MINK
Member Profile
Bio:
British musician/designer living in Lithuania.
Comments
Subscribe
Eia Videos Submitted by MINKNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (7)
- sifted videos (77)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (7)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.
you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.
Which is exactly what America is doing.
In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.
Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.
if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.
If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?
And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?
Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.
Hope that clears things up for you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.
you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.
Which is exactly what America is doing.
In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.
Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.
if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.
If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?
And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?
Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.
Hope that clears things up for you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
you're saying my point isn't worth discussing, and yet you keep coming back to discuss it.
you say these "empirical trends are to be expected". Well, cool, we agree. Nations turn into empires (if they're lucky) and then try to dominate other countries unfairly, eventually causing their own destruction with their arrogance.
Which is exactly what America is doing.
In the context of millions of americans supporting this self destruction, voting for leaders that continue it, and denying that there is a problem, i think my point is relevant.
Seeing as america was founded with a very definite aim to avoid monarchy and empire, it is especially ironic (in the case of america) that she has formed basically a shared monarchy and an empire. Other countries at least admitted what they were doing (British EMPIRE the clue is in the title). America came along as the bright new hope, with a great constitution, but then over time reverted to the traditional "Leader is the decider and we need to preemptively attack other countries" system.
if you don't think it is relevant, silence might be a more appropriate response.
If you are "defending america" then i wonder... why?
And by the way, in case you are assuming this is some kind of transatlantic rivalry thing, i fucking hate Britain too.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Exactly; your point that America "developed" the bad characteristics they wanted to get away from is debatable in the context of time. Being as empires rise and fall and usually in similar ways, the "decline" of America may or may not have anything to do with its attitude. Being as its been over 200 years since its inception, any movement that reflects typical "empirical" trends is to be expected. Paint it "u terbul amerikkans" if it makes you feel all warm and squishy or perhaps you prefer snide and hopeless? Whatever. I was only saying that implying America has pagentry and "royalty" because its somehow tainted with nasty ickyness in its deep-rooted culture is kind of silly. America is over 200 years old, its bound to have similiarity with many older cultures. Big Fucking Deal. Why not discuss cultural problems that are a direct result of the people?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?
Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.
Hope that clears things up for you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
"debatable" ?
you can go and debate the theory that empires rise and fall, in cycles spanning hundreds of years, with any historian you like, and see what they tell you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?
Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.
Hope that clears things up for you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?
In reply to this comment by MINK:
Thanks, your upvote got me my Gold 100 and dragged one of my favourites out of obscurity.
uh, more than 200 years later. Considering context of time, I think your point is a bit errant and very debatable.
what July 4th stands for is independance from the British. That's it. Any other meaning is personal. If you want to romanticize American independance just so you can bemoan its dilution... have fun.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
I never said "Americans" hate "The British".
I suggested the founding fathers hated the way the british ran the colonies and founded a nation of their own, that eventually developed the bad characteristics of that which it replaced.
Americans aren't big on subtlety? So now I have to adjust every post on the internet to take this into account?
Every country has "royalty" and propaganda parades... and yes it is shameful, especially in the context of 4th July and everything the young america was supposed to stand for.
Hope that clears things up for you.
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
1) We Americans do not hate the british. I don't think you know much American history.
2) What is this video supposed to "show"? If you've got something to say, spit it out. Most Americans aren't real big on subtlety.
3) Every country has its "royalty" regardless of their title. People like a bit of pagentry. Is that supposed to be shameful?
The communists invaded many countries during their reign of terror, because capitalism was "unjust" and "exploited the worker." 100 million dead later, thankfully one of the two major communist countries is no more.
I'm sure every convicted killer on death row feels that the State putting him to death is an "unjust" act. No matter what the USA does, someone ain't gonna like it. What's done is done, and some will condemn it and others approve.
Before 9-11, the USA foolishly neglected its duty to protect itself. After 9-11, the hands-off approach wasn't going to fly. For the record, I'm not tying 9-11 directly to Iraq but to the increase in danger of the world's political climate.
so why not prosecute the war in iraq justly if justice is your cause?
By doing what, exactly? Saddam had 12 years to comply with inspections. What did all those UN Resolutions do to thwart him? Nothing.
Have you noticed the UN is worthless?
Militarily they're a toothless lot of blue-helmeted security guards.
On the political front, it's elected a host of 3rd-world savages and despots who conveniently blame "the West" for their own despotism.
You're confusing the garbage UN of now with a fictional enlightened future world-body.
Would it be reasonable to say that you can't have a world community with yahoos like Saddam running around threatening neighboring countries and firing rifles into the air?
SO perhaps we can agree that there is such thing as a justifiable war, but this is not it, and this has fucked things up bigtime.
Before 9-11, I'd agree with you that invading Iraq would be too costly, especially with unclear goals. Not that we ever should've taken the islamofacist threat lightly, after 9-11 we weren't going to wait around for another attack. And so we've erased a pesky dictator and helped a Middle East nation take its first baby steps toward a government that serves its people, and it's to the USA's disadvantage that we're helping build a republic and not another monarchy. The Iraqis' problems now are the problems of freedom.
I served in the RAF cadets by the way. Hardly pacifist. But i didn't join the regulars because I was nervous about politicians sending me to my grave in a fucking corrupt oil war, pretending i am defending liberty while cynically profiting from my death.
That's your personal choice based on your life experience. Fair enough.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
and i would like to add, that unjust wars discredit the perpetrator, so that if a real war is necessary in future, you're fucked and you can't do your brave valiant democracy defending even if you are in the right next time...
Unfortunately there are people in the world who don't care whether or not you're a pacifist, they'll try to run you over whether you fight back or not. It's this other type of person that we have laws and police and armies to defend against.
My view is that war, like government, is a necessary evil.
Your view might be that war is never justified--I don't know for sure.
At this juncture, all I can say is my views of what's right and wrong differ from yours and are equally sincere.
Let the fun continue!
In reply to this comment by MINK:
I sincerely wish I knew what you mean by that. Is it some coded proof that in 2003 everyone knew the war would take years and kill thousands of US troops and there wouldn't be any WMD?
?
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
"All rock and roll is toothless. It's a toothless form." --Pete Townsend
In reply to this comment by MINK:
How's the war going? All over by Christmas as usual?
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2748336820080628
In reply to this comment by MINK:
How's the war going? All over by Christmas as usual?
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2748336820080628
I am preaching for a stated videosift policy on voting, but until there is a stated policy i will go with the "do whatever the hell i want" policy as it stands.
sorry it's a bit annoying when i don't bother commenting but i suggest you support the idea of a consistent policy to make these conflicts go away. i would stick to whatever that policy was, or leave the site.
I don't believe the force of my example will convert the whole sift to a different way of voting, I am sure the only answer is a stated policy from the admins, in the FAQ.
I downvoted that prodigy vid because as usual, i thought the mashup destroyed all that was good about the originals. If someone did that live in a DJ set i would probably go mental, but on youtube it's just... cheap. I upvoted a vid in your queue to compensate. The marbles are nice.
In reply to this comment by Obsidianfire:
To MINK:
Practice what you preach. You downvoted one of my videos with no explanation. Please explain.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Prodigy-vs-White-Stripes-Blue-People
And that's fine and all, downvoting. I just thought it was kind of rude not explaining why you downvoted when you made this nice discussion about voting policy and your opinion on them. Justly so I might add. You understand my frustration, right? No one likes being downvoted, of course. In keeping good spirit, from now on if I catch someone downvoting anything and not explaining why, I'm going to pester them about it. Seems fair enough right? As long as there is a valid explanation I'm all for it. Opinions are opinions but a community isn't much without them, good or bad.
Unit cost US$38 million in 1998
The raptor is more costly.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
That is one of the best damn aeromobiles in the universe. *salute.
errr.. how much are they? just asking...
In reply to this comment by MINK:
Kisses?
If we'd had that attitude to Hitler we'd all be speaking German right now.
/irony
In reply to this comment by MINK:
kulpims said it best.
i read all the comments.
it's a disgusting situation.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
If you would have read my previous comment, that's exactly what I said. So go give Kulpims a high five for agreeing with me.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
kulpims! blam! blam! blam! blam! QUADRUPLE HIT SUPERCOMBO!
The nice americans give the nasty americans support to go rape other countries.
What the nice americans SHOULD be saying is "That's illegal. Stop that immediately. People are dying."
but no, they go on and on about "helping" some more.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
kulpims! blam! blam! blam! blam! QUADRUPLE HIT SUPERCOMBO!
The nice americans give the nasty americans support to go rape other countries.
What the nice americans SHOULD be saying is "That's illegal. Stop that immediately. People are dying."
but no, they go on and on about "helping" some more.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
today i shot a glock, sig, smith and wesson, and a heckler and koch mp5
thought you'd like that.