Oh Bob....you don't even know what the word "disproving" means, do you?

This twaddle only disproves the notion that you can discern actual information from snidely delivered propaganda.
He is right about one thing, he's not a scientist, he's a comedian who's jokes aren't funny, just like he says. He's not a journalist however, he's likely hoping he can be an internet opinion influencer.
America Uncovered....a spin off of the insane China Uncensored channel, dedicated to China bashing.

This new smattering of random right wing YouTube videos are not "proof" of anything but your bias and willingness to repeat nonsense you enjoy but don't understand.

Put your money where your mouth is, go buy some cheap ocean front property in Miami Dade or the Keys, and don't worry about the fact you can't get flood or hurricane insurance, those are leftie hoaxes and nothing to worry about. You're really going to show us! Odd that those properties are losing value with all those smart rich right wing investors fighting over them, isn't it?

A few points....
1) PBS

2)slant and outright zealous bias are different, if related. The level of falsehoods, the number of falsehoods, the importance of those falsehoods, the influence gained by those falsehoods, the destruction done to the U.S. by those falsehoods, by every measure Fox outpaces it's competition by > a factor of 10.

3)Fox is the leader in biased, hyper partisan opinion presented as news, always has been. They aren't playing catch up or follow the leader, they are the undeniable and clear leaders of propaganda as news, and have been since inception. The left leaning outlets are decades behind and still have this silly notion that outright lies are crossing the line, not so at Faux.

So yes, it exists on both sides, and the left is getting worse, but Fox/Rush/Beck/Jones and the right are driving this bus and have been in that seat for decades, please don't try to imply it's anywhere near equal, it simply isn't.

MSNBC viewers still gain actual factual information by watching, Fox viewers lose it....that's a verified and continuing fact.

I want to preface this comment by saying that I am a political independent, and something that might help convince you of that is that I didn't vote for Donald Trump. The reason I didn't vote for him is because I had serious reservations about him considering what I knew about his character. Now that he is president I support him because I respect the office of the President and I pray for him just as I did for President Obama. That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what he does, or that I am under any illusions about his character. It just means that I know God is working in these circumstances for a greater good.

I know a lot of Christians voted for Donald Trump because they knew he would side with them in the culture wars. And he has, to a large part. But that isn't the issue with me. I do not fight the culture wars even though I find abortion abhorrent and I lament the deepening darkness that pervades our culture. It is moral and spiritual darkness which will eventually lead to the one world government of the Antichrist.

My issue has to do with the church waking up, and stop thinking the solution is in fixing the culture because the culture is influencing the church more than the church is the culture. The solution is to get right with God and show the love of Christ to a lost and dying world.

So, here is the comment:

It's obvious that the entirety of news media is corrupt; if 2016 didn't make that obvious I don't know what would. They pick winners and losers, as supporters of Bernie Sanders realized. They all have a political agenda and will write either negative or positive coverage based on that agenda. They will present a certain slant to every issue which is favorable to their political aspirations. It is patently obvious and I think most of the country realizes this.

So, this outrage over Fox doing what every other news media company has done in the past, is pretty lame. Maybe Fox is better at it than MSNBC but the point is, they both function as the arm of their respective parties, and manipulate their media coverage to brainwash people into believing their worldview.

this right here is what drives me absolutely bonkers.

you proceed from a false premise:
that "wealth" translates to being less corruptible.

blindly ignoring what wealth actual not only IS,but what it represents to the elite class in America.

power.

so could we please STOP with how much trump is actually worth,as if it has any inherent meaning in terms of power?


i do not understand wasting time with an ideologue,or dissecting his obviously conflicting comments as somehow expressing a clear and definable philosophy.these people play in the realm of cult of personality,spectacle and magical thinking.

their adoration for a particular public figure is cultish,and has very little to do with reality but more how their idol represents an ideal that they feel very strongly about.

so are we really surprised that bob will give Alexandria ocasio cortez a nod for exposing how easy it is to corrupt the system,but then conveniently excuse his idol and give him a pass based on the flimsiest of reasons:wealth.

when it was Alexandria ocasio cortez's lightning round that exposed how it is actually EASIER for the executive branch and the president to sell their influence for money.

but to bob,and how he sees things,the very idea that trump would ever engage in a breach of morality,and break his promise to the American people...is preposterous,...because trump already has money,why would he sell his integrity?

because BOB has integrity.
because BOB would never break a promise.
this is basic projection of ones morality onto a figure they admire.
we can apply the exact same metric to those who voted for Obama.same thing.same results.

you will never get bob to admonish his hero,because that hero represents the IDEA of what bob is projecting,not the actual reality.

fundamentalists engage in the exact same magical thinking.

so how can i get mad for bob,and the other trumpsters of the world?
i pity them.
because delusional dreams always crash on the shores of the real eventually.

and that is going to be a sad day for bob.

You are both saying the same thing.

The only difference is that the cynicism isn't consistently applied to everyone who warrants it.

(I heavily suspect that when the money doesn't add up - someone is making money on the side. And it just so happens that they are in the position to sell regulatory capture, so it is the most likely candidate.)




In this case AOC is on point (granted that Trump is wealthy prior to office).

If I were to criticize her, it would not be for this stuff.
(It would be for identitarianism [vs individualism])



The guilt so far is the sort of guilt everyone has. Not saying everything is kosher - just saying that everyone is guilty, malfeasance or not.

There is a saying, show me the man, I'll show you the crime.

I'm sure that the FBI can look closely enough to everyone related to trump and find something to convict everyone of. It may not be foreign influence related, but it will be something. They can even drag things out until the prez is out of office before going after the juicy targets.

-scheherazade

Yeah, any type of cherry picking in studies irks me badly. For instance, I recently got into an internet argument with one of the people who try to claim we didn't land on the moon.

They were using the results of a single study that tentatively said the Van Allen radiation outside of LEO possibly causes higher rates of cardio-vascular disease in astronauts. I then read the study and found out they picked 7 out of the 13 deceased astronauts vs a sample of 100 LEO astronauts, plus the general public's rates of CVD. That set off my alarm bells, so I then looked at the ages the people died at and their actual cause of death on the internet.

Three of the astronauts died at 56, 61, and 61. So basically about a decade early. The other 4 died in their 80's, basically a decade later than average. Out of those 4, they were suffering other conditions and illnesses that might have influenced the final cardiac failure. Sadly no one in the scientific community seems willing to challenge the study, so it stays valid, and the news media posted great big headlines about it when it came out.

Like I told the person I was arguing with, the median age of death of lunar astronauts is 87, even including the three that died early. Even if Van Allen radiation increases CVD likelihood, living to 80 something is pretty damn spectacular, so it really doesn't matter if you die from CVD, cancer, or a stroke.

I'm not even American and this makes me angry. This has to come from decades of big money influencing politics.

I tend to agree. However, In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida and Born to Be Wild are really close to tipping the scale in my head from "hard rock" to "metal". The cover of Summertime Blues mentioned in the video, not so much (at least to my ear).

Anyway, it is cool to see/hear some of the early influences that got things going in the direction of the music that I love, even if none of them jump out and make me say "now THAT is metal" like Sabbath.

Dude! Ants are stealing our JERNTS! Next it'll be our lighters, then our tasty tasty snacks!!

Daaaamn, I'd better smoke this bomber and eat these little Reeses motherfuckers before ants steal 'em.

Hmmm, seems ants are a bad influence. I should hang out with them more!

There are numerous things that need to be overhauled with police, but in this video I feel the officers were justified in returning fire. The events that led up to that point are still primarily on the defendant.

He broke the law, operating a vehicle while under the influence, and then chose to escalate the situation by attacking the officers. This is not one of the situations where the person shouldn't have been treated this way.

Suspicion of driving under the influence of Marijuana.

Authorities say the Nov. 7 clash started with a routine traffic stop that erupted in violence when Kelly and Seiple tried to arrest Clary on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana.

Should have just taken the arrest, now he is looking at attempted murder.

The part where they say "at least we don't have an NRA" is wrong. We have the SSAA which is the NRA's retarded younger brother. The NRA helps fund the SSAA and influences politics and gun law in Australia the same as they do in the USA.

Also kangaroos will fuck you up and drown your dog. If you're a tourist visiting Australia please don't treat them like pets, even if other people are doing it. Stay the fuck away from the males.

Movies didn't influence divorce rates. There were a series of events that led to them skyrocketing.

1. Birth Control pills. Women and Men were no longer forced to remain in marriages because of children.

2. Due to economic change and because of WW2, women became more acceptable in the workforce. This increased year after year due to varying factors and after a while, many women became less dependent on their spouses to support them. With this economic independence, women who were in unhappy marriages no longer HAD to stay in them. This also led to....

3. The rise of Feminism. With economic independence, women could start fighting for their rights. Rights that had been withheld from them for many years.

4. The Baby Boom after WW2. Most countries experienced it at some level and with a much high population, more people are going to divorce.

5. The importing and mainstreaming of new ideas in regards to relationships, spirituality, and sex. This didn't come from Hollywood, but from the East. The Kama Sutra, Mysticism, and more worldly takes on relationships.

6. Changes to existing laws, possibly one of the biggest reasons. Prior to the time period listed, divorce was a PAIN IN THE ASS to accomplish. Fault was usually required - one of the spouses must have committed a crime or 'sin' that justified the divorce. A long separation before the divorce used to be mandatory. Around the 50's, states began relaxing many of these laws, swapping to a no-fault style divorce and decreasing the separation period. By 1970, almost all states had laws allowing no-fault divorces. These laws had a great effect on the divorce rate. From 1940 to 1965, the divorce rate remained near 10 divorces for every 1,000 married women. By 1979, the rate had doubled.

7. Divorce also became more acceptable. The guilt and fault of the old divorce laws were gone. As more couples separated, divorce gradually became a normal part of life.

8. Children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced. As the number of divorced parents increases, so will the number of their children that get divorced.

These are the root factors, not movies. If you believe movies lead to divorce, you probably also think video games lead children to violent acts. We all know how wrong that is.

So, to save you wasting 22 minutes watching this dreck, this is all a semantic argument about how you define "attack".

If you say illicitly intruding on a system and stealing the data, and probing the system to prepare for future intrusions is just "scanning" and to be an "attack" they must successfully, detectably use that stolen data to take over/directly influence the system (like deleting or invalidating voters or freezing/ransomwareing the election computer systems) or to successfully change the results inside election machines, then there was no successful attack detected.
If you think breaking into election systems, stealing the data, and scanning the election system for exploitable vulnerabilities is an attack, there were many attacks detected.

Jebus Christ, this is what Jimmy Dore has become, a ranting conspiracy theorist that gleefully twists any fact to match his narrative? How sad.