I'm sorry I have to downvote your video @bobknight33, but this is victim-blaming too, just the other way around.

It cherry-picks facts and ignores a swath of data to the contrary. Correlation/causation, etc.

@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.

Happy birthday, Shep! I hope it's a beautiful one filled with origami, cherry blossoms, and visions of sugar plum fairies... and and raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens...

♥

Maddow and the Hollywood Reporter have documentation and admissions from the corporate entities themselves that they hired paid actors. You have a bullshit article with a single person as a source hosted on a website with a Colombian top level domain name. Oh, and the cherry on top of this shit sundae is the name of the author of this article, Jimmy Rustling.
Well played Bobby, well played indeed.

While I agree, being on RT does not mean the story is falsified, but it does mean you can't assume it's not.

When propaganda machines masquerade as news, you're better off just ignoring them, even though they will likely tell the truth every now and then. The issue is you can't tell, without extraordinary investigation, which is real reporting and which is pure propaganda, and which is a mixture. What this means is most people who get their news from these organizations will be constantly misinformed and less knowledgeable about the actual facts, having been duped by propagandists.

No reputable reporter would tarnish their reputation by joining one of these lie factories, IMO. That Chris Hedges ended up here means he made a HUGE mistake somewhere and is no longer working as an actual reporter but instead has become a purveyor of biased opinion.

What I think swayed tens of thousands of voters was the reporting of the underhanded collusion between Clinton and the DNC. Most didn't vote for Trump, they didn't vote for president at all, or went 3rd party.

What happened in 2001-2002 was the administration cherry picked and twisted intelligence to make a case for war against a country that had not attacked us, the intelligence community was not on board for the most part, and many declassified reports indicate they were not at all confident about WMD's or them having any hand in 9/11, contrary to the administrations public and zealous position at the time.....but that is why it is relevant. Trump has shown he'll take his own advice and viewpoint over intelligence professionals, so the idea that he'll lie about, twist, and ignore intelligence reports is relevant....he's already done so and he's not even president yet.

Less funny by the day. He needs to abandon this character.

And Obama is as much "white" as he is "black" (if you believe in the race fairy tale).

Cherry joke was good though.

*ban
Cherry Regina
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_CyX6wlw_A

I would say that Stalin, the Kin Jong's, Various African Tribal Genocides, and Pol Pot might disagree with your account of wholesale slaughter being reserved for the 'white' Europeans and their descendants. That is just to name a few. Also, what is a 'white' European? I mean the southern Europeans have quite a bit of Moorish blood in them, do they still count as 'white'?

All sarcasm aside, your argument is extremely flawed. Conquerors tend to lay waste to the societies they conquer, not always in terms of total lives lost, but in terms of cultural death. The reason why 'white' people are vilified for this lately is because for the past several hundred years they have been the ones expanding and taking over the regions you speak of. This is not exclusive to a skin color or originating locale, it is absolutely a core of our human nature.

I gave some examples earlier of non-European conquerors, but they are fairly recent. If we look in history at other groups, we find the same meme. The Steppe Horse Tribes were BRUTAL to cities and countries that did not capitulate. Look up "Measuring against the linchpin". That saying came from the fact that if you resisted Mongol rule, they would slaughter every male taller than the linchpin of a wagon wheel. The Aztecs and Mayans ruled southern American empires through great brutality, including human sacrifice for 'religious' purposes. Recent discoveries even indicate that it was considered a good omen if the sacrifices were crying in pain before they were to die. Remains recently found showed "All shared one feature: serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections painful enough to make them cry."

Slavery originated as early as human recorded history, if not sooner. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations. Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Although slavery in some form or another existed in most European countries, it wasn't until after contact with the Arabic African slave traders that it soared in the 15th and 16th centuries.

tl;dr

You are referring to recent history to make an example while completely ignoring THOUSANDS of years of similar history. All humanity is flawed, narrowing it down to a singular group with cherry picked data is not going to persuade anyone with a brain.

These comments are hardly written as if they are your "opinion".

"Cant take him seriously anyone since I realized he deletes comments that use facts to disprove him or expose his hypocrisy."

and

"Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves."

I would be totally interested (and why I'd like you to bother) to know if he is being deceitful as ive never heard this about him. If you are going to make accusations like these you should probably show us what you know (evidence). Don't you think?

Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves.

Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.

Ah, sarcasm went over my head - must have been something I ate

I think I get what you are saying - because I'm vegan, it's assumed my compassion for living beings applies to humans as well.

Normally yes, but if someone's goal is to hurt animals then the human takes second place.

If it was just someone just bird watching or picking cherries off a tree, then of course my response wouldn't have been so nasty.


And if I really think about it, I'm glad the bear didn't attack, because it most likely would have resulted in the bear dying, since they can't shoot guns....and even if it did rip the guy in 1/2, someone else would have a reason to kill it.

But still if the hunters want a challenge they should just shoot at each other.

First off, I would go as far to say that most vegans are more unhealthy than omnivores because they think exactly that -- I'm vegan so nothing can go wrong! That's exactly what I'm saying.

Secondly, can you cite somewhere that says he and his volunteers do this alleged cherry-picking. This is sort of his point -- if you don't have a citation, then it's frankly not valid.

In fact, he just came out with a video explaining his process for picking studies and it's pretty damn thorough. I'd like to know where you get this info that he cherry-picks.

It's true that he could be merely claiming that this is his process, but then the only way to verify it is to literally watch him as he does the research on the research. There's only so much you can trust. But the fact that he does not profit on the site at all makes me also wonder why he'd have any motive to "further his agenda".

Someone once said to me to remind yourself that you are more resilient than you give yourself credit for. To think of all of the times in your life that you painted yourself into a corner and would give anything to be in someone else's shoes. And yet you eventually worked through whatever it was. Sounds obvious but I remind myself of that whenever I'm at the end of my rope. It's easy to cherry-pick the past and dread the future.

I think your overestimating how much money is in charity appearances for an vegan audience(which is something like 1% of the population). Wouldn't be easier to make money from a product that targets the other 99% of the population?

If he wanted to make money, he can make a lot more by simply being a doctor. And a helluva lot more by prescribing statins and all of the other drugs used to counteract the side-effects of statins.

Or if he wanted the blogs and lifestyle thing, he could sell Paleo/Ketosis diets because it's a lot easier to sell books that tell people to eat bacon instead of vegetables.

You'll notice that his blog doesn't make money like other blogs do, as there are no ads, and he's got no industry sponsorship's.

If he's trying to make money, then he's doing a poor job.





As for cherry picking data, yes his opinions are formed by the studies that aren't clearly B.S. industry funded designer studies - The studies that are repeated over and over with small adjustments to make the outcome positive. But I know he reads even the industry funded studies, because he often points out why they are poorly constructed studies, designed purposely to show a specific outcome.


He makes a new video nearly every day, and has been doing so for nearly 10 years. That's some 3000+ videos. He's allowed one mistake.
But it's not even a mistake. This blogger is trying to discredit all of this work because of semantics about a W.H.O. report. (She didn't read the W.H.O report correctly, because it does actually say that poultry *may* be carcinogenic too).