Congratulations! Your video, Jake tapper schools Ted Crockett, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 19 Badge!

Your video, Jake tapper schools Ted Crockett, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, CNN -- Bernie Sanders Interview with Jake Tapper (6/5/2016), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Aaaand next week they make Jake Tapper sit in the back of the room, and he never gets to ask another question again.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Of course you need to resort to threats of violence. Logic and reason are locked doors to you, ninnyhammer.
Is this what the lefties are talking about by "death by drone," your droning on and on between schoolyard insults?
Even you probably know threats = banned. I won't consider sending this little exchange to dag, as I don't consider you at all.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile


It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.
Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.



At no point did I threaten violence...did you fail reading comprehension as well?

Of course you need to resort to threats of violence. Logic and reason are locked doors to you, ninnyhammer.

Is this what the lefties are talking about by "death by drone," your droning on and on between schoolyard insults?

Even you probably know threats = banned. I won't consider sending this little exchange to dag, as I don't consider you at all.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile


It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.
Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile



It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.

Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.

"I have nothing further to add"

Coming from you, those words are downright inspiring.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Boise_Lib. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Jake-Tapper-grills-Jay-Carney-on-al-Awlaki-assassination

dupe of http://videosift.com/video/Jake-Tapper-grills-Jay-Carney-on-al-Awlaki-assassination

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.


And what is the root of this terrorism?

>> ^NetRunner:

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.


The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.

You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 19 Badge!