OLD AND MISLEADING VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!
DOES NOT SHOW CURRENT EVENTS
THIS VIDEO IS FROM 2002
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/03/19/mideast_censor020319.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/03/19/mideast_censor020319.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/03/19/mideast_censor020319.html

>> ^RedSky:


I have to agree on your first point, PEPFAR did a lot of good, and it's probably the most common thing people put forward when asked "what did Bush do right?" Still, the point Olbermann makes about not funding groups who promote condom use goes to show how petty Bush can be, even when he's doing something that's working out well.

The Muslim theocracy in Lebanon is referring to the elections Bush pushed for that resulted in a big, legitimizing win for Hezbollah -- something Bush's own advisers had predicted. You can argue that maybe other courses of action might have had the same outcome or worse, but you can't argue that giving Hezbollah legitimate influence over a country's government is anything but a lost battle in this "war on terror" he's so fond of.

As for the Mumbai bombings, and Benazir Bhutto's assasination, they're outgrowths of a policy towards Pakistan that involved simply trusting Musharraf, and giving him buckets of aid with little to no accountability. Instead, all we ever hear is "Pakistan is on our side, Iraq is the main battlefront on the War on Terror." Looking for bin Laden in Waziristan is off the table.

You have a point about North Korea being a global failing, but they were trending towards dismantling their nuclear program during Clinton's diplomatic efforts. Bush stormed in with his "we don't talk to bad guys" policy, dismantled the talks, and North Korea responded by reverting to their old ways. They were left unchecked (again, Iraq was to be our main/only focus) until they were able to build a nuclear weapon.

As for the one-sided nature of Olbermann, there's not much to argue there other than to say "they started it first." Are Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly some sort of multifaceted objective political commentary? I don't want MSNBC to become the left's Fox News, but I think the media environment can tolerate one Olbermann, and many Maddow-like personalities, for there to at least be two sides doing the whole spin-as-news shtick.

If it were me, I'd love for the media to give believably objective reporting of current events, facts, and history, but all of the outlets that try to do so are either a) struggling to "prove" their objectivity by trying to show that both parties have equal responsibility for all failures or b) are flagged by people as being left-leaning because objectively speaking, Republicans haven't gotten anything right in quite a while.

We'll see how long people keep accusing, say, PBS or the NYT of being "liberal" now that Democrats are in power. I suspect even HuffPo and TPM will get credit for doing fact-based reporting, now that Democrats are in the driver's seat. After all, the "liberal" press loves to attack authority, no matter who they are. "Conservative" press will keep doing what it's been doing; smear Democrats at all times, praise conservative Republicans at all times, and frame all failures as a direct outgrowth of failure to adhere to conservative principles, or failure to pursue them drastically enough.

Zooey Deschanel. Never heard of her.

This cave of mine, not too savvy on current events.

Can't say I like her singing, but didn't hate it, either.

Now I'll google mo in fo.

>> ^Farhad2000:
This is such a non-story.


a major worldwide philosophical shift away from the mythology of the past 10,000 years of human civilization, which is only now occurring in our lifetime.

the historical role of the media was to report current events. this is a current event, and an rather important one at that. a few decades ago it was as taboo to publicly declare yourself an atheist. today, that is still true in many locales and social circles thus this billboard is ground-breaking. seems story-worthy to me.

London, Lithuania, magical places to my ears.

You wouldn't believe how many red-state Americans still consider Europe as a third-world collection of countries.

"Everybody wants to come to America!" they say.

Now I'm really curious about Lithuania. That's one of those places that always seems to fly under the radar of current events.

You're comparing apples and Granny Smith apples.

I don't recall any of the examples you've cited nor why they were allowed, but this video isn't any of those. It's a short clip of soldiers killing bad guys and there is no discussion to be had for such clips. It's been discussed many times before and the bottom line is they simply are not allowed.

Personally, I agree with you that it's nice to see what's going on in our wars, etc., but VideoSift does not agree. (A bigger issue is that I am glad VideoSift doesn't allow it for one reason: If we allow videos of our soldiers killing bad guys, then we'd have to allow videos of bad guys killing our soldiers, and I wouldn't enjoy that a bit. [I've seen a few on LiveLeak and never want to see them again, let alone on the Sift.])


In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
Well then what about the massive highway accident clip that I linked to? I argued that was snuff and was completely shot down. What makes that not snuff and this snuff? The only difference I see between the two videos is that at least this one has some value, since it's related to relevant current events.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Really? What more is there to discuss? It actually is extremely clear cut.

Several times videos near identical to the one in question have been declared snuff. (In fact, that was my very first submission.)

The rules on snuff allow for a very slight gray area, but this doesn't fit there. It's been well defined that military clips of soldiers killing bad guys is never permissible.

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
I don't think this video is quite as clear-cut as you made it out to be. I know you're the one who discarded it, but... ummm.. can you help me put it back on the sift talk page? I think more discussion is in order.

Well then what about the massive highway accident clip that I linked to? I argued that was snuff and was completely shot down. What makes that not snuff and this snuff? The only difference I see between the two videos is that at least this one has some value, since it's related to relevant current events.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Really? What more is there to discuss? It actually is extremely clear cut.

Several times videos near identical to the one in question have been declared snuff. (In fact, that was my very first submission.)

The rules on snuff allow for a very slight gray area, but this doesn't fit there. It's been well defined that military clips of soldiers killing bad guys is never permissible.

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
I don't think this video is quite as clear-cut as you made it out to be. I know you're the one who discarded it, but... ummm.. can you help me put it back on the sift talk page? I think more discussion is in order.

THIS is your answer to the mcain/palin mob video?
ok,ill bite.
the mcain/palin mob video showcased rabid,potentially violent,ignorant and bigoted supporters leaving a mcain/palin rally.
this video showcases mainly black people answering questions and expressing their concerns after an obama/biden rally.
did you even WATCH the video before you posted?
seems to me the point is:
mcain/palin=angry/bigoted ignorant and potentially violent.
obama/biden=concerned citizens for our countries future(though a few could brush up on current events).
wow...yeah....errrrrr..../taps fingers...uh..yeah..well..
i would call this an epic fail to conflate the two camps.
but hey..better luck next time,
and thank you for playing "the conflation game".

Its all because they asked "what magazine or newspaper do you read to keep up on current events?" If they would have just asked her "what do you read to keep up on current events?" I'm sure she would have shot back with the Bible in a heartbeat.

It bothers me that someone could be so apathetic about what is arguably the most important current event in the world.

i like being up to date on current events
but sometimes,
cnn just reminds me of why i hate cable news.

>> ^jwray:
>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.


Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.
QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.


They say Europeans distrust business (e.g. GMO), and Americans distrust government (e.g. wiretapping is controversial here, but in Europe it's done regularly).

The American parties' more relaxed approach to regulation of minimum wage and "quality of life" issues like the length of the work week seems to be a big part of US parties favoring less, not more, government entanglement in business relative to European parties.

>> ^nosro:
Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.



Compared to Europe, both US parties favor more government entanglement in business, but less welfare. It's hard to place that on a liberal-conservative scale. I would prefer less government entanglement in business, but more welfare. Downsize the military-industrial complex, cut subsidies and tariffs, and promote alternative fuel with a pollution tax instead of pork barrel spending on pet projects.

QM: Cite some statistics to back up your stereotypes. I'm still waiting.

Great stuff, but the poster's title does not represent the views of the lecturer. The lecture is about conservatives vs. liberals, not Republicans vs. Democrats.

"What's the difference, I thought Democrats were liberal and Republicans were conservative?" you might ask. On social issues, this is mostly true. But as current events with regard to Wall Street bailouts illustrate, both parties are liberal on economic issues. They just cater to different groups.

and a minty buh buh buh, to yas...ladyDeath invited me to yer party, how sweet of her-Thanks for being nice to the less than solidly, socially adjusted, and to me, you are kind-and please, don't make a Cobert channel....please.(choggie has asked please only 3 times in the history of his 11804 comments....consider this when tacking a channel to the clipboard...dime a dozen, comedic editorial on current events is passe', base, and non-evolutionary.......and after all, this place is Evolution in Action.........Cheerds and welscome, to the bog sand box!