digg

Join DiggAbout

NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIOD watch!

youtube.com — Bit by bit, piece by piece, the US government is taking away all your rights and freedoms and property. How far are you willing to let them go until you stop them?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Xuvious, on 11/13/2007, -18/+279As Mr. Badnarik said:

    How do you know the Constitution has been perverted if you haven't read it?

    Read the Constitution people!
    • flygirl62, on 10/29/2007, -7/+34The problem is that it is VERY difficult, if not impossible, to resist as an individual --- the end result is usually that you get arrested and no one ever knows about it. Seldom does anyone "step up" to support you in any putting-themselves-in-harms-way method.
      The only way to stop this is to make a fuss about it even if it is NOT used against you. Vote for people who want to uphold our rights and don't give in because of other issues. Write/call your representatives, senators, state reps, whatever and let them know that this is important to you and will seriously sway your vote.
      And you have to stand up for the rights of people who are doing things you don't agree with --- if you have the right to do something, so do they. IIRC, someone once sent in a check to defend Nazis who were arrested for what was essentially free speech and they sent a note along with the check which said "Defend the bastards!"
      • xptoast, on 10/29/2007, -4/+9You cant have good people in the government do anything if the jock club wont let them in their little club. Good guys get shunned and never get the opportunity they need. Greed overthrows common sense in this country.
      • floatingpoints, on 10/24/2007, -2/+16That's a cliche response.

        Voting doesn't work unless everyone puts in effort. If me you and someone else know for a fact that candidate B will fix things, good luck showing 100+ millions that their candidate is just another run-of-the-mill corrupt politician.

        Voting works under the assumption that people actually care about their country, and today, they don't.
        • Salzar, on 10/24/2007, -4/+4What makes you think the masses voting is even good. You would have to assume that they are rational and well educated people. Mob rule ( democracy) is a joke. Election where 51% say one thing and 49% want another, a large portion of people are on the loosing end. I think the idea of voting is novel, but I will admit that as some one who does not specialize in politics, how am I to fully understand the ramifications of the decisions I will be voting on.
          • ChronicColonic, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Modern American democracy is in the form of a democratic republic or a representative democracy. A representative democracy came about in the United States because the colonists were tired of taxation without representation and wanted a more fair system where the people had more say in the rule of the country. They did not desire the Athenian form of democracy however; as they feared it would give the people too much power and would lend control of the government to the uneducated masses. What they came up with was a representative democracy wherein elected representatives rather than direct rule by the people rule the government. These representatives are elected with the idea that they will accurately represent their constituents, but in case some don’t, the U.S. government is divided into three branches to keep corruption in check. These three branches are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. No one branch contains absolute power, rather, each branch is balanced off of the others creating a system of checks and balances to protect the principals of democracy. This system is in no way perfect, and this is why we must pursue a more perfect form of democracy and a more perfect union between our citizens, states and country (Pious; Sanford 20-27).

            from: http://library.thinkquest.org/26466/history_of_dem ...
        • Simufasa, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4That's where the hopelessness creeps in, national elections. Sadly, that's the only time most people vote. Local and state elections, where the votes are considerably less, should be the primary focus of people's attention. Local and state governments have the greatest effect on our everyday lives, and if we paid more attention to them, the beliefs of individual communities would trickle back up to national elections.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/24/2007, -0/+13I once had a guy tell me that he's Anti-War so he is voting for Hillary. I called him an idiot. I told him Hillary was a pro war candidate. She voted to attack Iranian soldiers. He didn't believe me. So I dugg up articles on the subject. He still didn't believe me. Even when I showed him an article in the Boston Globe about it he still refused to believe that Hillary voted to attack Iran. People are so stubborn to believe their party can be just as corrupt as the opposing party.

          If there is anyone left out there who thinks voting for Hillary will end the war please inform them on their dumbassness. The only way we will take back this country is to inform this country.

          The best way to inform this country I think is to stop telling lies in our history class! If you didn't know they told lies in history class you were obviously one of the people lied to. Do you know about the Genocides of the first native american's columbus stumbled across? Not if you took a regular history class. Do you know about the American-Filipino War? Not if you took a regular history class. There are so many history books that twist the truth or outright lie all together. It needs to stop. People need to hear about the bad things America is capable of so they can understand when it is happening again and they can understand how to stop it. If you are still in highschool and not taking an advanced history class, study some history online so when it comes up in class you can be prepared to stand up and say "That is a lie!"

          We also need to encourage people to use the internet to research their candidate. There are people out there who still go by what a candidate says himself or by what the news media tells them. How can you expect to make a logical choice based on what a bunch of people with an agenda say. We have the power to do our own research now. USE IT!

          The Information Age started years ago and yet it seems like Americans haven't gotten any more information then they used to. It's pretty sad.
          • ChronicColonic, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Yes, too many people are ignoring this wealth of information because it is more important to update their Facebook and Myspace pages. Where's the fun in researching history? Why should I worry about an American-Filipino war? There's a couple of Filipino's on my friends list...they don't seem to be to threatening.

            The Internet empowers the ignorant to be more ignorant.

            I concur...it is really sad.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/24/2007, -12/+6If you just read the Constitution you still don't know why things are they way they are and how they are intended to function. To do that you need to read the Federalist Papers, and if you do that you'll realize...well, you might realize things aren't really as bad as people like this guy make them out to be. While there are things that are not working as Madison intended, none of those things are unique to this administration.
      • cccv, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11Whoops, I dugg your comment before reading it completely. I **disagree** with you -- I think the States and the Union are in just as bad a situation as Badnarik describes.
        • HerrEisenheim, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Then you are just as willfully ignorant towards how things are supposed to work. The Federalist Papers are a manual for the Constitution, and what they tell us is that all branches of government should be competing for power. That's normal. That's exactly how it should be. That's what's expected. The problem lies not in the executive, but rather in the Congress. The Congress does not check the President, nor do they check each other. The people don't care, the Congress only cares about being reelected, and so there is no institutional will to put a stop on executive power. Rather, the Congress has willfully (via the Patriot Act) given more power to the executive. They no longer even legislate. It is the Congress that is the problem, and has been for some time now...since well before Bush.
    • rojano17, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4is there a podcast version, an audiobook at least?
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/24/2007, -3/+10I'm just really glad and relieved that people are finally watching his films and taking it to heart.

      Because our country is doomed, yet its important to be able to have the mental capacity to rebuild when the time comes.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Thank you Mr. Badnarik. I especially enjoyed learning that we didn't really need our drivers licence. But why don't you try gettin away with it in this police state.
      • flygirl62, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6He does. He has been fined many times for driving without a license. But AFAIK he still refuses to get one.
        From: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/badn ...

        Liberty: You've been stopped without a license, right?

        Badnarik: Yes. I've been stopped several times without a license and I have been given citations. I've never been put in jail for not having a driver's license, because it's a class three misdemeanor, and they can't put you in jail for that.

        If you read more, he HAS paid the fines, but refuses to get a license, in part because they demand his SS number and fingerprint in TX.
    • PovRayMan, on 11/03/2007, -7/+30Attention anti-gun liberals, waving signs and writing songs won't convince tyrannical men to change their ways. Stop trying to deny other Americans their RIGHT to bear arms and JOIN THEM to help preserve FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. Our founding fathers were not pacifists. They KILLED people in order to build a society of freedom from oppressing rulers. We are far away from bloodshed in our current times, but throwing away our 2nd amendment rights now will only increase the danger to our free society.
      • Triachus, on 10/22/2007, -10/+10Why can't I just borrow one of the TWENTY guns you HAVE in your SHOWCASE when I need one?
        • moskaudancer, on 10/23/2007, -1/+10Don't be a moocher! Buy your own Hello Kitty Kalashnikov!
      • darkened, on 10/22/2007, -2/+6Because you would have them taken away before that day comes.
        • Godlike, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5Yeah, right. I'd love to see the sheriff going through towns in deep Alabama or Kentucky, telling everyone to give up their guns. That'd last about three reloads.
        • Mothrog, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Ever consider that the day they start trying to collect people's guns might be the day that the ***** hits the fan?
      • crweaks23, on 11/03/2007, -5/+6I do not have a problem with guns in general. I have a problem with handing them out to anyone who walks in the store. Since you like caps: STRICT GUN LAWS DOES NOT EQUAL BANNING ALL GUNS. If you're a convicted felon, you don't deserve a gun. You gave up that right when you hurt someone else.

        If you do any research on the subject, you'll see that most illegal guns come from (wait, you'll be really surprised) states with relaxed gun laws. Calling me a liberal doesn't change that. Guns that kill people in New York don't come from New York. Why? Because if you've shot someone before, we don't give you another one.

        http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3704240&page ...

        Don't break the law, and you won't be denied a gun. Seems pretty simple to me.
        • belovedkid, on 10/23/2007, -2/+11there are felons who have never hurt anyone, or commited any acts of violence.
        • Mothrog, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6And if you don't have anything to hide, the Patriot Act shouldn't be cause for concern. Fantastic logic there, "liberal." Strict gun laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns just like drug laws don't stop addicts from getting their fix. Yeah, guns may come from states with looser gun laws. It's natural that criminals will take the path of least resistance. But, ban guns or make them difficult to get in all states, and they'll just get pumped out by the crate by an enterprising machine shop owner looking to fill his pockets with a little dirty money. Don't make exercising my rights difficult because there are people that violate the law. I suppose you'd also be OK if the government asked you to get a permit to publish a book? All those pesky terrorist manuals, you know.
        • PovRayMan, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5Strict gun laws are slowly evolving gun bans that dissuade law abiding citizens who have never enacted their constitutional right to bear arms. New York is a cesspool of gun crime because law abiding citizens don't want to jump through all the loopholes just to buy a handgun. Even if they do eventually get one, if they use it in defense they'll still be prosecuted by the District Attorneys who are politically motivated to "get tough on gun crime." I live in Florida where if someone breaks into your house while you're inside you can shoot them dead. On top of NOT being prosecuted, because no crime was committed, you are legally PROTECTED from civil law suits by the dead *****'s family! Strict gun laws ARE gun bans.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_a ...

          That bill lists firearms by name... THAT IS A GUN BAN! Stop defending these tyrants who wish to strip power from the serfs.
    • themastersb, on 10/23/2007, -30/+4Jews did 9/11
    • gemmakicn, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8History is filled with examples of solitary individuals standing up and making a difference...

      From Martin Luther, to Leonardo Da Vinci, each singular person has made vast changes in our world.

      Yes its probable that a solitary individual may have problems that a huge shadowy revolutionary organization may not, but still one person can make a difference (and i'm not paraphrasing Quantum Leap, but the effect of solitary individuals making good choices is undeniable).
    • archistudent, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3He ran for president a few years ago. As a Libertarian. Ron Paul also ran as a Libertarian a few years ago. Same message, generally. Surprised then that this third party is not bigger than it is.
    • geddon, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2American's find it hard enough to read the Dollar Menu at McDonalds! Nothing ever looks like the pictures promise and yet nobody complains about false advertising -- from our businesses to our government. Take your food back, tell them it looks nothing like what you ordered. Maybe that will inspire you to act out against this Administration instead of waiting around until things get better.
    • Mitchl, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5What people actually should read is some history, before they go with what this guy is saying. Hitler's rise to power did not come from any election in Austria or Hungary, and he didn't win elections in Germany, he lost twice to Hindenburg. The Nazi party didn't win control either, it was made through deals and seizure.

      His assumption that the Jews were all cool with how they were treated and were not speaking up is a complete load as well and an insult to Hitler's victims. Nothing like trashing the dead!!!

      His suggestions may not be totally wrong, but his history is.
    • vinwal, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Mr.Badnarik's Constitution Class
      http://www.constantwaves.info/media.php?media=vide ...
  • SpookyET, on 10/27/2007, -16/+103His class goes on for 8 hours (8 classes). http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html Watch it. Do something.
    • bingobongony, on 11/08/2007, -48/+2Good idea. I LOVE comedy videos.
    • muniak, on 10/22/2007, -1/+10Like... making a blog about it?
    • cccv, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7I've listened to nearly all of these classes. They are excellent IMHO. In school, I never learned so much about the principles on which this union of States was founded.
    • BestJaxx, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2When was it decided that Jewish people constitute an entire race?
  • hotspot102, on 10/24/2007, -11/+94This is not new, the similarities between the enabling act and the patriot act are stunning. Perhaps to stunny for the average person to even believe. However thats not to say im going out on limb here, suggesting the United States is heading in the same direction as nazi Germany. It just deems us to be skeptical, and to seek transparency in the political process.
    • Spiffypants, on 10/27/2007, -2/+13I'm going to start using the word "stunny" from now on.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/29/2007, -7/+5BS. As you heard, in Nazi Germany, Hitler was elected by 98% of the population. Here, Bush is not only at an astonishingly low percentile, but he hardly won the elections. I would be worried if Americans by the masses were following his ways, but his term is almost up and he will be gone.

      Americans just need to open their eyes, do some research, stop listening to MTV for political advice and vote a competent leader into office. This is a democracy in which people abuse now and complain later.
      • jeffchuck, on 10/29/2007, -6/+6Actually, Bush didn't win the elections. The supreme court (probably following orders from some international group of corporations) decided that he should be president, not the American people.
      • TwiStEr55, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6Even with different "election" numbers .. its a fact that you have laws in place now that in enable Bush to do the same as Hitler did. Emergency Powers ... martial law etc .... he could do that tomorrow and you couldnt stop it! If you guys dont wake up soon ... we all have a big problem
      • roodammy44, on 10/23/2007, -1/+9In Hitler's first election, he barely scraped into the majority by making a political alliance with another party and taking control of the other party.
        It wasn't 98%.
        Who teaches you history?
        Also, he only got power after he bombed the central govt building and blamed it on the communists. Which sounds quite familiar.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I'm familiar with history. I'm quoting the video that this page is devoted to. you should check it out.
      • gemmakicn, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3Actually technically hitler never got a majority, he only ever got 45% in a free election, but the conservative party of the day saw him as someone they could use, so they formed a coalition. He only got 98% of the vote after he was already in charge of the country, had terrified people into believing the red army was about to burst out of every corner, and that he Adolf Hitler could save Germany.

        Hmmm...
    • goffy59, on 10/27/2007, -1/+9He wasn't exactly saying we are like Nazi Germany. If you actually payed attention, you could understand that if you don't do something now for whatever reason; you wont have the chance next time. No pun intended. :(
    • airiox, on 10/23/2007, -9/+1If you want to make a comparison between hitler and some current world leader. The choice is an obvious one. Ahmadinejad. The way he is opressing Iran, which has a fairly liberal young population is insane. Too bad the same wool is pulled over certain politicians eyes today as it were back in the late 30's and early 40's. And perhaps what is even more ghalling is that these same politicians might actually be aware of the situation in Iran, but choose to campaign against intervention, sheerly for political reasons. Historians will look back and shake their heads just as they do today observing the pacifist climate prior to WWII from America.
      • fugazied, on 10/23/2007, -1/+12And the way he is invading other countries and killing women and children. Oh wait thats the USA.
        • schroed9er, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1U sure its not terrorists killing women and children, oh wait its our fault they do that
        • airiox, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Show me one US soldier that has killed a woman or child on purpose and hasn't been brought up on charges? Exactly you can't you sick Communist.
      • Godlike, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I talked to an Iranian last night that grew up in the states and recently went to Iran, here we are talking about an intelligent American guy in his mid 20's.

        I asked him "So how do you like it in Iran?" and he said, "It took about a year to get used to it but it isn't bad there." He also said that he doesn't believe America will attack Iran because "we are allies"; to that I said, well, we were allies with Iraq too and look at that... friendly conversation though.

        No judgement from me here, none of my opinion. Just a little conversation that I had, decide for yourselves.
      • RCinBigD, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5Get a clue. Who we choose as allies or enemies has nothing to do with how they treat their people. Our biggest Arab allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, have one of the most oppressive regimes going. Yet, we send them billions of dollars in aid every year. Pakistan is another perfect example. They have had a political mess for decades, suffering military coup after coup. Yet, the U.S. (through incompetence or complicity, depending on how you see it) basically gave them the bomb. As a direct result, the nuclear programs of North Korea, China and yes even Iran have benefited greatly.

        The U.S. in general, and this administration in particular, choose their allies based on who they think they can control. If you will go along with the program, you can expect millions, and if you find yourself strategic enough to the current situation, billions of dollars in aid. And all irregardless of the political system of your country or the well being of your people. But, pop off (see Hussein, Castro, Chavez) and you will be demonized and quite possibly overthrown. All in the name of democracy, of course.
  • pimpbot1979, on 10/23/2007, -40/+19Pretty far. I like to talk dirty into the dial tone hoping a hot CIA hunk is listening and wants to have forbidden, Mike Chertoff doggy style.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3Oh *****, man. that's just /f/'in gross.

      Michael Chertoff...*shivers*
    • Godlike, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Any luck so far?
  • geneticlemon, on 11/02/2007, -20/+183He makes it sound so damn easy, but it's not. I can't just go, "Hey, I'll go out on the streets and protest our corrupt government!" Because number 1) I have to have a permit to protest and 2) Me, going by myself to do this, makes me look like a crazy person. Not to mention how damned apathetic people are towards politics these days. All they care about is "bringing home the bacon" and "looking after their families." I sound like a cynic, and I'll probably get dugg down, but this is why conducting a revolution is so frustrating and difficult these days. The general apathy of society. And I know ... *I* should be the one planning the next government revolution since I'm the one bitching about it, but is there anyone out there in my hometown (Lacey, WA) seriously willing to join me in this? Doubtful.
    • bingobongony, on 10/26/2007, -60/+7Everybody who doesn't share your narrow, incorrect whiny views are not apathetic.
      • goffy59, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4block lol!
        edit:
        Wait your already blocked :(
      • p0tent1al, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4ok mr apathetic
      • itsthebrod, on 10/23/2007, -0/+23The founders of this country literally put their life on the line to obtain freedom, and they fought to the death to defend it. What do you think they'd say if they were here right now, watching as today's worthless society cares more about Britney Spears' kids than retaining our personal liberties? His views are not at all incorrect or whiny. Yours, however, are idiotic and foolish.
        • RobotBuddha, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I think they'd say that times haven't changed much. Things really weren't all the different back then, and the people, if anything, were even more ignorant of the world around them. There were a lot of reasons the common man fought, but lofty philosophical concepts were hardly at the top of the list.
      • Osjpr, on 10/23/2007, -6/+1The way to remove the apathetic is to execute them.
      • ddawggin, on 10/23/2007, -3/+1I'll go out there on the limb and agree with you. Digg me down, but there is a fundamental difference between not caring and not thinking there is a problem. I see what is going on, I understand what is going on and I approve of what is going on. Therefore, I suppose you can call me "part of the problem" but don't call me apathetic. Thats just hurtful.
        • itsthebrod, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2There is absolutely no way you can both understand what is going on AND approve of what is going on unless you're A.) out of your mind or B.) completely oblivious to what this country was founded on, stood for, and what our Constitution stands for. That's just shameful.
    • rancemo, on 10/23/2007, -4/+51Let them think you're crazy! Who gives a *****! The apathy and sheep-like behavior of others doesn't justify apathy on your part!
    • RedHeadedFreak, on 10/23/2007, -45/+7Oh boy, this thread is full of radical free-thinkers! Down with the stupid sheeple yeah! 911 was an inside job! Ron Paul 2008! I feel so special!
    • MagicCake, on 10/22/2007, -2/+10Ah... Lacey, WA is a wretched place. I sympathize with you. Good luck finding anyone to care about much of anything there...

      (Yeah, I've been there a few times)
    • rebolyte, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3http://www.antiapathy.org/
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/23/2007, -0/+26That my friend is exactly what they count on. Luxuries to replace rights, and then once you have become addicted to luxury, make you work harder and harder for what you expect to have. It keeps you complacent and occupied. It's not any harder to fight back, it's just that we are so completely spoiled and domesticated. We can't work up the rage and hatred to fight back because we have so many nice things to keep us happy.
    • a1lostnomad, on 10/27/2007, -7/+76I refused to let an officer search my car once, they got a K-9 unit to bark at a tennis ball and searched anyway. After finding less than a gram of pot in the carpet underneath my center console I was arrested and spent the night in jail. Afterwards I lost my job (I was in a probationary period), and found myself sleeping in my car and on friends sofas for nearly 3 months while charges were still "pending" on my record.

      Thousands of dollars later and after months of hardship I finally got back on my feet, but I still have a suspended license. The moral of the story... standing up for your rights is great and all, but damn it hurts.
      • VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -4/+24Jeez...I'm sorry man. That is absolutely terrible.

        Legalize It.
        • rrasco, on 10/23/2007, -8/+4Decriminalize, not legalize.
          • JeffD, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Nah, legalize and tax is the way to go. Eliminate a large part of drug dealers business.
      • itsthebrod, on 10/27/2007, -1/+34Well the real moral of the story is don't get pulled over with pot in your car...
        • alperea, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6Cops do whatever the ***** they want. The only way to stop that is to take their badge number and report it to whomever possibe (the mayor, filing greivences, etc). Cops aren't free thinkers with degrees, they take orders, they need to be trained like those K9 dogs. Lets train the trainers!
      • Ajnag, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Yeah, don't get pulled over with pot. You could have just eaten it.
      • HighWastesDrftr, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2I think the moral of the story is that denying permission to search and other ways of standing up for one's rights are a bad idea unless your keep your nose 100% clean. I feel for you, Nomad, but I think you'll have to choose either pot or standing up for the constitution, as mixing the two is a dangerous wager.
        • JeffD, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Well had he given them permission to search they would have found it regardless. This way they found it through an illegal search and it will (likely) get thrown out. He mnight have lost his job, but he wont go to jail.
      • jguy584, on 10/23/2007, -1/+33 times I have vehemently denied a cop from searching my car. Once I even spent about 20 minutes arguing about it, and another 10 with him and then other cop who came. Stand your ground and don't give in, keep your story consistent, and keep denying. Don't be an angry ***** though, you can be assertive and stubborn without pissing off the cop too much, just stay calm and collected.
    • mancat, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Well you're right next to Olympia, and you know how they are. Evergreen will protest at the drop of a hat - in fact, they'd probably protest the hat being dropped. But good luck finding anyone to follow you in protest if you're not a Volvo-driving liberal.
    • fugazied, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Other ways to protest include...
      1) Letters to politicians and your representatives
      2) Discussions with fellow citizens. Talking about these issues works, informed/educated citizens are the enemy of the fascism. When you talk to that person, if you make sense they might talk to another person.
      3) If you get the chance, participate in local activist groups. There are others in the same area who have the same mindset as you.
      • tyywebb, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4And say, "Hello, FBI list..."
        • Xondar, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3When the FBI puts you on a list, then you know you're being effective.
    • hakz, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7You're basically giving an excuse that this guy was explaining in this video. Make a line and stand your ground "whether anybody else does or not". And since when is organising a revolution easy? You think the revolutionists of the past had the idea and executed it in one day?
    • jdaniel284, on 10/23/2007, -0/+11It is not important that you win. It is important that you fight.
    • sgglynn, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6"but this is why conducting a revolution is so frustrating and difficult these days"
      I don't think conducting a revolution is ever supposed to be easy. I also don't think it ever was easy, or ever will be easy.
    • minorthreat, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3ya know... your never take professors word for word.. you listen to their ideas and it stimulates thought in your own head. In other words,

      Hi, welcome to a classroom :)
    • Colton, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5Dude, just go downtown. Ever been down there? Ever see the protests they got going on every weekend? Their are plenty of people in the Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater area that would join you, me included.
    • multitude, on 10/23/2007, -7/+1Maybe it's hard to find fellow protestors because this is not the right cause. The ideology of the speaker in the vid is really just free-market capitalism, which has been what we've been striving for during the last hundred years. People should rightly see this not as an "activist" cause, which is normally tied to progressive policies, but as a reactive one. If you want to find other activists, oppose what is happening in our society, which is continually giving ground to corporations, not governments, that invade our private space and cause incredible violence to people for the sake of profit. If you're behind this speaker, or Ron Paul, you're just itching for more of the same.

      Kind of an anti-climactic "protest" cause, if you ask me.
      • HighWastesDrftr, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3I challenge the notion that it is big business who invade our homes and deny us our rights. I will grant you that they have a hand in violence both foreign (De Beers and diamonds, military industrial complex) and domestic (prison-industrial complex). However, bad governments are what give big business the opportunity to buy land seized from quechuas or sell bombs to armies. I might also add that business interactions are wholly voluntary, whereas a government takes your taxes whether or not you use their services. Consumer responsibility can be practiced when buying products or services from a business, but consumer responsibility cannot be excersized in regards to a government (political activism is the equivalent).
        PM me for a deeper conversation.
    • grantmoore3d, on 10/23/2007, -1/+16Wow... you have to get a permit to protest, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard of. That alone would make me want to protest...
    • Shadess, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Start one up over there and I'll rally here in SLO, CA and spread like wildfire across all of CA. We'll join up and take Washington D.C. by peaceful force.

      Then again it just might be easier for us as Californians to say ***** it and split from the USA into our own country.
    • Xondar, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Oh man! You need a permit to protest the government stealing all your freedoms?

      This is why you fail.
  • realunderdog, on 10/29/2007, -18/+214This is more important than photo shopped pics of animals.
    Digg this! BURY THEM!
    • galeninjapan, on 10/23/2007, -11/+71I agree, unless these animals have funny hats. Then its clearly not more important.
    • Spoomeister, on 10/23/2007, -2/+23The real trick is to embed these messages inside pics of LOLCats. Then you can have both revolution and teh funny.
    • dudefather, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9can it be revulootin tiem plz?
    • tyywebb, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4I WILL NOT COMPLY
    • feihung08, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Well I totally agree.........but I don't come to DIGG for political commentary...........that would be illogical to digg down "geek material"
    • L4WL3RS34L, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I think the reason some people aren't digging this is because this is the third or fourth time this has been on digg. It's still worth the digg though.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/24/2007, -53/+2yes you will. If not, the government has the right to shoot you in the head. States exist for the primary purpose of creating order. Unlike centuries of the past, there is nowhere really left in the world where you are not subject to the laws of a government of which you have very very little say if any. Why bother fighting it? Sit down and shut up.
    • MeThePeople, on 10/23/2007, -0/+22Why bother fighting it?
      because this is a government of the people for the people but the people aint happy and the government isent listening.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/23/2007, -5/+10no its not. Those are words to placate the masses. Every government that has ever existed and will ever exist is by the powerful. An egalitarian political system is impossible as there will always be those with more influence than others.
        • bruenig, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3shhh you'll disillusion them
        • goffy59, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Well ***** this world.
        • p0tent1al, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4imagine if the founding fathers or the people who started the revolution that made this country free had listened to these words......

          Also the only reason we have the freedoms that we have, is because of the ongoing unrest in America. If everyone was to just sit down and shut up, I guarantee before the week is over we would all be made slaves to work the fields.
          • RobotBuddha, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1The US would be laboring under the same tyrannical fist as those poor bastards in Canada?
        • soulkitchen, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1This one is acting up, put him back in his cage
    • MagicCake, on 10/23/2007, -0/+20Actually, YOU have the right to shoot THEM if they get out of hand. I mean, ideally there would be no shooting, but it is your right (and perhaps your obligation) to protest and stage a revolution if it's necessary.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/23/2007, -4/+3everyone has the right to shoot anyone. The government is just better at. They are better armed and better trained, hell they don't even need to shoot you. They can just push a button and annihalate you.
    • freshgrease, on 10/22/2007, -0/+12Why fight it? Because the government has infiltrated Digg with spies and propogandalists like you.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/23/2007, -8/+2try and rise up...just try it. Remember Waco? You can't resist government authority.
        • goffy59, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8Its this type of thinking that makes a government stronger.
        • maxtangent, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3If they cannot be resisted, why have they not declared martial law and be done with it? Because the government knows authority is not enough to control 300 million people if those people refuse to be controlled.
          I'd like to see the reaction of the rest of the world should the U.S. government go all WACO on the rest of its citizens.
          • jmpeagle, on 10/23/2007, -4/+1it's a waste of resources since 99% of the population willingly accepts the governments power over them
          • SchrodingersCar, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Including you, apparently...
    • bassman12593, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2yeah but the holocaust wasn't about creating order, it was about killing 6 million jews
    • Jimmerz, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Come with me. I want to take you on a train ride to my place in the country.
    • AntidoteSqrd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1The government as NO right to shoot you unless you are harming other CITIZENS. If the government gets out of hand, we as American CITIZENS have the right to march into the capitol building, white house, or any other governmental establishment and shoot ANYONE who gets in our way. People like you who believe that the governments word is the only word are bad Americans. The government tries to make it seem like opposing them is anti-patriotic, but in fact, submitting to the will of the government is truly the least patriotic act you can do.
  • lawngnomes4pres, on 10/27/2007, -9/+109Its these kinds of videos that I wish all of America would watch.
    • z3rgRush, on 10/23/2007, -6/+1Great speech for a teacher but he probably should have left out the 'bloodshed' part - won't help his case if some crazy parents sue him or his school tries to get rid of him.
      • modingo, on 10/27/2007, -0/+13Yeah, that'll work. We can all be "politically correct" patriots. Let them sue! If you want change, you have to take risks.
      • goffy59, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3It wouldn't be his fault, it would the irresponsible parents for misunderstanding due to constant brain wash from TV. He wouldn't get sued.(the parents would lose in that situation) That is what our Bill of Rights speak of.
      • Xondar, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Go read the Declaration of Independence and then post your stupid comments.
    • bluscale, on 10/22/2007, -11/+1Not really. This is the complete opposite of what's on TV now on a scale where both ends are equally bad. We need a middle ground, neutral ground, where dialogs can thrive. We'd have anarchy with people like this guy. Anyone else notice the Texas flag? Maybe he should have also talked about slavery and the South unwillingness to give it up.
    • soulkitchen, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Maybe if he'd thrown in a Britney Spears reference..?
  • SaladCactusKing, on 10/22/2007, -37/+16NO, I WILL NOT DIGG! CAPITAL LETTERS
  • luke374, on 10/27/2007, -9/+131It's amazing that Libertarian ideas like what Badnarik talks about are scoffed at in this country.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/24/2007, -36/+2because they are retarded. Like it or not, police states are efficient and much better at creating order than "democracy" and other ***** forms of government.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 10/22/2007, -0/+26I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're being dragged off with a black bag over your head.
      • freshgrease, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5What good is order when there is no life to partake in it. People exist for the sole purpose of existing and entertaining God, but if we are to become like robots or slaves, a reason for existence only exists as a means for creating resources for further enslavement. The endless cycle proves to man that his sole-purpose is to further his bondage and enslave loved ones. Humanity, in general, sympathizes with each other. Otherwise, society as we know it would be non-existent. The catch-22 leads man into either worthless existence or suicide.

        Through freedom we are able to further society, balance the power of individuals who represent our ideals, and develop as intellectuals.

        America is a nation of free people. America is powerful only because the roots of its power were founded by people who CHOSE to stand up to oppression. Who is left to stand up and fight when you've imprisoned your soldiers' family and friends for demanding freedom their ancestors died for? The power of America lies within her people and not her technology. If a dog bites the hand that feeds it, eventually Fido will be taken to his last visit to the vet..

        No, America cannot setup a true police state. There are not enough soldiers loyal enough to corruption to fight their own family.

        Impeagle, you truely live a pittiful existence.
        • goffy59, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1I liked your comment all the way until I saw the word god. People live to achieve happiness. What the ***** is the point of god or religion, when your not happy. Other then that flaw in your comment, I agree.
      • goffy59, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3I liked some of your comments even though I disagreed, but now your blocked. Your a goddamn fascist and I hope you ***** die.
      • Detritus, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1jmpeagle may have provided a better comment, let me attempt to rephrase it with some background info.

        Instead of worry about how many people see this, and other pseudo-revolutionary videos, go download Idiocracy. The premise of which is that since people of above average intelligence are either having radically less kids or no kids at all, and people over sub-average intelligence are breeding like rabbits, Democracy breaks down in a few generations.

        These are numbers I'm pulling out of my ass but they get to the point: If in 5 generations there are 750 Million Americans, and 450 Million of those have an IQ around 80, the 300 Million Americans who are capable of making complex decisions are going to be drowned out in a Democracy by people more concerned with "hehehe that other guy talks like a fag, I'm voting for the NASCAR Driver for President!" One could argue that we are already in a situation like that.

        I don't have any alternatives to Democracy to suggest, and I don't care for fascists either (both Clinton with the DMCA and Bush Jr. with the Patriot Act qualify as fascist imo), but clearly Democracy is on the way out unless we change our breeding habits. Baby Jesus can't cope with condoms and abortion, can you imagine how he'd deal with licensing requirements to have children? I want to believe that the current fascists genuinely have our interests at heart, and are trying to find a moderate and gentle way of dealing with the inevitable collapse of Democracy.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1""hehehe that other guy talks like a fag, I'm voting for the NASCAR Driver for President!" One could argue that we are already in a situation like that."
          After watching the "focus group" on the debate last night, I'll have to agree. They just want someone to "step up" because they seem to only be capable of voting based on emotions instead of logic.
      • andycr512, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I -never- call people names - just view my comment history.

        However, blocked for being a moron.
    • bruenig, on 10/22/2007, -10/+7Not really. I like helping the poor through progressive taxation and government programs.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 10/27/2007, -6/+20How would you feel if I decided that I was hungry, and held a gun to your head demanding money?

        Stop lying to yourself -- this is what taxation is. If I do not pay, they come to arrest me. If I resist, they shoot me.

        Also, don't you find it ironic that you want to help the poor by taking money from the poor?
        • bruenig, on 10/23/2007, -6/+2Ok and how would you feel if you decided you wanted to kill someone and I held a gun to your head and told you that you couldn't. Me not allowing you to kill someone is a destruction of your liberty so you must oppose it. Prisons must be abolished then. Or maybe if you have some sanity you would recognized that constitutionally explicit actions for which accompanying legislation is passed by a majority vote in both houses (whom the representatives are voted for) and by a signature by the president (who is voted for) is democracy and justified in the same way that passing laws which forbid you to kill people is.
          • AbsurdParadox, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Wrong. I do not have the rights to violate another mans rights.

            Also, you seem to think that just because someone is voted for, they're a benevolent leader. Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.
        • mwalker05, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2no its not. we dont have the liberty to kill other people. maybe you should go back to high school and learn how to use analogies right. also when the government stops representing the people and starts making laws so that its legal to break laws, there is a problem.
          • AbsurdParadox, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2First of all, I DO have the liberty to kill someone. However, I don't have the right, as it violates another man's rights.

            Secondly, why is it okay for some people (those in government) to steal money, but not for me to do so? Don't you understand, the government breaks all its own laws?
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/22/2007, -3/+12You mean you like helping poor people with other people's money rather than just your own. Very generous of you.
        • bruenig, on 10/22/2007, -4/+5How does one get that money? I suppose they without the use of social structures completely on their own mine gold? I don't suppose society has anything to do with it at all. If the society didn't exist, they would have made that money right?

          Money is made as a result of the society. Those who benefit from the society more than others should pay more in preserving it. If poor people die or malnourished, who is going to work in your factories.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Donations? Charity? If people genuinely want to help others in society, then they will donate to the causes they feel are important. I donate to causes that I care about all the time. If I didn't have to pay taxes, I would use some of that money also. I also get to decide which causes I do NOT think are worthy and withhold my money from those.

          But then stingy people won't donate!!! True. So what. I have faith that there are enough good people in America to cover the stingy people, who by the way usually get out of paying their taxes anyways. Look at 9/11, Hurricane Katrine, and now more recently the Southern California fires. People are very generous when it comes to things they care about.
      • cecinestpasvrai, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3Bruenig, I think a lot of the country sympathizes with you on that point, but it's also pretty true what these two other commenters said. I"m sure, at this day and age, couldn't we just organize online, fundraise enough money from those who have it, and distribute to charity without needing to use the government? I'm totally sympathetic to your point of view, but its really come a time when government is proving itself hopelessly inept at nearly everything. I've heard convincing arguments this is actually the conservative agenda in action, demonstrate government as so ineffectual that most of the public decides it's not worth trusting with most of their problems.
      • kaelyiesta, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8If you like it, fine. Do you think that means you have the right to also give my money away? What if I refused? What if I saw the governments philanthropic attempt as flawed and unhelpful, and would rather spend my money investing in things that would actually help improve the conditions of poorer people? Do you think that because you enjoy those social programs that I should to? Do you think I am obligated to comply and let my money be taken just as you do?
        • bruenig, on 10/23/2007, -5/+1What if I refuse the law forbidding me to kill people, you wouldn't destroy my liberty by putting my in prison would you? That is an inalienable right. Held that one is actually listed in US documents as being one, property was cut out for pursuit of happiness. But even if I give you property, you must give me liberty at which point prisons must all be abolished as they are simply the government restricting liberty.
    • u8eR, on 10/24/2007, -9/+11Libertarian ideas? Where in his diatribe did he speak of small government? Libertarians are not the only people to support the Constitution.
      • rancemo, on 10/22/2007, -4/+9Well he did run for president in '04 for the Libertarian Party...
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4And from now through forever, anything he says shall henceforth be branded as libertarian.
      • multitude, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4You could read his wikipedia page for starters. Or, you could listen to what he's saying. The continual talk about governments "crossing the line" is a typical libertarian argument. If he were more of a left-wing activist he would talk about how corporations are continually invading our private space for the purpose of profit, or the increased outsourcing of government jobs to corporations, like what we see in Iraq. Badarik's position clearly indicates his position in favor of free-market capitalism and the minimalization of the role of gvt, which is the right-wing libertarian stance.
  • bingobongony, on 10/24/2007, -42/+9I haven't lost any rights. Buried.
    • Ninjapope, on 10/22/2007, -8/+9Not yet.
    • bluscale, on 10/22/2007, -3/+10Try and use some.
    • cecinestpasvrai, on 10/23/2007, -1/+9Well actually, here's a list of 'em bingo. From the "American Conservative" magazine no less.
      http://www.amconmag.com/05_19_03/cover.html
    • Corrosionx, on 10/23/2007, -2/+17Then you don't know what your rights are.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/22/2007, -5/+7Go and blatantly smoke marijuana in public, and see how long you can do it for.
      • ghindo, on 10/22/2007, -5/+7Whether or not you can smoke marijuana in public is indicative of how great your government is? Please.
        • soomprimal, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4No, it's indicative of how intrusive your government is. That's the point.
        • Corrosionx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2If you can't, then your government sucks, of course. Smoking marijuana is a harmless activity and its prohibition dates back to racist ideologies and concerns.

          http://digg.com/politics/Marijuana_is_illegal_beca ...

          So if your government arrests you for that, they suck, and you don't need to agree, because it has nothing to do with your own personal preferences.
    • carltonsmith, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Oh really? I've seen some pretty big erosion of the first amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment and the tenth amendment in my lifetime.
      • lordmetroid, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Those are legal opinions, opinions and rights are not the same! You can not loose a right. Rights exists according to the dominant philosophy during 1776 and you can not loose your rights. You can be opressed by you still have your rights even if the outcome of practiciing your rights once is equal to death in short.
  • jdmCrush, on 10/27/2007, -7/+95I wish I had a history teacher like this guy. He actually grabs my attention
    • ohgr, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10Yeah I'd say he had my attention longer than any teacher I remember during my school days. This is the type of person we should be praising... not 50 Cent, or Steven Spielberg.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1actually that new 50 Cent cd is nice it has this one song on there...............

        ./sarcastic mindless teenager rant
  • CSBolger, on 10/22/2007, -11/+1How exactly is "Blister Popper" related to this?
  • appletalk, on 11/10/2007, -42/+4No one has made a point about how gay that guy's manners are.
    • goffy59, on 11/10/2007, -3/+4blocked for being a wasteful piece of *****.
    • Arcesius, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1is there something wrong with being gay? Dumbledore's gay, ya know.
  • brianbb98, on 10/23/2007, -7/+38People saying we need tinfoil hats for believing in this in 3... 2... 1...

    I dont think its that far of a strech for things to happen in the US like the nazis did in germany.

    Dont believe me? Please, tell me why not. I'm sure theres plenty here on digg to tell you why it could, or how its already going that way...
    • SiNN4R, on 10/23/2007, -4/+34All fascism needs is an empty stomach. Seriously as soon as a famine comes or some natural disaster or a depression comes authoritarians will start popping up too. I refuse to put my trust in anything other than my family and closest friends. The people who do are gonna be in for a rude awakening someday.
      • rebelcommander, on 10/22/2007, -1/+17Or someone willing to create that empty stomach in order to gain control!
      • Detritus, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4"I refuse to put my trust in anything other than my family and closest friends."

        So your solution for Democracy is Tribalism? That seems to be more than a few steps back.
        • SiNN4R, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6Safety and security are temporary. I've lived in the parts of America that most people don't see, the ***** up parts. You can go ahead and trust your neighbor and trust in the world as a whole but when things get bad you'll start realizing that there are very few people you can really trust. When you live in the parts of the world where there are drug dealers and robberies and violence on a regular basis you begin to realize how little it takes to disolve human decency.
          • Detritus, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5I grew up a spoiled white boy, was a Libertarian in the cozy warmth of the Ivory Tower, and then I lived out in the real-world. I got a sweet apartment, an old Victorian with a lot of SQ FT. for the rent, but just across the street was "the ghetto". Seeing people starving and selling themselves, desperate for heroin as much as food, I also had an epiphany. It had nothing to do with decency or trust; mine was a realization of compassion.
    • ohgr, on 10/24/2007, -13/+1The likelyhood of a famine hitting this country is pretty slim. Now a days, with science, most of our food is artificial, and created in a lab. We could lose entire crops, and meat stock, and still some how be able to eat, for as long as there are minimum wagers willing to mass produce corn dogs.

      Just saying though, it will take more than a famine to get people worked up and ready to log off their computers, and fight for their lives.
      • yurishoujo, on 10/22/2007, -0/+8Most of our food is artificial? You've never seen the miles and miles of fields of the midwest then. Some of our food is artificial, but not to the point where if all fields failed we'd be okay.
    • elpasoGuy, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4well lets see we once rounded up all the Japanese citizens and put them in camps, then right now we have one called Guantanamo Bay... so its too scary how real this is
    • Omnipotency, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1It's only like Nazi Germany when Bush declares himself emperor for life. Otherwise we get some new douchebag to deal with next year.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/24/2007, -4/+1What he said about Hitler being elected is pure fantasy - tinfoil hat not needed, just a history book.
  • CircleFusion, on 10/24/2007, -26/+9I appreciate and agree with a lot of what he has to say.

    But he sounds like a nut. Something about the way he is expressing himself makes him sound like the angry, drunk homeless guy on the street corner yelling at people about random stuff.
  • j3one, on 10/24/2007, -23/+40wow, I am all for us taking back our rights, but holly hell - I had no idea the holocaust was because the Jews were to big of pussies to stand up for themselves as their rights were taken away. This Tard id do full of fail.. Statements like, "did the Jews write their own newspaper articles? I don't know, I never read any" wtf? This guy has no idea how things went down..
    • bruenig, on 10/24/2007, -9/+5Yeah, well the only way to know whether something isn't is to know all that is. So to know if jews wrote their own newspaper articles, he would have needed to read every article published during that time, which is no small feat.
      • bluscale, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Or maybe one published by Jews for Jews.
      • mithrasinvictus, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Maybe he should focus on drawing conclusions from what he DOES know instead of what he doesn't.
        He brought the subject up.
        • bruenig, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1But the point is that, not having read any jewish articles, assuming he had read a bunch of articles, would be enough to at least venture down that path.
    • animal71, on 10/24/2007, -3/+18No - He would need to have read one history book, which outlined the fate of people who opposed the Nazis. One example of an article written by a Jew would be enough to answer his question "Did the Jews write their own newspaper articles?" One google search for "Yiddish newspaper nazis" would have revealed a gamut of media that opposed the extermination of Jews. This is one lazy teacher.
      • bruenig, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4The extermination happened after the point he mentioned newspapers. He was talking about any counteracting newspaper articles that refuted the ones initially put out by hitler. You lose for not paying attention.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/27/2007, -4/+23Well he did say "He didn't know" and that "He never read any", which are both, I am assuming, true statements. Whether the Jews published newspapers or not, and at what point during the holocaust they started or stopped is really not that important to the message he was trying to convey.

      You can all nitpick things he said, and I'll bet he would probably concede that you may be right about many of them. That's really not the point. His point was that the Holocaust was an example of when letting people bully you turned out to have disastrous consequences. You would probably say "Hey but the Nazis were way stronger, it would have been stupid to try to fight them". Yeah well that's just the way the world works. Sometimes you just have to stand up anyways even if it's dangerous, because not standing up can be even more dangerous.
      • Detritus, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2No, the Jewish newspaper articles are not tangential to this subject. You can't dismiss the importance of this fact vis a vis his statements.

        If the Jews did attempt any amount of resistance, than his provocation for similar resistance has a historical record of failure. Look at all the Libertarian bloggers, making up stories about a 13 y/o sharp shooter killing 2 illegal immigrants who were trying to rape her. Look at the libertarian blogger making up stories about being from the Future after WW3 and the world ending up in a Libertarian utopia. There are Libertarians publishing their own articles in resistance of the tyrants, which he seems to be advocating as a simple resistance measure not attempted by the Jews, when, historically that seems to be incorrect.

        I'm not saying making up ***** on Blogs is going to fail the same way the Jewish articles he didn't read did... but if we're hedging out bets on preserving Democracy Freedom simply by blogging then things aren't looking good for us.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1You lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about.
    • blueyin, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Its actually less that they "didnt write their own papers" and more about the history of the jewish people. Which is very complicated. The short version is that jews have went through Pogroms (times when they were killed and or kicked out of cities/villages) since the beginning of time. The basic idea behind not fighting back is that they usually were just kicked out of town, not slaughtered wholesale. (though this wasn't always the case, just usually the case). It was also about mindset, when you have been a sheep all your life, you just go with it. NOTE, im not saying this is right by any means, what im saying is the sentiment of the video is correct. In the end the jews did not stand up for themselves enough, because history had taught them that they would survive (poorly) if they just kept their head down. History was just wrong this time.
      • ChuyMatt, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1OK... the antisemitism in the whole of Europe (and the US, btw) was at a high level during this particular period of time. The Jews were considered to be all rich (they were not allowed to own property outright and could do no other work but banking in the Middle Ages, thus the steriotype) and everyone was hurting due to the depression.

        There were SOME strictly Jewish newspapers at the time, but for the most part many were just trying to blend into society as much as possible, many having converted to Christianity a long time before the '30s. Then these articles came out. They began to become worried. There were Jews being thrown out of Russia by that time, they were hated by the majority of Europe and then it simply got worse. Some tried to flee to America, with poor results (the US turned them away, to their deaths). The main method of communication to the community as a whole was in rabbinical speeches. SO, there were not many strictly Jewish organizations speaking out at that time as they were trying to not be noticed.
    • weareglass, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6The problem with this argument is that there were plenty of people, I'm not sure how many were Jewish, who complained and protested the Nazi party's rise to power. But the aspect of the Nazi party that made them so horribly efficient was their ability to threaten, kill and or imprison their political opponents. The first concentration camp was built in 1933 and served to house political prisoners. Anyone who disagreed with the Nazi party was systematically rounded up and either imprisoned or shot. This was 6 years prior to the invasion of Poland and five years before Kristallnacht. It is safe to say that anyone who disagreed with the Nazi party, whether Jewish or not, would have been systematically removed as a threat, and any records of their dissent erased from record. So to say that no one rose up against the Nazis is a fallacy, there is simply no way to track this, but it is obvious that it happened. How many of those people were Jewish, it's harder to say. But if the Jews had protested, they would have shared the fate of all other political opponents of Hitler. Imprisonment or death.

      While I agree with the points being made, making them based on a gross historical fallacy is a poor way to convince me. Please do not support this video and its spread of misinformation. I'm sure there are better ways to make the point that we should not stand for the abuses of our rights by our elected officials.
    • sgglynn, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2It feels like people are brainwashed to fight about one particular point in a speech instead of the major thesis at hand. Look at America today: Mainstream media are silent, only blogs and small media seem to be fighting. I wouldn't call someone a liar if they said that "The American Media is silent while their freedoms are taken away" Yes, some people aren't silent, but our major voices are.
    • multitude, on 10/23/2007, -2/+5Yes, the speaker takes the often-used but rarely defended position of "blame the victim" for their hardships. This kind of argument is used by conservatives against blacks and other races in our society as well. I think that this stems from his libertarian position, which limits the intervention of government in cases like this. Libertarian conservatives like Badnarik claim to defend personal liberties, but when it comes to important issues like discrimination, all they can come up with is "well, we're all empowered, so fix your own damn problems". Doesn't work very well when there are deeply embedded structures like race and class in society.

      This is a weakness not just of this speakers' argument, but of libertarian, right-wing thought itself. Yup, Ron Paul, too does the same thing. Think about it next time you see an article about him posted here.
  • ElectricDoodie, on 10/24/2007, -13/+12I love this guy.
  • DjOverEZ, on 10/25/2007, -5/+40I'm no historian, and I'll gladly retract what I say if I'm proved wrong, but the fact that he says the Jews were ok with the ***** the Nazis did to them early on sounds a bit odd to me.

    Did the Jews not protest in the streets about their rights being violated because they were cool with being treated like dirt or were they scared ***** of the Nazis who were shooting people left and right who spoke out against the regime?
    • AbsurdParadox, on 10/23/2007, -2/+22Has protesting stopped many of the things our own government is doing?
    • kakwakas, on 10/23/2007, -0/+26I'm pretty sure that's when Einstein moved to America.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/22/2007, -5/+3study history
    • ohgr, on 10/22/2007, -0/+8I don't know about what the Jews did during the Nazi Regime, but I'd imagine some protested.. most likely those people were silenced quickly is my guess.
      • WoollyMittens, on 10/25/2007, -0/+13If you spoke out against the fascists, people would come to your home and beat the ***** out of you. This is how it started in Italy as well.
        • edzilla, on 10/25/2007, -0/+11Exactly. Germany had brown shirts, and Italy Black shirts.
    • edzilla, on 10/23/2007, -0/+20No, because protesting would have meant brown shirts attacking you in your home, and the police doing nothing.

      You have to understand the context: germany was in the middle of an extremely bad economic depression, their national pride had been brocken by the stupid and unfair "Versailles Treaty", and they were eager for ANY improvement.
      And whatever else Hitler did, he did improve things economically, building highways, creating jobs...
      He was a monster, but a monster who knew exactly how to win people to his side.
      • ChuyMatt, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2I love that the French and English decided to go against W. Wilson's recommendation to NOT implement the Versailles treaty. He hated the idea for the reasons that came true.

        These are the things that people who have a head on their shoulders have been saying about Extraordinary rendition and torture. Want to bet that their predictions of how it will worsen our standing and fan the flames of hatred will come true?
    • darnit, on 10/23/2007, -0/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprisin ...
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Protest always carries a threat of violence.

      Standing up for yourself is not a safe thing to do. The world is not a perfect place. Look at the French revolution, the American Revolution, Tienanmen Square, The Berlin Wall/Soviet Union. Some of those incidents turned out better than others. The point is that you just have to guess at what the right thing to do is sometimes. Sometimes it takes courage to come to the conclusion that fighting (and possibly dying) is the right thing to do. Sometimes diplomacy is the right thing. Sometimes giving the bad guys what they what is the right choice. But we can't let fear determine all of our choices. We always eventually have to fight to do whats right, because there will always be bad people that are willing to exploit our complacency and natural desire to avoid confrontation.

      This is starting to sound a bit pro GW/Iraq War because of current rhetoric and current events, but please don't take it that way.
    • darnit, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprisin ...
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Obviously "The Jews" are a group of people. They are all capable of making their own decisions, and some of them did decide to fight back. Most, however, did not. How would it have turned out had all the Jews tried to kill as many Nazi's as possible? Nobody knows. Maybe better, maybe worse.
      • ChuyMatt, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1It probably would have been used as PROOF of the Jewish Conspiracy, because, if they were actually good German citizens they would NEVER try to hurt it from within.
    • p0tent1al, on 10/22/2007, -3/+6the jews waited until it was too late to protest, basically. And even then, it was the minority that was protesting, the rest of them were scared to protest, kind of like how in this country, America, everyone is afraid to speak up.
    • Pureeviljester, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4i guess we'll blame the Japanese, as well, for being kept in camps in the U.S. during WW2...
  • uncommonwords, on 10/23/2007, -18/+2buried for being being "so last August"
  • kindrobot, on 10/23/2007, -9/+14The line must be drawn HERE!
    (said a bald frenchman once)
  • MalDON, on 10/22/2007, -4/+17I had a teacher that was almost like this guy, except he couldn't really say what he wanted to thanks to politics in the public school system.
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/23/2007, -13/+19Oh give me a ***** break, like the Jews had any chance to complain. They didn't have a voice, there was no freedom of speech for them, this guy has skewered a few facts of the past. But still, it was a passionate plea to his students to stand up for their freedoms.
    • Toshibi, on 10/23/2007, -8/+5Everyone has the freedom of speech. You open your mouth, you speak. If you don't do it when it's important, or you choose to allow others to usurp it, that's no one's fault but your own. I am a walking free speech zone.
      • edzilla, on 10/24/2007, -3/+17No. Read history. A jew opening his mouth, even in the beginning of hitler's rise to power would have meant unnofficial SA troops(brown shirts) in his home.
        • Toshibi, on 10/23/2007, -5/+5You're not following here. Okay, you have liberty on one side, you have safety on the other. If you give up your liberties for some assumed safety, you're not getting either. The Jews did not use their liberties, they did not protect themselves, their rights, or their property (though I'm sure some did, perhaps many). You do not derive your rights from the benefit of a government nor do you lose your rights by threat of force. You concede your rights, and once that happens, they are damn hard to get back.
      • multitude, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Well, libertarians would want us to think that everyone is able to speak for themselves. But pre-existing ideologies limit the degree to which we pay attention to someone. Governments have intervened to help the disenfranchised in society historically. However, Badnarik is a libertarian conservative. This calls for us to reduce the scope and power of government. Because of this, the government can't intervene as effectively to protect the individual liberties that it claims so staunchly to defend. Hence the speakers' reliance on the position of "blame the victim" in his speech. It really relates to the weakness of the libertarian argument.
    • Burninsensation, on 10/23/2007, -2/+8dead men don't have free speech
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/23/2007, -2/+5I think the mindset of waiting for people in power to give you freedom is becoming contagious again.
    • geddon, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2The Jews had plenty of time to complain about the rise in Nationalism -- and they did, along with many reporters and educators -- just like we do in this country. But the "Good Germans" believed in what Hitler told them, even as their liberties were slowly taken away from them. Think of how DANGEROUS most Americans believe Mexicans are to our country if you need some perspective.
  • joeTaco, on 10/29/2007, -19/+60Well his heart's in the right place.. but he shouldn't be allowed to teach until he's read a couple of history books. Hitler was NEVER elected. The closest he ever came was when he got 36% of the vote in 1932, losing to Hindenburg. He came to power because President Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_rise_to_powe ...
    • taseedorf, on 10/23/2007, -10/+17First off, you're an idiot joeTaco. Hitler WAS ELECTED. Yes, he did become chancellor by being appointed by President. But, behind that there were other people in power who VOTED. Secondly, when he became President.... HE WAS VOTED FOR again. You read Wikipedia and assume its all correct? For all you know, some random idiot like yourself wrote the article. And lastly, I won't add another reply.....but ROBOZILLA below....He didn't take Germany by force..... most people there believed his lies and loved him, even Jews at first. Infact, at first, Jews thought they were part of Hitler's master plan of turnaround....And at first, as well, Jews thought they were being relocated to better homes, since most were poor. And many gave up their guns because Hitler originally said they were needed for war, and promised them money in return.
      • aikimoe, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3I could've sworn that Hitler never won an election with a majority of votes. If you could supply a link, I'd appreciate it.
      • Thelloyd, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4I am afraid not. In 1932 Hitler lost the presidential elections to president Hindenburg. But Hitler was the leader of the NSDAP, which became the largest party after parliamentary elections in 1932. He was only appointed (not elected) chancellor of the Reichstag by President Hindenburg because the President thought he could better control him within the largely conservative Reichstag.

        Hitler never became president. He used the burning of the Reichstag to convince Hindenburg that there was a communist threat and got him to issue an emergency ordinance that put Germany under Martial Law. Under this ordinance Hitler as a chancellor had a lot of power. In 1933 Hitler dismantled the Reichstag and held new a new election, which he did not win (43,9%). He then amended the constitution to give him broad powers and that started his dictatorship.
      • ninti, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3"You read Wikipedia and assume its all correct?"

        Generally, yes. And, Generally, it is. And so it is in this case. You shouldn't believe everything you read from any source, but Wikipedia has been proven over and over again to be a very good source. And it's certainly more reliable than random idiots on Digg.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2I am sorry taseedorf - you are the idiot. Hitler never won an election - Hindenburg won the election (for president) but since no clear majority was in power (including the Nazis) the Nazi party used the system to gain more power - Hitler was appointed Chancellor of a coalition government prior to the election - after Hindenburg death, Hitler assumed all power and did away with the presidency. (Hitler was never the President - he was Chancellor then Führer and supreme commander of the military) Making ***** up - even for a good cause - is not good.
    • bennies, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5That's being elected if you think the US President gets elected. Bush didn't get your direct vote either. The Electoral College votes for the President, they could have violated their pledge and voted differently. President Hindenburg got the peoples votes and made a choice.
    • rancemo, on 10/23/2007, -4/+9He shouldn't be allowed to teach? This is a class he teaches to adults who voluntarily pay to learn about the constitution. This is not some public high school history teacher. You want to stop him from teaching these classes?
      His point was that the people accepted Hitler and supported what he did – at least in the beginning. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
    • bigapple666, on 10/23/2007, -3/+5Please don't tell me you linked to a Wikipedia article as your reference! LOL!
    • Adamande, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Joe, you site one single source and think you have some kind of truth? I would be very careful with that. Even other Wiki-articles on the same subject will give you different numbers, and there are several dates to consider (check out aug 19, 1934), and several elections with numbers varying from your estimate to Badnariks estimate. I have no idea which estimate is the "most correct" but one thing I hope we can all agree on: Hitler was elected. Let's just face this and learn from it instead of trying to sweep it under the rug and forget about it? Please? Forgotten history has a nasty tendency of repeating itself, and I don't really want that to happen.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler (mentions almost 90% voters in 1934)
      http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/41806.html (History News Network operates with a 95.7 percentage of German voters for Hitler)
  • Robozilla, on 10/22/2007, -18/+12I agree, this guy is an idiot. I mean, his heart is in the right place, but this is an uneducated speech. Of course the Jews stood up to Hitler. And while it can be said that Hitler didn't take germany by force, he did. By the time that election rolled around, you better believe you'd be voting for him, or you'd risk facing the consequences.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3Fraudulent elections also helped.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/23/2007, -2/+7Of course the Jews stood up to Hitler? I don't think Micahel Badnarik is the one who is uneducated. It is a pretty well known fact that the Jews did very little to stand up to Hitler. The debate is whether that was the right decision or not. I think most people would say it was not. I personally don't know. Maybe even more of them would have died, had they tried to directly fight the Nazi's. But if they did "stand up" to Hitler, that was the worst stand in history. Even the Jews think it was a terrible decision. The state of Israel is crazy militaristic because of their desire to never be so powerless again. I don;t want to get into a debate about pro/anti Israeli stuff, but I think we can all agree that Israel is definitely not a country you want to ***** with.
      • WoollyMittens, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Except that the state of Israel would have been better founded in Greenland, instead of the most instable region of the world.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Like I said. Not trying to debate validity of Israel.
  • gavin422, on 10/23/2007, -12/+50Hitler won 98% of the vote in Austria-Hungary? The Jews were OK with Kristallnacht? How did this guy become a professor?
    • bluscale, on 10/22/2007, -8/+6He's a high school Constitution teacher, cut him some slack. You got the gist of it.
      • gavin422, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6I do, but he really could've done this a lot better. I mean, there are plenty of ways to show that we're losing our rights without Godwin-ing the whole discussion right away. It's just a bad example.
      • rancemo, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4No, he's not a high school teacher, this footage is from a private class he teaches on the constitution. But he did come in third place in the 2004 presidential election.
        • bluscale, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Are you serious? Wow... all I have to say is that I'm glad he has in own opinion on things like this as opposed to Bush that just reads off whatever his gang printed for him but he's a terrible speaker.
        • ghindo, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2He came in third place with what percentage of the vote?
        • JigoroKano, on 10/23/2007, -0/+598%
    • animal71, on 10/23/2007, -3/+22Yep - This guy is making things up. I wish his pupils would call him on that. He has vast reserves of chutzpah - criticising others for not knowing the facts of the constitution, when he displays such ignorance of the facts of history. The Nazi party never had a majority of the electorate voting for them. (They came close, but never an outright majority):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
      Doesn't he say at one point (early in the video clip) that there were no Jewish-written newspaper articles opposing the Nazis? He is utterly ignorant of the mechanics of the Nazi rise to power. He's doing his pupils a huge disservice by misleading them in this way.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2The Nazi party never had a majority of the electorate? I think they might have had a majority by the time London was being bombed. Notice that the chart only goes up to 1933. This is because after that, it is pretty well known that the Nazi's were firmly in power.
        • PoopsMcG, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2There's a difference between taking the majority of the electorate by force (such staging riots during important votes to scare non-Hitler supporters from showing up) and actually winning it in a vote. Learn some history.
        • Thelloyd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2By that time elections weren't held anymore, so no, the NSDAP never had the majority.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1It would have been impossible for Hitler to take over had his message not resonated with a large percentage of the population. Some people like to say that the Nazi's took over Germany forcefully (i.e. the German people were unwilling to go along with it, but were forced). This is ludicrous.

          If the republicans decided that G W Bush was now a dictator, the constitution was not to be followed anymore, and there will be no more elections, I would imagine that the military, and civilians (even the republicans I hope) would be ready to overthrow the government.

          The fact that that didn't happen indicates a high level of complacency with the Nazi government from the German people, whether elections happened or not. I would even go so far as to say it went far beyond complacency.

          Learn some common sense PoopsMcg.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2Stop citiing wikipedia as the end all be all reference of your point, because it is user edited and inaccurate. If you are going to cite, cite from another source, wikipedia gives no credibility to your story whatsoever.
        • Steviebe21, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1It's not like he's writing a publishable article here. It's a freaking comment on digg. Wikipedia is more than appropriate in this case.
      • Thelloyd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Germany did not have a two-party system, so the NSDAP could win the elections by getting the most votes and at the same time not have the majority of the votes.
    • WoollyMittens, on 10/22/2007, -5/+3He has the right to blame the jews for the holocaust. Obviously his country has more freedom than nazi-germany.
  • benbfree, on 10/22/2007, -23/+3Abortion will be known, throughout the history of the future, as the worst genocide in human history. I will not comply with those who say it is a freedom or a choice. On the same hand, I will not comply the war in Iraq, the Patriot act, etc. People like being against things when it's popular to do so. (Bush, the war). But to truly fight for justice is to speak out even though it may be unpopular to do so. Abortion is genocide, women/children deserve better. This comment is relevant to the video because the professor needs to take his logic to all of the injustices Americans have been tricked into accepting.
    • JoeRW, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6Wow, you would hate 'Freakonomics' then. Levitt shows that Roe vs Wade has had the long term (25 yr) unexpected affect of reducing crime by more than half, when all indications were that there was going to be a growing crime and murder epidemic. Go figure.
      • benbfree, on 10/22/2007, -6/+1See what you're doing, you justifying this atrocity. Hitler spoke repeatedly about how the Jews were constantly dominating the business world. And obviously there was enough truth to that statement for people to believe him. But that doesn't justify WHAT HE DID. Likewise, no statistics on crime will justify abortion. The tide is already turning. When my grandkids ask me what I did to fight abortion and the general neglect of women/children I hope I can say I did as much as I could.
  • u8eR, on 10/22/2007, -11/+6This guy totally condescending toward Jews. It's terrible.

    Best line though:
    "... Overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. How do you know if the Constitution is being perverted if you haven't read it?"
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4He is also very disrespectful towards the Nazis
    • iLEZ, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2So, if anyone ever mentions the word "Jew" without total reverence, they are condecending? He was making a gosh darn metaphor: Any people who do not (for any reason) stand up to oppression will be oppressed.
    • sgglynn, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2He's trying to compel Americans to revolt before we become the next dictatorship, and all you care about is that he seems condescending towards a religion? And that makes him terrible? Not only is that NOT the point of his speech, but also


      Who cares? There are much more important things to worry about than being offensive right now. The more we try and protect everyone else's feelings, the less we notice/care about our own government ripping our country apart. People like you are willing to completely right off anything someone says because of a few points in the whole speech. WAKE UP
  • iwonataco, on 10/22/2007, -9/+2white tennis shoes, black pants and a weird ass tie.
  • freshgrease, on 10/22/2007, -15/+7He's one of the last American heroes. It sucks that the government will be sending him to Guantanamo for defending the Constitution and the founding principals for which they oppose.
    • jivecjedkin, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2No they wont, and you're dumb. Don't act like you're on the losing side and everyone is against you. This isn't Enemy of the State, and you're not Will Smith.
      Sorry, and it's not just you, it's a bunch of people on this site.
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/24/2007, -18/+17I am so proud that I can say I voted for Michael Badnarik back in 2004. I even donated $100 to him back when I was in college and had very little income.

    This time I have already donated $380 to Ron Paul. WE CAN DO THIS!!! Vote in your states republican primary elections, if we can win the republican primary, not even Hillary will be able to stop us.
    • WoollyMittens, on 10/24/2007, -12/+7No you can't. Nobody will vote for him and you are just being anoying by spamming Digg with it.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/23/2007, -3/+8It must be terrible to be so full of pessimism.
        • ghindo, on 10/24/2007, -7/+4It must be terrible to be so out of touch with reality.
    • cnycompguy, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6Republicans and democrats are all a part of the same broken system, nowhere in the constitution does it say we need to elect