It only seems amateurish because it's not supposed to be taken seriously. This "exclusive" isn't a big deal since you can go anywhere and find much more in depth interviews, or simply the product of his leaks which is what's really important. I don't really care what Snowden has to say, but NBC news does because that's what they're trying to do.

If you make it about the person, it's easy to turn around, it's easy to dismiss this one guy. If he ever slips up, looks stupid or something whatever he did and the people that support what he did can be ignored easily.

So this is all about a distraction. Act like this "exclusive" is a big fat hairy deal, and only bring up useless everything, nothing of value or substance really.

Let's look at the News websites right now. CNN first.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/us/edward-snowden-interview/index.html?iref=allsearch

This about how he sees himself, so it's about ego, do you see yourself as a patriot. The title is immediately meant to draw a line, who agrees who doesn't, read the article with your feelings. Next NBC themselves.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/nsa-officials-snowden-emailed-question-not-concern-n118011

First NSA disputing his claims, people calling him naive and basically presenting no evidence just like the NSA hasn't. Then Kerry and some other guy saying he doesn't have to stay in Russia, that it's not the US's fault for him being there. Completely absurd bullshit, and no one would be allowed to take Snowdens side in these talkbacks. It's useless. On to Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/29/kerry-tells-snowden-to-man-up-and-come-home/

Focussing on Kerry acting like a tough idiot.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/29/glenn-greenwald-new-book-no-place-to-hide-tells-how-nsa-spies-on-us/

And a surprisingly decent opinion piece on Glenn Greenwald from Judge Napolitano.

Since this topic appears to have gone off the reservation, let me reign you back in for a moment.

I encourage you to re-watch the video we're commenting on.

This whole discussion, including the commentary by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, is all a response to Judge Napolitano's comments, on what is supposed to be an actual news network and, I imagine, supposed to be taken seriously?

Napolitano says: "Instead of allowing it to die, helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set out on the most murderous war in American history."

That's what he said. In this very video, which is what we're all commenting on.

I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here.

You're attacking the comedians for making jokes about this and accusing them for doing what Napolitano just did!

He's the one claiming that Lincoln attacked the south to free the slaves!

So, again I ask, what are you even talking about?

This video, the daily show response, all of this argument, was supposed to be about Napolitano being totally wrong. I originally commented here because you were parroting his claims that Lincoln had a lot of options, but chose "murderous war" instead of buying every slave or whatever other imagined option you think he had.

So either you understand why the Civil War started, and we agree, as you sometimes seem to indicate, or you're in agreement with Napolitano and his view that Lincoln started the Civil War as one of his apparently many options for ending slavery.

So which is it?

Do you understand why you make no sense?

@jonny Yes I meant Judge Napolitano's ice cream dick, sorry for the typo!

>> ^renatojj:

What's the big deal, makes total sense to me.
Except for the napolitano ice cream dicks, that's just fucked up.


Neapolitan? Or did those somehow remind you of Judge Napolitano?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Freedom Watch, Fox, Business, Napolitano, Politics, Obama, Judge Napolitano' to 'Freedom Watch, Fox, Business, Politics, Obama, Judge Andrew Napolitano' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Freedom Watch, Fox, Business, Napolitano, Politics, Obama, President' to 'Freedom Watch, Fox, Business, Napolitano, Politics, Obama, Judge Napolitano' - edited by marinara

I guess on the one hand, I agree with part of his rant -- elections don't matter enough, and there's too much continuity in policy from President to President, from Congress to Congress.

On the other, I think it's largely spun in a self-serving way from a right-wing ideologue. His big complaint is that the parties are too similar, but then largely misidentifies this as somehow inherently a liberal confluence of policy, when the real issue is that we haven't had a liberal shift in America's policies since before I was born.

A lot of the problem, IMO, is that conservatives like to sell people on the idea of "divided government" and the whole idea that adding opportunities for the minority to stop things from happening (like the filibuster) are the essence of "limited" government.

They've been on a decades-long crusade to stop or sabotage the government from acting effectively on any topic, and now they're complaining that their success means they were right that the government is some unresponsive, ineffectual, cold-hearted leviathan that must be destroyed...even though they had a lot to do with it getting that way, and have worked tirelessly to keep it that way, regardless of whether people vote for them or not.

I don't really know how we're going to get out of this situation, but the solution has got to start with people getting fed up with this blame-shifting excuse coming from the right. Government is not some alien creature acting on its own whims, it's a human institution, populated with human beings, acting in accordance to laws that are voted into existence by people.

People who think "government" is the problem, are letting the actual people responsible for the problem off the hook, because they're too apathetic to figure out who's really to blame. And assholes like Judge Napolitano want to help encourage them to keep blaming "the government" by trying to make it seem like it's some all-encompassing conspiracy that no mere mortal could penetrate, rather than it being the direct result of decades of Republican malfeasance left unchecked by anyone, including Democrats.

And forgive the rant, especially if you're not normally into politics.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

@GeeSussFreeK

Sorry to hear that people got hurt . I think you're confusing the issue though. The shouting fire in a crowded theater metaphor refers to an individual (not a machine) intentionally making a false claim that is dangerous. It also applies to speech which has no "conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous" (quote from the Wikipedia link).

That's pretty much what happened here. Standing with your face pressed up against the police cruiser window and repeatedly barking at a police dog meets the definition of having no conceivable useful purpose and being extremely dangerous.

The judge in the case recognized this and dismissed the defense's claims that that defendant had a 1st amendment right to bark at the dog. Given the circumstances of the case, his behavior is not protected under the 1st amendment. He was simply a drunk teasing a police dog in a county where it happens to be illegal to tease police dogs.

The irony of all this is that a supposed Fox News constitutional expert (he's written 5 books on the U.S. constitution) apparently doesn't know anything about how the 1st Amendment actually works.

>> ^SDGundamX:

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.
From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:
No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.
Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.
I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.


I agree with everything you said, except the part where you said stuff about the law. While there could be a case for civilly responsible for acts of speech (suing), the constitution on clear on criminal charges. I have been in a movie theater when a false alarm of the real system went off, we didn't send the alarm maker to jail...double standard. Two people were injured in that false alarm of the alarm system. It is pretty dubious to just start arbitrarily dissecting speech, even more so when no one was ACTUALLY harmed. We have enough problems and we take time to legislate theoretical ones, great. That is the only reason drugs are still illegal, because of all the theoretical stuff that could happen. Let real crime be punished, and let fake crime fall away as dodging a bullet.

</lunch rant>

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.

From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:

No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.

Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.

I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.

>> ^bobknight33:

WTF
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This message is entirely racist.



A poke at Netrunner, and the constant used of racism as a way to discredit at a glance.

WTF

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This message is entirely racist.

>> ^Gamble:

Judge Napolitano is actually a pretty level-headed guy.

You wouldn't suspect that with all the non-stop shouting. I was just waiting for him to somehow tie this together with the benefits of oxi clean.

Just because it's Fox doesn't instantly mean it's bad. Judge Napolitano is one of the good guys.

>> ^Gamble:

Judge Napolitano is actually a pretty level-headed guy. Just about any show on Fox that he gets called into talk on, he often presents damn good points. It's a shame they give Glenn Beck a show but this guy gets mere tidbits.
And yes, I watch Fox News. I watch all major media, simply because I don't trust any of them. </paranoid>


You must have an awful lot of time on your hands. Time you could use to do research projects into how the media reacts to things.