming from Iran. If it is you say what you say in Iran, you would of been silenced long ago. Same as Sudam Hussein did to anyone that did not think like him. You put on a uniform, and try to believe in a country that has people like you..
"You have been there. You had your friend shot right?"
Be less vague.
"say what you say in Iran, you would of been silenced long ago"
That depends on whether I'd have an internet connection, like I do here. Saying this outside, even here in Canada, has consequences. Irrelevant anyway, since I critiqued US foreign policy. Doing so in Iran makes one blend right in.
Now take an actual quote from the video & argue it.
@AntiBullshitMan. Iran is fueling the attention to shoot at Americans in Afghanistan, and also while we pulled out of Iraq. Iran declared a victory. These people did in fact attack the main land of the United States, to use Afghanistan as a training ground. So as then can not point the blame on any Legitimate country. Last time I looked at the defense budget, it is still less then the cold war. The guys commit suicide, yes is true. They try to do a job, with cuts, take this give it back. OK
2. The extent to which I "overthink" is impossible to tell anyway, given the obscenely infrequent rate of my video posting. The Segregation video which precedes this one was posted in all the way back in August. For all you know I could have partaken in wild orgies 24/7 over the course of September & October.
If by "anything" you mean it's limited to individuals who were veterans at the time they committed suicide, adjusted for a yearly breakdown, then sure, *anything* goes. The study I linked to was conducted across 45 States. It's quite a long paper, try control F and keyword search "veteran suicides" and it should take you to the main course. Also, the woman in the CNN interview about the suicides is herself a former service member. It's solid.
OK. Not sure what you're waiting for though. The underbar is updated with full bracketless links & one annotation has been made to specify that I was strictly speaking about vets.
Perhaps you would like to see the Nader link added to the underbar as well, since the actual statistics provided are apparently unsatisfactory & we need one of the few reasonably honest politicians like Nader to back them up.
So you ask for a source, receive it, then completely ignore it & carry on casually denying as if nothing happened. Perhaps you just need to hear it from an authority: watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc (@ 7:20)
Though you're more accurate than you know. I can't stress enough the bankrupt ditch the US is now under, which is why you cannot overlook the fiat factor. Solid in theory, but here it's been abused into oblivion & will likely continue until the 2 party system is forced to come to a halt.
Remove brackets. If it still doesn't work, I'll include the full link, bracket-free, in the underbar of this video when I get home (currently responding from my cell phone, can't edit underbar).
Based on the quote you left, I didn't refer to veterans. I can't view/load my vid now to confirm if I specified that it's vets, but will double-check once I get in. If need be, I'll add an annotation so that there's no confusion.
whoa cool vid dude, you the man, the one point i'd like to make is, man seems to like war, sometimes its not patriotism that sends a man to war - they just go to kill, it seems to be in our nature, i doubt they have mass troop suicides in those countries you mentioned - why because they give hand grenades to their sons as birthday presents
Excellent points here. When folks say they "support the troops but not the war," they're expressing empathy for what soldiers experience as human beings under duress of war. The crime is that this human sympathy is also extracted via duress, as moral blackmail by the warmongers.
@TheAzov exactly right. people may have all the best intentions in the world by saying they 'support the troops but not the war, the problem is they are lending validity to whatever fuck up invasion the troops are being used for... which is basically what you said and therefore this comment was superfluous. ah well..
@SkidRowRadio It can't be said too often in too many ways. In the States I can't have health care because that's a "waste" of other people's taxes, and immoral; but it's financial and moral righteousness incarnate to waste everyone's national treasure on jet fuel to bomb civilians. The world is run by insane idiots dribbling in their Cheerios. :(
@SkidRowRadio As i said in 1 of my earlier post skid, this glamorizing the troops is why 1 of Shawn's friends joined, he wanted to serve his country and be a hero. A bullet through the skull, and massive damage to his nerves, and motor functions later. He is singing a different tune.
BTW anti bull shit man. You are right sir. The number of troops who are against all 3 wars is on the rise big time. So yes you are correct.
@whedonfreak976 you know someone who got shot in the head out there? damn! close to home eh? yea, its the only boom industry in america and it's all paid for by you, to the detriment of everything else that currently desperately needs funding. $750b last year alone., well over $2trillion since the iraq invasions. think what that could have done for domestic issues..
Ask a friend of mine who was sold on this glamorizing of war, he went in, got shot, it damaged his brain, and he cannot think good now. And he tries to get as many not to enroll, is he for our country getting "blown up" No.
It was this ra ra go war heroes attitude that got him to want to go in and serve his country. Ask him if going to a country with mythical WMD was worth it.
It does seem that when you make a video, and this has happened to my brother and I both, that if you are not down to the detail specific on something your opponents will straw man the hell out of your video.
I know this does not have to do with the video although you did mention Libya, i think Obama is a bigger war monger than bush was. It is like he wants to show off how much he loves war.
And for those out there you will jump onto people like my brother and i for not blindly supporting wars. >
27.34 minutes? You are a hypocrite for not going 28 minutes! ;)
Word. Yeah I find this all or nothing hypocrite accusation strategy very annoying. Apparently one can only voice a view if you are willing to get your livelihood destroyed for it.
I highly suggest you research the US Army air defense artillery branch if you think this war is pointless, it's an important factor that many people overlook. Not saying that it validates anything, but just look at it and you'll know what I mean.
Where do you get your news from? Please show me evidence that the number of violent rebel deaths came even close to exceeding the number of innocent civilian deaths at the hands of NATO or even just the number of innocent civilians who are now suffering a much worse fate under the current Islamo-fascists & anti-women's rights reformists.
The overwhelming majority of Libyans supported Gaddafi over the rebels. The post-1969 high living standards in Libya overrode his many flaws.
If the Libyan operation was justified on account of force being used against the rebels, then it would logically follow for you to take this video 100% seriously: /watch?v=rcXzuafPdew
Lest you be perfectly comfortable with the exceptionalism I spoke out against in the video.
Of course it's exceptional, and i am, just like many others here, against the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. But still it's not exceptional, because Libya was not ignored, but because Syria (at the UN) and Bahrain (by the US) were ignored. I was for the operation in Libya, because it saved a lot of lives and we could make a point, that the west is not a pro-dictator bloc.
Btw: It's justified, because Gaddafi used artillery force against the civilian protesters, not the rebels!
Again, you need actual evidence of this for starters. Taking CNN "eye-witness" testimony at face value is laughable. The agenda there is crystal clear. Right now your position sounds like the typical product of Western smoke-screening in its most raw form. All media outlets that peddled the supposed willy-nilly killing of many innocent civilians, happened to be the very outlets that coincidentally failed to report the 1+ million Libyans coming out to rally behind G in Tripoli. But even if...
Even if we grant the evidence peddled by Western interests, the far greater # of innocent civilians killed/wounded from NATO bombings, women losing rights under the new regime, the fact that Libya is now in ruins & must turn to external "investment" to get things running, & when Western capital flows, the bases follow. NATO's in there for the long haul & when the rebels start slaughtering each other, look for it to *intervene* again & impose its own client, bringing another round of *stability*.
All that, because CNN told you Gaddafi done did a big no-no (as every other dictator, ever). Look at the treatment of PEACEFUL protesters in the US. You exemplify the necessity for Proteanview's vid.
Bringing democracy at the barrel of a gun is a messy beast, with a history of failure. We should talk in 6 months, when Afghanistan & Iraq both look like success stories in comparison to Libya. This is March 2003 all over again, just swap "WMDs" for "Gaddafi killed them bystanders" & it's a go.
Your first sentence makes no sense, but concerning the peaceful protesters in the US: They weren't met with live ammution and then declared, that "every street has to be cleared from the traitors". OWS has been met with relative(!) softness, like you would expect from a democracy.
So you think, that Libya is fucked up anyways and should have been left alone, am i reading that correctly? Also: No boots on the ground, NATO already gone, in no way comparable to 2003.
@M "So you think, that Libya is fucked up anyways"
No, not "anyways". I was clear in my original statement. Libya had the highest living standards in all of Africa, prior to March 2011. You're fine with sacrificing that, along with women's rights, infrastructure, nationalized oil; it's all worth it because preventing the killing of a violent, fringe segment of the pop, predominantly composed of Sharia Law enthusiasts, is going to bring about a net-benefit to the country?
Libya is the only country in Africa, that actually has compared to its small population so much oil, no wonder it scores so well on the HDI! If you would have said "highest living standards in the middle east", then you would be clearly wrong. Further: Shari'a was already in place under Gaddafi, i'm for a democracy, which in the long term will bring improvement to civil society. But you're right, that Libya will get a flawed democracy, which still is better than Gaddafi.
Non-sequitur. Those same exact components existed prior to 1969, yet people gleaned none of the benefits, until Gaddafi came into power. You're so clearly biased & hung-up on what happened to the rebels prior to NATO's arrival, that everything else must be twisted or undermined until your shortsightedness passes for 20/20. Deny it, but it's no different than wearing tunnelvision WMD foggles. At least preface your excuses as "the lesser of evils"
You seem to not know history. Before the oil was discovered Libya was one of the poorest countries of the world, with extremely low literacy rates and nearly no infrastructure to begin with. No wonder, that until 1969 it couldn't be Dubai. And even so: What would i expect from an absolute monarch? Gaddafi nationalized oil and used parts of it for infrastructure building. We can't determine, if another "leader" (democratic or not) would have been better or worse. It's futile.
You're clueless. He suspended all legislation in '73, initially claiming Sharia as future "law of the land". Their dual-court system was abolished that year & replaced by a single one which was meant to merge Islamic & Secular principles. With secularism predominantly gaining ground as early as '74, Islamicisation of laws came to a halt. He published "The Green Book" in '75, then made further concessions to Secularism in many areas by the late 70s.
Ok, that is even worse. One law influenced by shari'a contrary to two law systems having different topics (shari'a normally deals with civil court issues) is in my opinion not really better. It is contrary to the concept of secularism in general, because by the religion and law system are merged together, not coexisting. So at least Shari'a was indeed in place under Gaddafi, even if it's not the cliché hanbalit one.
What the fuck is this? Did you not read over the rather long exchange in which I already proved your claim as being false? I'd imagine you did seeing as how you replied to the tail end of that, meaning you'd have read the following: With Secularism predominantly gaining ground as early as '74, Islamicisation of laws came to a halt. He published "The Green Book" in '75, then made further concessions to Secularism in many areas by the late 70s.
None of this information is difficult to find online
"A committee was set up to prepare the Islamisation of the Libyan legal system. The committee’s activities resulted in four laws with regard to the hadd crimes and related offences, enacted between 1972 and 1974"
4 laws. 4 fucking laws added, with secularism gaining ground heavily following the 70s, as stated before. Sharia law =/= couple of pro-Islam laws
You are morally bankrupt. You are supporting a dictator just because he happened to sit on oil. Guess what! He sponsored a lot of communist and islamist militias, he was partially responsible for helping islamists rise (until the 70s the arab world was relatively secular, so he already did backroll achievements, and Islam was part of his ideology mix). And even thinking, that Jalil is a piece of shit, that damaged his society already, a democracy is preferable to G in any way.
You said Iraq was a mistake. I must ask, how did you like it when your fact-based arguments for why it was a mistake, were met with "You are supporting a dictator" verbiage by Neo-cons? Must have been very obnoxious to have to explain how your opposition to the violent overthrow of Hussein at that time & through those poor methods, was not grounded in your support of him, & that grownups have these things called multi-layered factors that they can conceive of.
You're the morally & factually bankrupt one here, for continuing to peddle short-sided rationalizations for the completely unnecessary bombing of that country. G is just one of the many dictators whose terror has, when convenient, been enabled by Western powers. Just another reason why, if you had a shred of decency or consistency, you'd follow through & call for the violent overthrow of the current US administration, & prosecute its predecessors over the past 6+ decades.
Of course Gaddafi has been helped by the west, at least until the Lockerbie "repentence" time. But even if that's hypocritical, it doesn't destroy the reason itself to help defend the civilian population. If the UN wouldn't have enabled the NATO mission, the peaceful demonstrations would have resulted in nothing but terror or devastation because of guerilla warfare. But you seem to think, that it was the libyans, that started the violence. Where is your evidence for that?
So you find something relatively(!) soft about rubber bullets being shot at participants of peaceful assemblies, the Scott Olsen incident, or the many other acts of police brutality perpetrated without warning or provocation. You say this with a straight face, then do a complete 180 with the corc tears for militant Islamist thugs, as you endorse the violent overthrow of a guy who, for all his flaws, has an unmatched record as it pertains to bringing his people out of abject poverty.
Relative(!), yeah. One person deeply injured, many more lightly injured. In Libya there were hundreds killed only on the first days, in Tripoli even supposedly 700. How can you even compare that and with a straight face say, that the counter-violence was nothing more than an islamist hate intifada, if you haven't studied it at all? The militias are so divergent as they could be for a civic uprising, and yeah, a few of them were islamist ones having violated human rights.
@M "in Tripoli even supposedly 700. How can you even compare that"
Because, for starters, no media outlet or source peddling this has provided sufficient evidence that a substantial number of them were non-rebels. Furthermore, the post-NATO-entry death toll currently sits at an estimated 50-60K Libyans. The post-NATO-entry wounded casualties estimate currently sits at well over 100K Libyans. Had NATO not propped this up to "Civil War" status, the casualties would be one fifth of this, at most.
I explicitly said "supposedly", because i haven't been able to confirm it either. Correct me, if i'm wrong, but afaik, these demonstrators in Tripoli were unarmed, regardless, how much they liked "the rebels".
"Had NATO not propped this up to "Civil War" status, the casualties would be one fifth of this, at most."
The UN mandate was to protect civilians, and exactly that was done. Until NATOs involvement there was a high civilian death toll, then significantly smaller.
Bringing his people out of abject poverty is, of course, what made the West's opportunistic mouth water in the 1st place; the alternative methods under which such resources could be utilized. Why spend on people when privatized drill-baby-drill has worked out so well for the oligarchs back home. If G crossed the line with anything, it was refusal to play IMF ball, not rebel retaliation. There's no gain in forcing democracy in Nations that actually have poor living standards(IE: actually need it)
I am reading this correctly, you really think, that Gaddafi was a good guy. Antibullshitman, it's not a value to sit on oil, that just (10 years earlier) has been discovered and supersede a weak old monarch. Gaddafis "contributions" were shari'a law, an incoherent book as state doctrine, brutal repression, the throwing out of massive money to foreign militias with mixed reputations, corruption, atrocities and a total lack of any political participation or institutions.
@M "you really think, that Gaddafi was a good guy"
I don't, as I said a few posts back. I'm just capable of recognizing that bad guys can do good things, & every politician/leader is a bad guy. When playing world police, go after bad guys who do no good.
"Gaddafis "contributions" were shari'a law, an incoherent book as state doctrine, brutal repression"
This, is CNN.
I'm from Serbia. I've been clued in to Libya for ages, through friends working there. Their experience > Your virtual reality.
I mistook you then here, sorry for that. I'm just used to people, that see behind every western step in arab countries an imperialist plot and therefor defend Gaddafi still.
"When playing world police, go after bad guys who do no good."
Which is impossible. Even the nazis built up an effective centralized state in germany, which was used to particularism.
"This, is CNN."
"I'm from Serbia."
Understand, similarities there.
tinyu rl.co m/5szpzbm But the rebels are not the UCK.
UNLESS YOU'RE A FOREIGN CITIZEN, IN WHICH CASE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM BOTH STANDING IN FRONT OF YOUR TROOPS AS WELL AS BEHIND THEM, FOR YOUR PRESENCE MAY DERAIL OUR ADMIN'S AGENDA WHICH WE'RE SUPPOSED TO OPPOSE ANYWAY BUT DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT NOW.
@AntiBullshitMan G'day. Um, 5% people have 2 copies Human Killer Gene, 10% have 1 Copy. 13% US Marines fired their weapon 1st time in Combat, WW2..! 60 days Continuous Combat results in 98% Participants being Psychiatric Casualties. Com.Vet's have 2x Death by Suicide Rate of background Pop.. Com.Vet's KIDS have 3x the Suicide Deathrate, + 1.8x Accidental +1.2x the Illness Deathrates... Darwin Award, upon Enlisting. Warriors self-cull, y'see ?
If people really want to support the troops, well let's try and change our foreign policy to not just go around and bomb other countries, so that we will not get soldiers mindlessly killed, get off our dependence of foreign oil, and keep our troops safe.
Also great videos are never 2 long, only bad ones. Try watching fringeelements history of race video, it clocked in at i kid you not almost 4 hours. I could not get past the first 30 mins Oye.
First off former service members oops. 22:07 I was trying to tell a person on here, my brother and I where that invading Iraq was a war crime, and that even though our troops were just following orders, they where turned into murders, well that is all combat troops are when you get down to it. Anyway that even our troops where war criminals because we invaded a country that did not attack us, he thought we hated the troops, he served in Iraq so it sounded like he was making excuses. Cont.
0:44 Yes, as the brother of 3 service members oh believe me, i know how people worshiping the troops can feed the ego. 12:08 That is what i keep trying to tell people who blindly support the troops no matter what, is do they think Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The kids who are alive anyway from these wars are not gonna shake America's hand for "democracy" When they grow up, all they are gonna think about is their mommy, or daddy who where killed.
@AntiBullshitMan G'day... Good clip. Y're on the right track..! Free Will means you are able to choose NOT TO KILL. Or to Obey Paradigms to Work, Earn, Pay Tax, Fund the Military, Pay Somebody to Polish Weapons ; and hide your Paranoid Persecution Fantasies behind the Muzzles, of the Weapons you helped fund. You can Obey Orders, wave A Flag, Feel Duly Patriotic; supporting Any Cunt-Tree, on Earth. Nobody has the "Right" to Kill, or to Punish !
Probably the best piece on the subject, at least on YT. Covers everything from the basics all the way to deterministic reconciliation for the prevailing necessity of civilization and judiciaries.
So you're a reverse-juggler. Endorsing the bombing of Libya, while opposing the bombing and subsequent occupations of Irag and Afghanistan, makes about as much sense as being an isolationist in respects to Rwanda and WW2, but not Vietnam.
The official new gov't has reeked severe havoc in Libya already, and it's just getting warmed up.
@AntiBullshitMan so you would have prefered letting Gaddafi keep bombing peaceful protestors with fighterplanes and artilery? and I can see no US occupation of libya, and there is quite a difference between rwanda and nam, dont you think? In the former, it was the US who committed the genocide, for no good reason, and in the latter an intervention could have prevented one
"you would have prefered letting Gaddafi keep bombing peaceful protestors?"
Gaddafi forces retaliating rebel force by way of force, is not "bombing innocent protesters". There was some collateral damage, but the blatant exaggeration by Western S.I. driven media, coupled with the fact that collateral damage by way of NATO bombs greatly outweighed the former (& continues to, under the new anti-woman regime).
See my replies to the same contention above, where I expand on the true net-benefit here
Glad to see more and more videos criticizing the actions and motives of soldiers in a military, and not just the higher ups in the military. It is just not enough of those kinds of videos out there and when videos like that are made, people want to jump down your throat or even send fake death threats for criticizing the actions of the troops.
I've had my share of threats over it, though they would always come from anonymous youtubers... up until the 10th year anniversary of 9/11, when I got it on with a few coworkers (they insisted on having the 9/11 Ground Zero ceremony played on the radio) resulting in a veiled threat levied against me after a mere 15 minutes of argumentation. It's a step up from doing it while hiding behind a keyboard, so I gotta give them props there at least.
One day a 12 year old girl approach me when I was in uniform to give me a card that said "Thank U for all U do!"
I thought that was sweet. Of course I also felt awkward because I was realizing all of the corruption and staged events that rally people into a war they don't even understand.
I feel bad because non critical thinkers can not be shown the true. Unless you are in a set position they are basically trained to obey like government, their pastors and preachers, movement leaders, etc.
I keep coming across apologies (coming from different people) for long or multi-part videos, so FYI: When I'm subbed to someone, the offensively long or just long vids are something I look forward to. I don't think I'm particularly unique in that respect.
Oh but you are. Wish you weren't, but it's true. The unlimited upload privilege that YT has blessed us with has turned out to be the biggest double edged sword in internet history. On one hand, I don't have to rush and can account for under-qualified context which blighted my previous vids on the same subject, thereby avoiding vacuous disagreement. On the other hand, everyone's viewership has dropped due to the greatly longer vids & more vloggers than ever.
Our ability to go further in debt in a semi linear upward fashion depends on GDP to parallel that line of the graph.If oil triples in price The GDP line will go negative and we will get stagflation.The 15 trillion debt can't weather that. The game will be over. That why we spend billions defending those oil fields. As long as the world is addicted to oil, not much will change.
superjtrdr 2 months ago
That was quite impressive. Not everyone can speak for a half hour on a topic and remain articulate throughout.
KarlHeinzofWpg 2 months ago
support our troops should bbe followerd immediately by" bring them home alive now"
MrGOTAMA420 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
MrGOTAMA420 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Might makes right will stay in international politics for one reason. There is no higher authority then a state. UN is not a government, it does not have any powers over its member states. You break the law and the police comes, you break international law and who comes running? Nobody, most of the time. And i dont see states giving away a large part of their sovereignty to a supranational entity. International law works only because US, Europe, China and Russia play along 8 times out of 10.
KarujaSipelgas 3 months ago
@KarujaSipelgas
Pft, if even that! - China aren't *exactly* going along with International Law in terms of Press Freedom and Human Rights, Russia's War Crimes in Chechnya and against its own people including Putin/Berezovsky's Kleptocracy, America's decision (Under Clinton, also a War Criminal) that they can rescind the Geneva Convention, Britain's decision that they can ignore the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.. I largely blame the U.S for the Culture of impunity though.
BelfastAtheist 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Why do you think people reenlist because of peoples support or "hero-worship"? I think the reasons are more mundane.
KarujaSipelgas 3 months ago
I understand John Lennon. You have been there. You had your friend shot right? Then feel all people that are not Islam need to convert or die. It is known the financial means of the war is coming from Iran. If it is you say what you say in Iran, you would of been silenced long ago. Same as Sudam Hussein did to anyone that did not think like him. You put on a uniform, and try to believe in a country that has people like you..
OMGIWhat 3 months ago
"I understand John Lennon"
John Lennon/poetry is entirely irrelevant here.
"You have been there. You had your friend shot right?"
Be less vague.
"say what you say in Iran, you would of been silenced long ago"
That depends on whether I'd have an internet connection, like I do here. Saying this outside, even here in Canada, has consequences. Irrelevant anyway, since I critiqued US foreign policy. Doing so in Iran makes one blend right in.
Now take an actual quote from the video & argue it.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago 11
@AntiBullshitMan. Iran is fueling the attention to shoot at Americans in Afghanistan, and also while we pulled out of Iraq. Iran declared a victory. These people did in fact attack the main land of the United States, to use Afghanistan as a training ground. So as then can not point the blame on any Legitimate country. Last time I looked at the defense budget, it is still less then the cold war. The guys commit suicide, yes is true. They try to do a job, with cuts, take this give it back. OK
OMGIWhat 3 months ago
@OMGIWhat
You're all over the place. Look at your first comment. Look at my response to it.
Now look at your response to my response. Stick to the points you made originally, or concede that my reply is why you shifted goal posts.
Regardless: None of this has anything to do with the concepts raised in the video.
"also while we pulled out of Iraq. Iran declared victory"
We haven't pulled out of Iraq. And people all throughout the Middle East declare nebulous victories as often as I blink.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago 11
@AntiBullshitMan Ok, I am all over the place. I told you reason. It was Then ended in 9/11. You right.
OMGIWhat 3 months ago
hey antiman everythings good? long time no seen
IceysMoment 3 months ago
@IceysMoment
Hi Bella. Things are fine on this side of the pond, just a bunch of same old, same old.
Hope Sweden's treating you well.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago
@TheBlood2pay
1. No such thing as too much thinking.
2. The extent to which I "overthink" is impossible to tell anyway, given the obscenely infrequent rate of my video posting. The Segregation video which precedes this one was posted in all the way back in August. For all you know I could have partaken in wild orgies 24/7 over the course of September & October.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago
@Steelsixtysix "Vets ? but that can mean anything"
If by "anything" you mean it's limited to individuals who were veterans at the time they committed suicide, adjusted for a yearly breakdown, then sure, *anything* goes. The study I linked to was conducted across 45 States. It's quite a long paper, try control F and keyword search "veteran suicides" and it should take you to the main course. Also, the woman in the CNN interview about the suicides is herself a former service member. It's solid.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago
@Steelsixtysix "I will wait until you double check."
OK. Not sure what you're waiting for though. The underbar is updated with full bracketless links & one annotation has been made to specify that I was strictly speaking about vets.
Perhaps you would like to see the Nader link added to the underbar as well, since the actual statistics provided are apparently unsatisfactory & we need one of the few reasonably honest politicians like Nader to back them up.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago
"impossible"
So you ask for a source, receive it, then completely ignore it & carry on casually denying as if nothing happened. Perhaps you just need to hear it from an authority: watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc (@ 7:20)
Though you're more accurate than you know. I can't stress enough the bankrupt ditch the US is now under, which is why you cannot overlook the fiat factor. Solid in theory, but here it's been abused into oblivion & will likely continue until the 2 party system is forced to come to a halt.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago
If link fails & you're impatient, here's additional commentary on YT, found after a 5 second search: watch?v=Q-lF5Cw5yrI
The heart of mainstream US news, very much pro-US military.
As for the war-costs source: costofwar(.)com/en/
"bankruptcy"
They're already bankrupt. Have been for ages. There's this crazy new thing out called fiat currency. I'm sure you've heard of it.
For centuries now gov'ts have recklessly printed in order to fund otherwise unaffordable wars.
Surely. You. Know. This.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago
@Steelsixtysix
Suicide source: cjcj(.)org/files/another_emerging(.)pdf
Remove brackets. If it still doesn't work, I'll include the full link, bracket-free, in the underbar of this video when I get home (currently responding from my cell phone, can't edit underbar).
Based on the quote you left, I didn't refer to veterans. I can't view/load my vid now to confirm if I specified that it's vets, but will double-check once I get in. If need be, I'll add an annotation so that there's no confusion.
AntiBullshitMan 3 months ago
Thank you for this video
helenaFrankestain 4 months ago
whoa cool vid dude, you the man, the one point i'd like to make is, man seems to like war, sometimes its not patriotism that sends a man to war - they just go to kill, it seems to be in our nature, i doubt they have mass troop suicides in those countries you mentioned - why because they give hand grenades to their sons as birthday presents
human453 4 months ago
Brilliant as always. Wish you'd make more vids.
pomcgo 4 months ago
@theticketybooboo (basic sophistication? yeah, I said it.)
And that is why we love ya boo boo. But i think you are being 2 nice to these jerks. But that is o k :D
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
Ultimate extremes: antinatalism ;)
Snagabott 4 months ago
Excellent points here. When folks say they "support the troops but not the war," they're expressing empathy for what soldiers experience as human beings under duress of war. The crime is that this human sympathy is also extracted via duress, as moral blackmail by the warmongers.
TheAzov 4 months ago
@TheAzov exactly right. people may have all the best intentions in the world by saying they 'support the troops but not the war, the problem is they are lending validity to whatever fuck up invasion the troops are being used for... which is basically what you said and therefore this comment was superfluous. ah well..
SkidRowRadio 4 months ago
@SkidRowRadio It can't be said too often in too many ways. In the States I can't have health care because that's a "waste" of other people's taxes, and immoral; but it's financial and moral righteousness incarnate to waste everyone's national treasure on jet fuel to bomb civilians. The world is run by insane idiots dribbling in their Cheerios. :(
TheAzov 4 months ago
@SkidRowRadio As i said in 1 of my earlier post skid, this glamorizing the troops is why 1 of Shawn's friends joined, he wanted to serve his country and be a hero. A bullet through the skull, and massive damage to his nerves, and motor functions later. He is singing a different tune.
BTW anti bull shit man. You are right sir. The number of troops who are against all 3 wars is on the rise big time. So yes you are correct.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
@whedonfreak976 you know someone who got shot in the head out there? damn! close to home eh? yea, its the only boom industry in america and it's all paid for by you, to the detriment of everything else that currently desperately needs funding. $750b last year alone., well over $2trillion since the iraq invasions. think what that could have done for domestic issues..
SkidRowRadio 4 months ago
Ask a friend of mine who was sold on this glamorizing of war, he went in, got shot, it damaged his brain, and he cannot think good now. And he tries to get as many not to enroll, is he for our country getting "blown up" No.
It was this ra ra go war heroes attitude that got him to want to go in and serve his country. Ask him if going to a country with mythical WMD was worth it.
FangoFan68 4 months ago
It does seem that when you make a video, and this has happened to my brother and I both, that if you are not down to the detail specific on something your opponents will straw man the hell out of your video.
I know this does not have to do with the video although you did mention Libya, i think Obama is a bigger war monger than bush was. It is like he wants to show off how much he loves war.
And for those out there you will jump onto people like my brother and i for not blindly supporting wars. >
FangoFan68 4 months ago
27.34 minutes? You are a hypocrite for not going 28 minutes! ;)
Word. Yeah I find this all or nothing hypocrite accusation strategy very annoying. Apparently one can only voice a view if you are willing to get your livelihood destroyed for it.
socrates856 4 months ago
I highly suggest you research the US Army air defense artillery branch if you think this war is pointless, it's an important factor that many people overlook. Not saying that it validates anything, but just look at it and you'll know what I mean.
DrinkOfTheCloud 4 months ago
The Libya operation was justified, and if not for the future of libya, then at least for prevention of a lot of civilian deaths.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@MardasMan
Where do you get your news from? Please show me evidence that the number of violent rebel deaths came even close to exceeding the number of innocent civilian deaths at the hands of NATO or even just the number of innocent civilians who are now suffering a much worse fate under the current Islamo-fascists & anti-women's rights reformists.
The overwhelming majority of Libyans supported Gaddafi over the rebels. The post-1969 high living standards in Libya overrode his many flaws.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@MardasMan
If the Libyan operation was justified on account of force being used against the rebels, then it would logically follow for you to take this video 100% seriously: /watch?v=rcXzuafPdew
Lest you be perfectly comfortable with the exceptionalism I spoke out against in the video.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Of course it's exceptional, and i am, just like many others here, against the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. But still it's not exceptional, because Libya was not ignored, but because Syria (at the UN) and Bahrain (by the US) were ignored. I was for the operation in Libya, because it saved a lot of lives and we could make a point, that the west is not a pro-dictator bloc.
Btw: It's justified, because Gaddafi used artillery force against the civilian protesters, not the rebels!
MardasMan 4 months ago
@M
Again, you need actual evidence of this for starters. Taking CNN "eye-witness" testimony at face value is laughable. The agenda there is crystal clear. Right now your position sounds like the typical product of Western smoke-screening in its most raw form. All media outlets that peddled the supposed willy-nilly killing of many innocent civilians, happened to be the very outlets that coincidentally failed to report the 1+ million Libyans coming out to rally behind G in Tripoli. But even if...
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
Even if we grant the evidence peddled by Western interests, the far greater # of innocent civilians killed/wounded from NATO bombings, women losing rights under the new regime, the fact that Libya is now in ruins & must turn to external "investment" to get things running, & when Western capital flows, the bases follow. NATO's in there for the long haul & when the rebels start slaughtering each other, look for it to *intervene* again & impose its own client, bringing another round of *stability*.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@M
All that, because CNN told you Gaddafi done did a big no-no (as every other dictator, ever). Look at the treatment of PEACEFUL protesters in the US. You exemplify the necessity for Proteanview's vid.
Bringing democracy at the barrel of a gun is a messy beast, with a history of failure. We should talk in 6 months, when Afghanistan & Iraq both look like success stories in comparison to Libya. This is March 2003 all over again, just swap "WMDs" for "Gaddafi killed them bystanders" & it's a go.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Your first sentence makes no sense, but concerning the peaceful protesters in the US: They weren't met with live ammution and then declared, that "every street has to be cleared from the traitors". OWS has been met with relative(!) softness, like you would expect from a democracy.
So you think, that Libya is fucked up anyways and should have been left alone, am i reading that correctly? Also: No boots on the ground, NATO already gone, in no way comparable to 2003.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@M "So you think, that Libya is fucked up anyways"
No, not "anyways". I was clear in my original statement. Libya had the highest living standards in all of Africa, prior to March 2011. You're fine with sacrificing that, along with women's rights, infrastructure, nationalized oil; it's all worth it because preventing the killing of a violent, fringe segment of the pop, predominantly composed of Sharia Law enthusiasts, is going to bring about a net-benefit to the country?
Your math is vacuous.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Libya is the only country in Africa, that actually has compared to its small population so much oil, no wonder it scores so well on the HDI! If you would have said "highest living standards in the middle east", then you would be clearly wrong. Further: Shari'a was already in place under Gaddafi, i'm for a democracy, which in the long term will bring improvement to civil society. But you're right, that Libya will get a flawed democracy, which still is better than Gaddafi.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@M "compared to its small population so much oil"
Non-sequitur. Those same exact components existed prior to 1969, yet people gleaned none of the benefits, until Gaddafi came into power. You're so clearly biased & hung-up on what happened to the rebels prior to NATO's arrival, that everything else must be twisted or undermined until your shortsightedness passes for 20/20. Deny it, but it's no different than wearing tunnelvision WMD foggles. At least preface your excuses as "the lesser of evils"
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
You seem to not know history. Before the oil was discovered Libya was one of the poorest countries of the world, with extremely low literacy rates and nearly no infrastructure to begin with. No wonder, that until 1969 it couldn't be Dubai. And even so: What would i expect from an absolute monarch? Gaddafi nationalized oil and used parts of it for infrastructure building. We can't determine, if another "leader" (democratic or not) would have been better or worse. It's futile.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@M "Sharia was already in place under Gaddafi"
You're clueless. He suspended all legislation in '73, initially claiming Sharia as future "law of the land". Their dual-court system was abolished that year & replaced by a single one which was meant to merge Islamic & Secular principles. With secularism predominantly gaining ground as early as '74, Islamicisation of laws came to a halt. He published "The Green Book" in '75, then made further concessions to Secularism in many areas by the late 70s.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Ok, that is even worse. One law influenced by shari'a contrary to two law systems having different topics (shari'a normally deals with civil court issues) is in my opinion not really better. It is contrary to the concept of secularism in general, because by the religion and law system are merged together, not coexisting. So at least Shari'a was indeed in place under Gaddafi, even if it's not the cliché hanbalit one.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Sharia WAS in effect during his reign. This is fact.
costagreek19 2 months ago
What the fuck is this? Did you not read over the rather long exchange in which I already proved your claim as being false? I'd imagine you did seeing as how you replied to the tail end of that, meaning you'd have read the following: With Secularism predominantly gaining ground as early as '74, Islamicisation of laws came to a halt. He published "The Green Book" in '75, then made further concessions to Secularism in many areas by the late 70s.
None of this information is difficult to find online
AntiBullshitMan 2 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
'What the fuck is this?' A comment telling you that you are wrong.
'None of this information is difficult to find online' Ok, source?
costagreek19 2 months ago
"a comment telling that you are wrong"
Yeah that's just too clever.
aic(.)ac/en/books/Crime%20and%20Punishment%20in%20Islamic%20Law(.)pdf
"A committee was set up to prepare the Islamisation of the Libyan legal system. The committee’s activities resulted in four laws with regard to the hadd crimes and related offences, enacted between 1972 and 1974"
4 laws. 4 fucking laws added, with secularism gaining ground heavily following the 70s, as stated before. Sharia law =/= couple of pro-Islam laws
AntiBullshitMan 1 month ago
@AntiBullshitMan
You are morally bankrupt. You are supporting a dictator just because he happened to sit on oil. Guess what! He sponsored a lot of communist and islamist militias, he was partially responsible for helping islamists rise (until the 70s the arab world was relatively secular, so he already did backroll achievements, and Islam was part of his ideology mix). And even thinking, that Jalil is a piece of shit, that damaged his society already, a democracy is preferable to G in any way.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@M "You are supporting a dictator"
You said Iraq was a mistake. I must ask, how did you like it when your fact-based arguments for why it was a mistake, were met with "You are supporting a dictator" verbiage by Neo-cons? Must have been very obnoxious to have to explain how your opposition to the violent overthrow of Hussein at that time & through those poor methods, was not grounded in your support of him, & that grownups have these things called multi-layered factors that they can conceive of.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@M "morally bankrupt"
You're the morally & factually bankrupt one here, for continuing to peddle short-sided rationalizations for the completely unnecessary bombing of that country. G is just one of the many dictators whose terror has, when convenient, been enabled by Western powers. Just another reason why, if you had a shred of decency or consistency, you'd follow through & call for the violent overthrow of the current US administration, & prosecute its predecessors over the past 6+ decades.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Of course Gaddafi has been helped by the west, at least until the Lockerbie "repentence" time. But even if that's hypocritical, it doesn't destroy the reason itself to help defend the civilian population. If the UN wouldn't have enabled the NATO mission, the peaceful demonstrations would have resulted in nothing but terror or devastation because of guerilla warfare. But you seem to think, that it was the libyans, that started the violence. Where is your evidence for that?
MardasMan 4 months ago
@MardasMan
So you find something relatively(!) soft about rubber bullets being shot at participants of peaceful assemblies, the Scott Olsen incident, or the many other acts of police brutality perpetrated without warning or provocation. You say this with a straight face, then do a complete 180 with the corc tears for militant Islamist thugs, as you endorse the violent overthrow of a guy who, for all his flaws, has an unmatched record as it pertains to bringing his people out of abject poverty.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Relative(!), yeah. One person deeply injured, many more lightly injured. In Libya there were hundreds killed only on the first days, in Tripoli even supposedly 700. How can you even compare that and with a straight face say, that the counter-violence was nothing more than an islamist hate intifada, if you haven't studied it at all? The militias are so divergent as they could be for a civic uprising, and yeah, a few of them were islamist ones having violated human rights.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@M "in Tripoli even supposedly 700. How can you even compare that"
Because, for starters, no media outlet or source peddling this has provided sufficient evidence that a substantial number of them were non-rebels. Furthermore, the post-NATO-entry death toll currently sits at an estimated 50-60K Libyans. The post-NATO-entry wounded casualties estimate currently sits at well over 100K Libyans. Had NATO not propped this up to "Civil War" status, the casualties would be one fifth of this, at most.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
I explicitly said "supposedly", because i haven't been able to confirm it either. Correct me, if i'm wrong, but afaik, these demonstrators in Tripoli were unarmed, regardless, how much they liked "the rebels".
"Had NATO not propped this up to "Civil War" status, the casualties would be one fifth of this, at most."
The UN mandate was to protect civilians, and exactly that was done. Until NATOs involvement there was a high civilian death toll, then significantly smaller.
MardasMan 4 months ago
Bringing his people out of abject poverty is, of course, what made the West's opportunistic mouth water in the 1st place; the alternative methods under which such resources could be utilized. Why spend on people when privatized drill-baby-drill has worked out so well for the oligarchs back home. If G crossed the line with anything, it was refusal to play IMF ball, not rebel retaliation. There's no gain in forcing democracy in Nations that actually have poor living standards(IE: actually need it)
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
I am reading this correctly, you really think, that Gaddafi was a good guy. Antibullshitman, it's not a value to sit on oil, that just (10 years earlier) has been discovered and supersede a weak old monarch. Gaddafis "contributions" were shari'a law, an incoherent book as state doctrine, brutal repression, the throwing out of massive money to foreign militias with mixed reputations, corruption, atrocities and a total lack of any political participation or institutions.
MardasMan 4 months ago
@M "you really think, that Gaddafi was a good guy"
I don't, as I said a few posts back. I'm just capable of recognizing that bad guys can do good things, & every politician/leader is a bad guy. When playing world police, go after bad guys who do no good.
"Gaddafis "contributions" were shari'a law, an incoherent book as state doctrine, brutal repression"
This, is CNN.
I'm from Serbia. I've been clued in to Libya for ages, through friends working there. Their experience > Your virtual reality.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
I mistook you then here, sorry for that. I'm just used to people, that see behind every western step in arab countries an imperialist plot and therefor defend Gaddafi still.
"When playing world police, go after bad guys who do no good."
Which is impossible. Even the nazis built up an effective centralized state in germany, which was used to particularism.
"This, is CNN."
"I'm from Serbia."
Understand, similarities there.
tinyu rl.co m/5szpzbm But the rebels are not the UCK.
MardasMan 4 months ago
IF YOU DUN WANNA STAND BEHIND THE TROOPS, YEW K'N STAND IN FRONT OF 'EM!
InvincibleNumanist 4 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist
UNLESS YOU'RE A FOREIGN CITIZEN, IN WHICH CASE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM BOTH STANDING IN FRONT OF YOUR TROOPS AS WELL AS BEHIND THEM, FOR YOUR PRESENCE MAY DERAIL OUR ADMIN'S AGENDA WHICH WE'RE SUPPOSED TO OPPOSE ANYWAY BUT DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT NOW.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@InvincibleNumanist Derp again Owen? Sigh
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wheadonfreak971
@AntiBullshitMan G'day. Um, 5% people have 2 copies Human Killer Gene, 10% have 1 Copy. 13% US Marines fired their weapon 1st time in Combat, WW2..! 60 days Continuous Combat results in 98% Participants being Psychiatric Casualties. Com.Vet's have 2x Death by Suicide Rate of background Pop.. Com.Vet's KIDS have 3x the Suicide Deathrate, + 1.8x Accidental +1.2x the Illness Deathrates... Darwin Award, upon Enlisting. Warriors self-cull, y'see ?
WarblesOnALot 4 months ago
If people really want to support the troops, well let's try and change our foreign policy to not just go around and bomb other countries, so that we will not get soldiers mindlessly killed, get off our dependence of foreign oil, and keep our troops safe.
Also great videos are never 2 long, only bad ones. Try watching fringeelements history of race video, it clocked in at i kid you not almost 4 hours. I could not get past the first 30 mins Oye.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
First off former service members oops. 22:07 I was trying to tell a person on here, my brother and I where that invading Iraq was a war crime, and that even though our troops were just following orders, they where turned into murders, well that is all combat troops are when you get down to it. Anyway that even our troops where war criminals because we invaded a country that did not attack us, he thought we hated the troops, he served in Iraq so it sounded like he was making excuses. Cont.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
0:44 Yes, as the brother of 3 service members oh believe me, i know how people worshiping the troops can feed the ego. 12:08 That is what i keep trying to tell people who blindly support the troops no matter what, is do they think Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The kids who are alive anyway from these wars are not gonna shake America's hand for "democracy" When they grow up, all they are gonna think about is their mommy, or daddy who where killed.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan G'day... Good clip. Y're on the right track..! Free Will means you are able to choose NOT TO KILL. Or to Obey Paradigms to Work, Earn, Pay Tax, Fund the Military, Pay Somebody to Polish Weapons ; and hide your Paranoid Persecution Fantasies behind the Muzzles, of the Weapons you helped fund. You can Obey Orders, wave A Flag, Feel Duly Patriotic; supporting Any Cunt-Tree, on Earth. Nobody has the "Right" to Kill, or to Punish !
WarblesOnALot 4 months ago
@WarblesOnALot
Free will is a farce:
1. /watch?v=dodTNPp12rg&feature=channel_video_title
2. /watch?v=w6oWft4mD10&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
3. /watch?v=NHEryas3ByA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Probably the best piece on the subject, at least on YT. Covers everything from the basics all the way to deterministic reconciliation for the prevailing necessity of civilization and judiciaries.
Glad you liked the video though.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
@AntiBullshitMan
Whoops. Those links failed.
Here's one that actually works: /watch?v=dodTNPp12rg
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
I agree with manhunter re the length of videos, it gives you the time to construct your argument and preempt misunderstanding.
However it won't stop me asking inane or exasperating questions. I don't think I'm particularly unique in that respect.
Pulchism 4 months ago
I am kind of pro-libya, anti iraq/afganistan and anti us troops. Does that make sense?
IVscythia 4 months ago
@IVscythia
So you're a reverse-juggler. Endorsing the bombing of Libya, while opposing the bombing and subsequent occupations of Irag and Afghanistan, makes about as much sense as being an isolationist in respects to Rwanda and WW2, but not Vietnam.
The official new gov't has reeked severe havoc in Libya already, and it's just getting warmed up.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago 13
@AntiBullshitMan so you would have prefered letting Gaddafi keep bombing peaceful protestors with fighterplanes and artilery? and I can see no US occupation of libya, and there is quite a difference between rwanda and nam, dont you think? In the former, it was the US who committed the genocide, for no good reason, and in the latter an intervention could have prevented one
IVscythia 4 months ago
"you would have prefered letting Gaddafi keep bombing peaceful protestors?"
Gaddafi forces retaliating rebel force by way of force, is not "bombing innocent protesters". There was some collateral damage, but the blatant exaggeration by Western S.I. driven media, coupled with the fact that collateral damage by way of NATO bombs greatly outweighed the former (& continues to, under the new anti-woman regime).
See my replies to the same contention above, where I expand on the true net-benefit here
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago
Glad to see more and more videos criticizing the actions and motives of soldiers in a military, and not just the higher ups in the military. It is just not enough of those kinds of videos out there and when videos like that are made, people want to jump down your throat or even send fake death threats for criticizing the actions of the troops.
Pentazoid111 4 months ago
@Pentazoid111
I've had my share of threats over it, though they would always come from anonymous youtubers... up until the 10th year anniversary of 9/11, when I got it on with a few coworkers (they insisted on having the 9/11 Ground Zero ceremony played on the radio) resulting in a veiled threat levied against me after a mere 15 minutes of argumentation. It's a step up from doing it while hiding behind a keyboard, so I gotta give them props there at least.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AntiBullshitMan
One day a 12 year old girl approach me when I was in uniform to give me a card that said "Thank U for all U do!"
I thought that was sweet. Of course I also felt awkward because I was realizing all of the corruption and staged events that rally people into a war they don't even understand.
I feel bad because non critical thinkers can not be shown the true. Unless you are in a set position they are basically trained to obey like government, their pastors and preachers, movement leaders, etc.
Ramiromasters 4 months ago
I keep coming across apologies (coming from different people) for long or multi-part videos, so FYI: When I'm subbed to someone, the offensively long or just long vids are something I look forward to. I don't think I'm particularly unique in that respect.
manhunter79 4 months ago 5
@manhunter79 "particularly unique"
Oh but you are. Wish you weren't, but it's true. The unlimited upload privilege that YT has blessed us with has turned out to be the biggest double edged sword in internet history. On one hand, I don't have to rush and can account for under-qualified context which blighted my previous vids on the same subject, thereby avoiding vacuous disagreement. On the other hand, everyone's viewership has dropped due to the greatly longer vids & more vloggers than ever.
AntiBullshitMan 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AntiBullshitMan
;O
Uhmu45 4 months ago