search results matching tag: government control

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.008 seconds

    Videos (8)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (1)     Comments (152)   

Police Called To Stop Filming During Piano Livestream

newtboy says...

As much as I hate to give Morgan credit for anything, he’s on the right side here and stirring up “trouble” is the right move.
How quickly the capitulating thugs cave when exposed to the light of day. Before Elton could comment they tucked tail and reversed themselves.

I only hope some CCP thugs show up on Friday trying to intimidate and get lynched by 500 unruly soccer hooligans, then drawn and quartered on live stream. Keep your socialist government control ideals at home.

BSR said:

Piers Morgan Interviews Dr K
Brendan Kavanagh Reveals Comeback Gig!

Birds Aren’t Real On Fox News

newtboy says...

Only a government mole would say such a thing hoping to embarrass or shame people out of telling the truth!

What you don’t realize is we already know….moles (and gophers) also aren’t real, having been replaced worldwide by government controlled bioengineered cyborg rodents after 9-11 to keep track of may-be-terrorists who already know how to successfully avoid surveillance by “birds”.

Nice try…we’re on to you little fuzzy buddy.

noims said:

On the secret third hand that humans all have, I hope the commenters here on the sift who also claim birds aren't real stop doing so - it's only feeding into the birdbrains' delusion. This paragraph was not written under duress, and there are no starlings in the room here with me.

The New MAGA Commercial For Greg Abbot- Whose Choice

newtboy says...

Not just Abbot…Florida just ruled that an orphan 16 year old girl isn’t mature enough to decide to have an abortion at 10 weeks, so will be forced to carry to term before being dumped on the streets.

Republicans are the new nanny state party, not just wanting the government controlling what you do in your bedroom, but also in your womb.

FCC Votes to Repeal Net Neutrality; Omarosa Drama Continues

bobknight33 says...

I find it hard to believe that so many people are bitching about this.

The web was unregulated till 2 years ago when Net Neutrality was put into place.

Now the web is of government control again.

Did any one notice any difference?

Dems Double Down On Taking Billionaire Money

bobknight33 says...

The "justice democrats" is Unconstitutional in most of its platform. Hence its just a nut job dream. The TEA party desire to follow the Constitution. This in itself would limit government size and hence its corruption.

All corporate money should be taken out of politics. - Or at least cap corporate giving to a small amount say $2500. Some amount equal to what the average person/family could give.

Or better yet I would rather, since government control media via FCC Have media give equal FREE time to each candidate.

enoch said:

i really do not understand you bob.
i get that you are republican,and lean towards the philosophy of the tea party.

i have absolutely no issue with that,but didn't you admonish my post which was promoting the "justice democrats" as not being a grass roots anti-corporate establishment democrats,but rather a tool for outlets like the young turks? whose FIRST order to address.the FIRST thing they are going after is:money in politics.which is exactly what kyle is talking about.

kyle is also talking about giving the boot to not only all the corporate donors,but the very politicians that have LOST,consistently,because they are more interested in dialing for donors than doing their job.pelosi did not retain her position due to her political acumen and ability to pass progressive legislature,but because that woman is a money funding machine.

kyle even mentions the justice democrats!!!!
as a viable option to combat the corruption in the democratic party due to the corrosive influence of corporate money in politics.

you literally just posted a video by secular talk,which is a founding member of justice democrats!

so which one is it bob?

do you respect and admire a small group of democrats who are part of independent media and are creating a group to combat the corporate,establishment democrats? a group who is already
growing in size,and have already got some politicians on the ballot?

or are you sticking to your position you took on my justice democrat video,which was dismissive and critical?

please help me understand bob,because as of right now you are playing two positions that are philosophically inconsistent.

*promote bob's support of the democrats new caucus "the justice democrats",which i am fairy sure is the seventh sign of the apocalypse.

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

newtboy says...

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them. Horrible idea, and against international law.

I call bullshit. That's like saying if an American commits a crime outside of America, or inside it against a foreigner, America just declared war on that country. Absolute bullshit. if Pakistan's government didn't direct the attack, they aren't declaring war. You don't hold a nation accountable for the actions of a few criminals within their borders unless they are backed by that nation. Because they can't stop the monster(s) we made (neither can we) absolutely in no way means they yield their sovereignty...that's asinine. EDIT: your theory would mean the Bundies would be their own country now, sovereign and at war with America, because we were unable to stop them from taking over public land (repeatedly), and didn't prosecute any of them.

Bullshit again. Because they aren't a state, they shouldn't be treated as one, no matter what bullshit they claim. Duh. Maybe they claim to be one, but they don't run away from that claim, it just isn't given credence by accepting it. They mostly are illegal aliens in the countries they now live in.

Afghanistan had good reason to refuse Bush....and you might recall were fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaida already for control of their own country.

Afghanistan was not hosting the terrorists, they 'invaded' or morphed out of non government controlled militias (Al-Qaida started as a retirement unit for the 'freedom fighters' we trained to fight Russia) . The Afghan government has excellent reasons to never invite a super power to cross their borders ever again.....and empires have good reason to avoid doing so. Afghanistan did not start or declare war with us, some invaders and criminals squatting in caves there did.

Exactly, the terrorist organizations aren't the fault or beneficiary of the government's in the countries where they hide or invade, they are the fault of those that support them, oddly missing from the travel ban and our assassination plans. See how that might piss off Afghansans and Pakistani?

bcglorf said:

Trying split up addressing your points and enoch's here, forgive me if things bleed over between a bit.

Large terrorist networks like Al Qaida were and still are using your definitions against your country. They operated with impunity and effectively as their own autonomous state within the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The question is whether acts of war launched from that region then are classed as an act of the Afghan or Pakistani state. If they are, then Afghanistan and Pakistan are to be held to account as states launching the act of war. If they are not, then they have for intents and purposes yielded the sovereignty of that territory to a new independent state waging it's own independent war.

The jihadists are trying to hard to live in an international loophole where they are operating with the autonomy of a state right up until another nation state wants to wage war back against them and then suddenly they are just citizens of the larger state they are technically within the borders of.

When the Bush admin pushed back hard, the Afghanistan government refused(more on this in my reply to Enoch) while the Pakistani government extremely begrudgingly agreed to at least pretend they weren't friendly with them in back channels anymore. Thus act of war met with war in Afghanistan, and yes, I would insist a war that Afghanistan initiated and NOT GW.

As for Saudi Arabia, they are more responsible for Jihadi ideology and funding than any other state, and yes the west largely has ignored it so long as they sold their oil and then used the money to buy back top of the line American made military hardware. I have to say I think it's a bit shortsighted to have made Saudi Arabia number 3 on the global military budget charts... You won't find my hypocritically trying to defend them, they are the ones sending most of the money into Pakistan's mountains to build the madrasa's that don't seem to teach anything after how to fire and assemble your AK.

John Oliver - Refugee Crisis

RedSky says...

The notion that guns and mercenaries from the west are flooding in is simply untrue. You have the curious responsibility of explaining how the US has been incapable of removing Assad if it has provided such overwhelming support as you claim. What is true, is that Assad overreacted to the Arab Spring protests, unlike say Jordan decided to fire on protests almost immediately and brought a civil war on his hands.

Meanwhile, we also know the origin of the trajectory of the Sarin rockets fired were from areas of government control. We know Assad had a chemical weapons program. We know the volume of the attacks was almost certainly unattainable by anyone other than a state actor. We know that most of the victims were either civilians or the opposition. It's also a curious that these attacks only seemed to occur in Syria.

Again your idea that oil is still a motivation for US involvement in the Middle East is an outdated concept. The US surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest global producer in the world thank to shale oil. The price of oil has crashed as a result and will likely remain low for a prolonged time as a result. The only beneficiary who stands to gains from revisiting the conflict between the US and Russia is Putin because it boosts his domestic popularity to be locked in a struggle with the US.

Many governments in the Middle East regularly throw out the excuse that anything that goes wrong (and is usually their fault) is a result of a US conspiracy. Egypt has regularly done it, Turkey has just recently blamed the attempted coup on the US even though the incentives for the US are clearly for a stable government there to provide a base from which to attack ISIS in Iraq. You should not be so gullible as to believe this is always the case just because the US has intervened covertly in the past.

Spacedog79 said:

The western world had no right to go intervening in Syria's internal affairs in the first place. Guns and mercenaries were flooding in what was Assad supposed to do about it? What about those chemical weapons, notice we don't use that as a reason for our meddling anymore? It's because we now know that it was actually rebels on our side who used them and they were supplied by a Saudi prince. We constantly try to imply is was Assad but in fact we knew it was our side almost from day one. Whats the real reason for all this mess? Well it's oil of course. Qatar wanted to build oil pipelines in Syria and Assad wanted to do a deal with the Iranians and Russians instead, so we decided to give him and his people the international equivalent of a punishment beating. The cold war is over? Pull the other one.

Patent Troll "Created" Cell Phone in 2010

ChaosEngine says...

The patent is clearly invalid.
It fails both the "prior art" and "non-obvious" aspects of a patent, in that cell phones existed prior to the creation of this patent and using voice communication over a device is not "non-obvious" (at least, not since the 1900s).

So pretty much yeah, "WHAT THE FUCK PATENT OFFICE?" indeed.

I don't get his "this is what happens when the government controls patents" rant. It's a bad patent, they happen, and patent reform is badly needed in the US, but if you're going to make a statement like that, you need to propose an alternative.

If you don't want the "government" controlling patents, you want ... what? Get rid of patents altogether? Allow a private company to control them?

Dear Trump Supporters

bobknight33 says...

Agreed.
The GOP used to stand for small government.

If Government went back to its original intent then yes it would be smaller and less wasteful.

The feed back loop will always be there but at least with a small government it would be less.

I truly back Ted Cruz for this reason.

Trump and Sanders represents the total frustration of the people towards government.

Sanders will lean towards bigger government control and more "people" controlling companies. I don't thing that is a good thing.

OBAMA has only brought social change. That does not put food on the table.

Trump will do well, but well at what I do not know. One who actually runs an empire He knows that efficiency and getting a good deal at the table is a good thing.

I think he will truly put Americans first. AT least first than Clinton.

Government is run by big business. You need a leader with big balls and a force to recon with to be able to change the status quo. Trump could possibly do this. Bernie and Hillary could not.

MilkmanDan said:

I think a lot like you do -- big government is a problem. But, while the GOP loudly and constantly *declares* that it is the party opposed to big government, to me it seems pretty clear that that is no longer even remotely true (if it ever was).

Is Clinton even more in bed with all of that than Trump? Probably, yeah. But this isn't an issue that revolves around Republican vs Democrat lines. It absolutely does revolve around corporations.

Yay for Capitalism and everything, but if Capitalism is the ultimate motivator, it stands to reason that these giant corporations *must* be getting a return on their investment when they funnel huge sums of money into politics. Otherwise, as Capitalist enterprises, they wouldn't be doing it.

So while I tend to agree that big government tends to be worse than small government for quite a few reasons (harder to monitor for corruption, less efficient, etc.), I think that big corporations and big government represent a feedback loop that feed off of each other. Thinking that the problem lies in one but not the other is doing yourself a disservice.

John Oliver - 911

bobknight33 says...

And you want government to be in charge of healthcare.

The Government controlled FAA is still using 40-Year-Old Tech running America’s Air Traffic Control.


Government run anything is bad.

China's gamified new system for keeping citizens in line

newtboy says...

Capitalist totalitarianism is a term I'll have to remember, nice.

Being China, the exploitative companies and the repressive regimes are the same people, are they not? Even Hong Kong is no longer free of total government control, is it? I was under the impression that everything is 'owned' by the state in China, although some entities are given more autonomy than others to give an illusion of capitalism.

Asmo said:

Oh I'm fully cognisant of the nature of the system, but it's telling that it originates from an entertainment company and a retailer rather than the Chinese gov...

It's capitalist totalitarianism. Using your customers as your advertising/enforcement, and as you said, playing on peoples selfishness. A viral promotion of obedience and conformity (because viral marketing started in China right? \= )

One of the most repressive regimes on the planet got schooled on invasive social engineering for better control by a couple of exploitative companies. Speaks volumes.

Judge backs charges against cops in Tamir Rice killing

enoch says...

@bobknight33
here is what i don't get about you or lantern:
1.you state that you are a conservative with a "tea party" flavor to your politics,
YET...
you consistently defend the power of the state to authorize our ever-increasing militarized police force to engage in violence and brutality which often leads to the death of a citizen,often with impunity (such as this case).

this is neither conservative nor tea party,it is fascist.

2.many of your arguments point to obeying a lawful order,be polite and respectful and much of the brutality and violence would end.on this point i totally agree,
BUT....
you totally ignore how "equal under law" has been perverted to only serve the elite and those who can "pay for justice" and how the system of "justice" has been corrupted to target minorities and the economically insolvent (poor) and feed them into the largest prison system on the planet.

they are commodifying the poor,blacks,latinos in the name of profit,all for the same elitist fucknozzles who perpetrated fraud,theft and outright lies,walking away with trillions of our money and not a single indictment.(check that,ONE indictment of a low level banker..whoopdy-shit).

yet i see you consistently BLAME the poor,black and latino.

this is not conservative nor tea party....it is racist.

3.many of your posts deal with a corrupt government.how it is bloated and inefficient.you decry the 'welfare/nanny state" and the horrible misappropriation of funds.

this is a typical,and necessary argument.that is the way of political dialogue and while i am not debating here the finer points nor the validity of your position,i am,however,saying the discussion is a necessary one to engage in.

however,

you,almost without fail,disregard and will actually DEFEND:police brutality and military action on foreign soil.yet BOTH of these institutions are exclusively government controlled,operated and executed.(which is why many of lanterns posts make me laugh).

this is not conservative nor tea party ......... it is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

my point is:
your arguments and positions are not philosophically harmonious.
they are in direct opposition.your posted philosophies are a direct contradiction to what you espouse.

here is an example of late:
@newtboy tends to post cops behaving badly videos.
you will chime in,almost always,siding with the cop (in one fashion or another).
newtboy will make an argument about exercising your rights.the rights as a citizen in a situation with a representative of the state..
AND YOU WILL ARGUE WITH HIM.

in that instance..newtboy is more a tea party conservative than you are bob.

think about that for a moment bob....
newt is MORE of a patriot and constitutionalist than YOU are.
maybe you are just being a contrarian?
maybe just a bit of trolling?

but...in the end,your arguments make no sense due to their contradictory nature.
you can't be for a smaller,more accountable government and then look the other way when that very same government is over-stepping it's lawful directives.

how the school-to-prison pipeline works

bobknight33 says...

So you are implying that centralized government control of the school system has not worked. And that this intentionally broken system helps feed the prison system. Furthermore you are saying that by privatizing it evil corporation get richer.

If the "state" would do a good job of education we would not be in this mess.
If the "state" would do a good job there would not be a reason to privatize.

The "state" has failed.

JustSaying said:

You gotta look at it from this angle: the shittier the public school system gets, the easier it is to convince people that it doesn't work and needs to be privatised. The students that fail in this intentionally broken system go to prison, develop a higher likelyhood of becoming repeat offenders and end up spending more and more time behind bars, preferably privatised ones. That means the people that gain money from privatising schools and prisons get richer and richer, therefore trickling down their insane amounts of wealth on the poor people. What's not to love? Everybody wins!

Is Obamacare Working?

bobknight33 says...

You dumb like newtboy.

Heathcare was free market before the war. Employers started to add it as a benefit to attract workers during the war.

Government oversight from gross market abuse is fine. But the government has been grossly overreaching its powers over the the last 50 years or so.

ACA is a perfect example of gross overreach.

Heathcare is not market controlled - government regulations have driven costs up over the last decades.

I work at many hospitals and a new outpatient clinic was opened and was dead empty - It had been opened for few months. I talked to the administrator and she indicated that many more patients are paying cash and not using insurance. I asked if they market their prices. She indicated that it was illegal to do that.

If pricing was posted and advertise and peopled started paying directly with only using insurance for the big stuff then competition would come in and drive costs down. Government does not drive down costs or wring out excess capacity.

Quit being delusional with government control as a utopia for all.

heropsycho said:

You rely on the government for national defense, you idiot. You know why? Because in the real world you can't defend yourself from foreign armies and terrorists. You depend upon the police for protection no matter how many guns you might have.

Where the disconnect here is the idiotic notion that we don't need government for things like health care regulation. The reality is ACA didn't just come out of the blue. It came from an obvious systemic problem within the overwhelmingly market controlled system.

You can keep mindlessly babbling all you want that government intervention is always bad, but that is turning an idiotically blind eye to basic US history, where there are ridiculous number of examples the government getting involved to effectively regulate industries are undeniably good, like the Meat Inspection Act, Food and Drug Administration, making it illegal to put lead in paint, regulations for car safety, regulations on buildings so you can't for example put asbestos in the walls, requiring labels on food so you know what ingredients are in them, so you could avoid nuts if you have a deadly nut allergy.

You know why? Because, despite your delusions, you can't inspect all your food, wear a mask when you walk into every building you go into to protect from asbestos, know that the tires you are buying don't have an excessively high chance of blowing off your car and killing you, ensure the air you breathe doesn't have too much lead in it, etc. etc. etc.

You're dependent on the government for all that, and it has massively improved your quality of life, and it has nothing to do with your self pride or dignity, so cut the utter bullcrap.

Is Obamacare Working?

bobknight33 says...

newt,

Paying $500/mo and getting what you want/afford is not the same as getting what we say you can have. Your such a stooge.

Why would anyone want to rely of government if they don't have to? I was taught better than that. Obviously you don't have any self pride or dignity. Your such a stooge.

In essence the VA is a single payer system. The government pays. Not the Veterans. Your such a stooge.

Blah Blah .. military, Interstate Highway department, police,, Public utilities. All proper Government functions , Granted they are slow, inefficient, for good reasons, as intended by the founders. Your such a stooge.

ACA still doesn't cover all. But will penalize and imprison those who fail ( or cant ) pay premiums. Yea for total government control..Hand over total control of you life to them. Your such a stooge.

Once again you prove that Your such a stooge.


Your friend,
bk33

Ok you can un-friend me.

newtboy said:

So we'll assume yes, she now pays nothing, can't be refused, but somehow in your mind she's in a worse position than spending $500 per month and having no security that she won't be refused next month by a corporation that fights her on every penny they have to pay out.

No, the VA is NOT the same thing as 'single payer'....it's a separate medical system designed solely for veterans and their specific range of issues, which is consistently intentionally severely under funded by the same people who claim to have nothing but love for the military because 'national debt'...but that doesn't matter when the issue is wasting $billions-trillions on unwanted military equipment.

So, you wish to completely disband the military, Interstate Highway department, police, homeland security, interstate communications, internet, electricity, and water systems because relying on the government is a bad thing, eh? No? You socialist commie!

Obviously your last statement is completely wrong, that was the point of and reason for the ACA, and even it fails to cover everyone. The only way to cover everyone is to actually cover everyone.

You once again completely ignore your previous failed argument and move on to your next argument when called out. That's getting old, and is indicative of your having absolutely no strength of your convictions IMO. I'm not sure why you say these things if you can't stand behind any of them.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon