I can think of two reasons

1. This video was popular on the Internet when it came out. Five years ago. See Related Posts.
2. Ignorant editorializing in the video description.

Edited: tags, for excessive editorial

Does not work here or on the source website for me-
U.S./Firefox/PC

Found this one that works but with Muffington Post editorializing after (sucks balls as much as the CNN reporter and Bachmann ignoring each others questions!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/michele-bachmann-cnn-dana-bash_n_2914819.html

Keep your editorializing out of news reports. Just report the facts please, make it bland and boring and informative.

Hitchens will always be a hero of mine, however, I find I disagree with him on many things. I really dig Amy Schumer. Although she normally performs much bluer than she can on Kimmel here, I think she's hilarious no matter what. For me, it's women like Schuler, Sarah Silverman, Kristen Wiig, Tina Fey, Melissa McCarthy, Ellen Degeneres, Carol Burnett, Lucille Ball (to name just a few), that expose Hitchen's treatise as a puckish exercise in editorial, rather than serious condemnation of a humorless gender.

Maybe I just don't know what's funny.

Republicans!!.........DEMOCRATS!! CEO's, bankers...(watching the world burn and editorializing on the spectacle with in-eloquent, imitated verbiage, through smudged, mud-encrusted goggles.)

TYT claim to fame (using newsspeak) making a name off of the opinion of their fawning press and how peeps REACT to anything completely out of their control, AND LAUGH AT YOU WHILE THEY SUCK AT IT!! I maintain as always, TYT yet another iteration of the same fucking tools, designed to render helpless those who may not be capable of using a simple implement.....saaaay, a shovel or mallet.

All broadcast news is slanted, illusive, and agenda-oriented. There is always a bias and any "report" always contains some truth, some falsehood, and some meaningless filler. In the creature of Cenk you have a screaming agenda and a shitload of meaningless filler, in the form of snarky attitude and sophomoric editorializing....Thinking.....basically, non-critically-thinking people with a relatively programmed subjective view of their world tend to enjoy this type of stroking. Cenks' no different than Alex Jones in tactics: He simply lights on a different brand of flaming subject matter...One that appeals to people who think they have a clue what the fuck is going on

I'm not taking sides here but please (he asks having been just as divisive when rattled) " as long as we let evil people like yourself bully"...etc. etc. Come on??! It's a valid point and labels and judgements are unnecessary. Just listen to the pontificous blowhard tugging at your heartstrings with a clear intent of helping helpless people make helpless decisions. I hate diatribes like this ...THINK OF THE CHILDREN, shit...Fuck you! Think of people like you)whoever this TV head is, not you netrunner), editorializing putz with agenda favoring police state, making YET another plea to collective insanity.

Who got the developmentally fractured shooter the gun?
Who raised the retard?
Who takes personal responsibility for their own actions? Who lets those who would create more imbeciles suggest baby-out-with-bathwater moves to adjust laws instead of minds?

These are questions that need to be asked, among others.
For instance, "Who let this cocksucker on television?!"

@Deano...

Max power points were limited to the number of years you were on the Sift, with Sift 5.

So the max power points anyone could have was 6, since the Sift has been around for only 6 years. So if you already had 6 PPs, if you hit #1 to earn 2 PPs, you got nothing.

I could have lived with that.

But the serious problem, in my eyes, was what happened to newbies. Unless they paid to be charter, they would have to be on the Sift for more than 1 year, 364 days before they would be able to "earn" 2 PPs.

So someone like Punkin, who comes in here with videos ablazing, figuring out the Sift in no time flat, would not be able to have the success she has had. Can never promote her own stuff, doesn't "earn" her rewards which she has been generously sharing (not trading, but sharing).... someone like Punkin would never happen again on the Sift under these limitations. I think the Sift would be a less rich place for her absence, and others like her.

So that is the stripped down backstory. With my opinion slathered all over it. Tis best if you can be careful to separate the bare bones of the situation from my editorial content. All opinions are just mine, after all.

I had thought if they wanted to limit PPs, to avoid hoarding, they should have had everyone be limited to six PPs. That is enough to have time to spend some before the next ones are earned. Then you have a level playing field that doesn't reward seniority at the cost of stellar Sifting.

And then each year, it would go up one PP. As a Sift birthday present to everyone.

But they went with just going back to the old system, with its old pitfalls still in place. That is fine, too. In my opinion.

Doens't make much of a difference to me personally. The reason why I rarely visit this site anymore is the lack of editorial content. Right now one of the prime spots (promoted videos) of this site is occupied by a video with 4 votes (desc in all caps btw, very nice).

I mean sure it's nice to give some individual the opportunity to promote a video of his/her choosing to the most valuable real estate of this website, but to what end? I feel theres really a lack of quality control here.

I'd love to hear what he says.

Thanks for running this down.

In reply to this comment by Rambaldi:
It's standard practice in news broadcasts - and *usually* it's not a bad thing, when it's irrelevant whether the broadcast is live or not. I'm not entirely sure about this, so I actually went and found the Israeli guy they interviewed on the Internet and I'm waiting to hear from him.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
But but but...

It was from the broadcast that you knew it wasn't live, that is was recorded. Are you assuming that she didn't talk to the guys? I think she talked to the guys. What makes you think someone else interviewed them?

So I don't get it. It is just a presentation of an interview, and luck had it that something interesting happened during it.

(I'm not offended in the least. I was afraid I was going to offend you!)


In reply to this comment by Rambaldi:
@bareboards2 -
Misrepresenting the timing is a distortion of the facts - that would mean Muhammad was not in direct conversation with the news anchor.
I agree presenting two sides of the conflict would be admirable, and I'm glad it came through to you this way.

However, when one side gets bombarded during the interview, some people would find it very hard to see both sides of the conflict, an effect that increases when the interview appears to be presented live.
Even if CNN did this to draw eyes to the interview, it creates unfair bias, and the editorial decision to air it like this does not suggest the intention was to show both sides of the conflict.

I'm agnostic BTW. I get why the timing affects people of faith that way, I just wish it didn't. I hope me saying this does not offend you in any way.

But but but...

It was from the broadcast that you knew it wasn't live, that is was recorded. Are you assuming that she didn't talk to the guys? I think she talked to the guys. What makes you think someone else interviewed them?

So I don't get it. It is just a presentation of an interview, and luck had it that something interesting happened during it.

(I'm not offended in the least. I was afraid I was going to offend you!)


In reply to this comment by Rambaldi:
@bareboards2 -
Misrepresenting the timing is a distortion of the facts - that would mean Muhammad was not in direct conversation with the news anchor.
I agree presenting two sides of the conflict would be admirable, and I'm glad it came through to you this way.

However, when one side gets bombarded during the interview, some people would find it very hard to see both sides of the conflict, an effect that increases when the interview appears to be presented live.
Even if CNN did this to draw eyes to the interview, it creates unfair bias, and the editorial decision to air it like this does not suggest the intention was to show both sides of the conflict.

I'm agnostic BTW. I get why the timing affects people of faith that way, I just wish it didn't. I hope me saying this does not offend you in any way.

@bareboards2 -
Misrepresenting the timing is a distortion of the facts - that would mean Muhammad was not in direct conversation with the news anchor.
I agree presenting two sides of the conflict would be admirable, and I'm glad it came through to you this way.

However, when one side gets bombarded during the interview, some people would find it very hard to see both sides of the conflict, an effect that increases when the interview appears to be presented live.
Even if CNN did this to draw eyes to the interview, it creates unfair bias, and the editorial decision to air it like this does not suggest the intention was to show both sides of the conflict.

I'm agnostic BTW. I get why the timing affects people of faith that way, I just wish it didn't. I hope me saying this does not offend you in any way.

Propaganda Analysis

There are two parts to this story. The first part is a compelling tale of a small surgery center that found a way to drastically cut costs by avoiding insurance company price gouging and bureaucracy. This part of the story is great. These Oklahoma doctors have come up with a seemingly great model.

The second part of the story is The Reason Foundation's editorial opinion that Obamacare is to blame for all of this, and that if only it would be repealed, people and business owners would make rational health care decisions that would save us all lots of money.

The problem is that the Koch’s are trying to give the impression that the doctors in the first part of the story are making the editorial points of the second. The Koch's are basically using these doctors as ventriloquist dummies. At no point do any of these doctors single out or even mention Obamacare as the source of these problems. The title should be "Koch Bros. vs. Obamacare", or at least "The Reason Foundation vs. Obamacare."

Obamacare did not create insurance industry price gouging, nor was it intended to be an insurance industry reform bill. The purpose of Obamacare is to provide universal healthcare. Insurance industry price gouging has existed since the dawn of the insurance industry and will likely die with it.

As further evidence that the folks at Reason are shameless, opportunistic hypocrites, check out this story on Reason.com in which they make a complete 180 and ACTUALLY DEFEND PRICE GOUGING in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Notice how they use the same ventriloquist dummy technique of trying to force their editorial position on a regular work-a-day cab driver. Ridiculously, the cab driver who ‘Makes a Case for Price Gouging’ in the title of this piece is actually quoted as saying, “No, there should be a law to prevent that (price gouging)” in the actual story. Journalism doesn’t get much more dishonest than that.

Take out the ventriloquist dummy editorializing and this could be a great piece in favor of insurance reform, or adding cost saving safeguards to Obamacare. But it isn’t.

This brand of faux populist, faux leftist propaganda is what the Reason Foundation specializes in, and considering the implications of the recent election, I expect more right wing media outlets to adopt the this approach.

oh willard

10,000 dollar bet when income is ~26,000 annual for a lot of people.

http://www.workers.org/2011/editorials/struggling_1110/