You replied to the wrong quote, buddy. I didn't say that stuff....but a quote of what someone might say is proper English. Get over it.

Also, Fox is not news, they're political entertainment, they admit it. Lumping real news networks in with the admittedly fake one is a disingenuous ploy to be divisive, not an adult argument.

LOL I love how bias RT is.

there anti captlist messages and the way they structure things is halrouse its like a inversion of fox news.

Still allot of what RT covers is true and its nice to have a different bias view piont on things, one other thing they do which is nice is long interviews without interruptions.

Evan though allot of the pieces they do are totally mental with an obvious agenda it can be quite refreshing , "the real news network" however offers the same thing without the bullshit though and unlike 99% of RT content I dont have to take the information from RNN with a table spoon of salt.

I'd rather watch Democracy Now or The Real News Network.

The country is secular in policy but practice, hardly. There are numerous cases where religious acts are being invoked politicians and government organizations in power, and the rare occasion where the rule of law takes place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h7ekCD6uE4
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13569794

Don't lecture me on the Establishment Clause.

What the right thinks is an immutable document is just that a document that is subject to the opinion of the reader; which therefore must be debated upon by the people. I said that in my comment above.

However equating the constitution to a fetish is horridly disturbing. It breathes an air of, "it's just a piece of paper," or it's just a vice to be used when you need it but when you don't just put it back in the cabinet; which is exactly what the right does when they need it. This whole piece was just a jab at the short ribs of those less educated to understand what was taking place.

We differ on many things. What we consider to be good reporting or news may be completely different. However I maintain my position that the guest speaker had very good points that were done a disservice by a crude and tacky quip by what I would guess was a news-reader's utterances read from a teleprompter.

On a different note. I got an email for every quote and comment you made @NetRunner. The thought in my head was, "Ah shit, he saw fit to debate me three separate occasions on the same video!" That was until I came here and saw it was from the quotes you took and @ comment.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

At least forcing corporations to have to take that extra step by bribing the government slows them down a little. Deregulation just cuts out the middle man.
Corporations will do what they please with or without a corrupt government standing in its way. The only way to break the cycle would be major campaign finance reform and the reversal of the mind-bogglingly corrupt and unethical 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling that gives corporations unlimited, anonymous influence over our electoral process.


Doesn't that just place the power into the hands of people who can throw you in jail though? I mean, a robber baron might be able to rip you off, but he can't lock you up...or fine you for not buying his product. Governments tend to be one of the main factors in companies abilities to gain captured audiences as well. Like what I consider the first big monopoly of a non-natural resource was the East India Company, which was a government sanctioned monopoly. In our current day, some of the most power forces on the planet started as government sanctioned monopolies..and some still are; the cable and phone companies. Sure they got broken up once or twice, but states and municipalities still make it illegal in many areas to run new cable. As a result, their power blossomed into the media super giants that control a great deal of the worlds information. That power is slowly being undermined by things like NPR, Real News Network, and various other small label news outlets.

My main point is that government intervention has the guise of being the only solution to social problems of domination by wealth. But in reality, you are only trading domination of wealth for domination of liberty AND wealth...over time. The entropy of that system is worse than of us getting pissed at the railroads, and either using and developing new technology or bocotting, ect.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'the real news network, paul jay, ralph nader' to 'the real news network, paul jay, ralph nader, philanthropy' - edited by kronosposeidon

Public Works Protection Act is being used to identify individuals that are recording or reporting. This information can be used later on to confiscate any recoded evidence from the identified people. As we have seen from the other videos, the focus of the police was not the vandals, but the reporters and peaceful protestors.

More info on the act from The Real News Network:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kZwps4CPwc

You mean there are no 'real' news network, and EVERYone is biased ?

Yes - to the right or left - every 'news' outlet is biased in (A) what it chooses to make news or (B) how it serves up what it chooses to present. Glad you picked up on that.

So your completely conceeding you have no facts what so ever and are just restating your opinion.

No - that is your personal interpretation. I have presented nothing BUT facts. You simply refuse to accept them. That is your problem, not mine. The fact that the mainstream news outlets are liberally biased is well established and documented. I doubt the presentation of the case will matter, but here is a tiny smattering of a far larger world.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

your more or less saying the 'left wing media' is bad... so the right wing media has every right ot be just as bad.

No - I am saying that ALL the 'news media' (so called) are biased and have to be approached with suspicion and skepticism. I am a skeptic of both sides. I listen to both, and make my own evaluations. I am wary of any person or entity (esp government) that advocates only listening to ONE side of the story. I really thought liberals claimed they were open minded and progressive. What then is the objection to a robust national discourse that includes both the right-wing and left? Explain to me why one side of the debate 'must' be silenced and shut down. What part of liberalism embraced the abolition of the 1st ammendment when the news outlet espouses a differing opinion? When did political suppression becine a guiding principle of the left wing? When did democrats become the party that spits on diversity and freedom?

If they were a legitimate publicly broadcast news network they would require a license from the FCC.

Are you saying that Fox News is somehow under a different set of rules than CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and so forth? This is a new and fascinating claim to me and I must confess I am not aware of the specific legal and proceedural minutae you are doubtless referencing. Please elaborate and provide citations.

Your logical thought process (and your fingers) should look at the list of networks you punch-out (NN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NYT, AP, US) and some kind of conspiracy 'flag' should be thrown up. You mean there are no 'real' news network, and EVERYone is biased ?

Reality has a well-established liberal bias....I think that's a much more rational explanation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'obama, health care reform, force vote, real new network' to 'obama, health care reform, force vote, real news network' - edited by Trancecoach

The "real" news:
Our mission

The Real News Network is a television news and documentary network focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism.
Trans: no meaning found

We won't blindly follow wire services or official press releases that attempt to set the news agenda. We will cover the big stories of the day, but we will broaden the definition of what's important.
trans:(we'll do like they do, shape our agenda by what and how we decide to editorialize(report)

Nice try, again, symptoms and no real clue as to the source of the dilemma...
more muckracker children, afraid to call the emperor nekkid...

do these kinds of rants from talking heads actually help promote any kind of rational dialog in our country?

no, and they're not meant to. this is pure and simple slander. glenn beck and the rest of the corporate commentators are not journalists. their goal is really to spread their filth and make millions from drug company ads. there are no real news networks anymore. it's ironic because people like beck and o'reily are themselves radical extremists trying to incite as much hate and fear as they can muster. news=propaganda...sorry for the rant, but watching this stuff really makes me feel ill.

That last quote from Donahue:
"I think the idea of creating a television news source that is not beholden to corporate interests is nirvana"

is actually on the brink of coming true in the form of The Real News Network.

The Real News Network is a recent initiative and is not a fully fledged channel yet. So that explains why the setup isn't that professional, just look at the quality from the interview feed.

The special thing about the network is that is will be publicly funded through donations. They will not accept government or corporate money. So no advertising and no outside influence. I'm thinking of donating once they start the real channel and the programming is good.

It seems like a really good source to get other views on the news and current events.

http://therealnews.com/

They also have a lot of videos online on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRealNews

I'm watching your "real news" post now.

I think nuanced is the right word to use here. I would never support that guy.

BUT I can't get past how when we demonize a leader, that is a big step till acceptance of a Iran bombing policy.

Sorry for the awkward sentence

In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
What I think he said was that the Zionist entity would be wiped away, not meaning killed, but ended. He has said that he is for a referendum in Palestine/Israel where every inhabitant including current refugees, be it Jew, Muslim or Christian gets a vote about a government of unity. This might be a very naive view but it is not a view that all Jews should be killed.
I just submitted a video with a more nuanced view on the Ahmadinejad affair by "The Real News Network", I think the issue deserved more in depth commentary instead of this useless propaganda and spin. (sorry for the self plug)

What I think he said was that the Zionist entity would be wiped away, not meaning killed, but ended. He has said that he is for a referendum in Palestine/Israel where every inhabitant including current refugees, be it Jew, Muslim or Christian gets a vote about a government of unity. This might be a very naive view but it is not a view that all Jews should be killed.
I just submitted a video with a more nuanced view on the Ahmadinejad affair by "The Real News Network", I think the issue deserved more in depth commentary instead of this useless propaganda and spin. (sorry for the self plug)