@bobknight33

"You just bent because you you team is finally getting called out for what they are. Biased and fake ."

have you met me?
or is your account used by multiple people,and this particular bob is one i have never engaged?

reread my comment.
GO..i'll wait.

notice anything?
that maybe i accused CNN of the very same partisan fuckery as FOX?

this is just a house negro who sold his integrity years ago for his own personal gain.who pretended faux outrage in order to appeal to the politically unsophisticated so he can buy a BIG house,and drive an expensive car and rub shoulders with the powerful.

but bob,you view things in such a binary and limited way that if i
criticize an opinion pundit,a cable celebrity,who makes his cookies by undermining journalism and promoting propaganda,and just happens to work at FOX.then i MUST,therefore,be rooting for the other "team".

there is no fucking TEAM bob.
there is simply the truth,and those who whore themselves for personal gain,while fucking the rest of us over.
neil cavuto is a dirty little whore slut.

does this mean that everyone on FOX is like slutty cavuto?
of course not.shep smith does some good work.
and the very same accusations can be leveled at CNN,or MSNBC,or CNBC.

the majority of cable news have all adopted the FOX model,because it makes money.a LOT of money,and as long as they are populated by dirty little whores like cavuto.who are willing to sell their integrity for safety and financial security.the amercian people will always suffer those fuckheads selfish hubris.

one of the greatest things to come out of this surreal and absurd election cycle is that the american people have begun to "get it".they have come to the slow (and infuriating to me) realization that cable news is not news at all.it is propaganda.it is opinion by way of presenting as "news".

and ALL the big players are guilty.
they all have their own celebrity demagogues.
pushing their own agendas to their own little,easily manipulated fiefdoms.

so stop projecting bob.
i have no interest is self righteous moralizing predicated on inadequate information and even worse politics.

i KNOW who the real enemy is,and cable news is the mechanism in which they spread their divisive and warped ideologies.

you appear to continue to buy into their bullshit.
that this is somehow a right vs left,or dem vs repub.
american liberals are not the problem.
american conservatives are not the problem.

no...bob...

the two party duopoly,the two party dictatorship.
THAT is the problem.
this is about power vs powerlessness.

and little whores like cavuto do NOT serve you!
he,and his ilk,serve power.

it is time for you to choose a side bob.
which side on you on?

*edit:oh shit,just realized you were talking to newtboy.
my bad bob.../chuckles...
sighs..guess i was looking to scrap a bit.
bad enoch..baaad.

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.

Well he does say he has no 'smoking gun'.

The thing is, nothing he said is proof, but everything he said follows logical steps and a chain of verifiable evidence to a conclusion, which cannot be said of the 1001 supposedly 'disqualifying' offenses the GOP claims Clinton's been party to. Olberman's story is exactly what investigative reporters are supposed to do and exactly what they've been failing to do in the US for decades now.

How come we're just finding out about Trump's past rapey comments now? Why wasn't the media asking those Miss Teen USA contestants about their experiences until this week? The media has fallen flat and Olberman is one of the few trying to prop it up again. Hell, he's not even a real journalist, he's a sports reporter. Maybe that's why he missed the part in Journalism school about rolling over for big money and special interests like a lap dog.

His conclusions may be questioned, but he is clear from the report they are HIS conclusions, not verifiable facts. I see nothing wrong with that.

That's not "underground" reporting. It's Jordan Chariton of TYT, providing additional content besides the more professional coverage straight from the trail. Unlike CNN, they don't have the personnel to create everything in a studio, so it's either this sort of coverage through Facebook videos or no coverage at all.

And frankly, I prefer this less-than-professional coverage with actual content over CNN's professional coverage without content.

As for the question whether it's ok to expose these emails, Glenn Greenwald covered it yesterday.

Finally, whether or not there's anything worth reporting: Lee Fang on Democracy Now.

Matt Lauer needs to burn in the flames in infamy for that---and he needs to be joined by his entire production staff. Everything Donald got away with was predictable.

Confronting him--and having Donald go to 11 or walk out of the interview---would have been better TV AND better journalism---that's the pity of it.

Jesus, how much do they need to do this.... but they fucking won't.

Journalism is failing democracy.

*quality

Your arguments are the same kind used by black lung / coal miner or cancer / smoking skeptics. Sure, it seems like when we control for every other factor in longitudinal studies that these factors are strong predictors. But you can't guarantee that all coal miner will get black lung or a smoker will get cancer. So it must be some other lifestyle factor.

Same with climate change. Your right wing blogs / websites argue that just because you can't create a model with perfect certainty, the inexorable trend isn't obvious. No thanks, I'd rather go with a 97% scientific consensus that has convinced most scientific organisations, large multinational companies (without a countervailing interest) and national governments from America to China.

If you're so certain that the science is wrong, why not publish a countervailing journal article? Oh wait, no, you almost certainly don't have training in the field or actual understanding of the science, and are just copy pasting fancy phrases like "decadal scale oscillations" because it makes you sound more credible.

I agree it's fair to argue there is an incentive in science, fudge statistical methods so your findings are more significant and warrant publishing in a scientific journal. But this is an incentive across science, and it hasn't stopped scientific progress as by nature, the process is self correcting when contradictory studies come out especially in a busy area such as climate science. The cost of falsifying studies or having your study contradicted is also significant however.

If you want to talk incentives though, consider the benefits to spreading doubt about climate change by the fossil fuel industry. 7 out of 10 of the largest revenue generating companies in the world are in oil. The industry stands to lose some $30 trillion from climate change in the next 25 years. Paying a PR firm to promote an agenda, paying researchers to dummy up research with a pre-determined anti-climate change conclusion is chump change to them. The cost to them are negligible if they disguise the source of funding sufficiently (e.g. funnel it through a business lobby).

Meanwhile any impropriety on the part of some climate scientists has not shaken the 97% consensus on climate change.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You weren't joking.

"Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as fully too rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

That's the international political equivalent of acting crazy when someone tries to mug you. Give 'em the old crazy eyes.

Also, partly thanks to separate feeds for the two of them and being allowed time to fully answer, Chomsky was fantastic at dealing with Cathy Fucking Newman. The poster child for modern condescending journalism, with her "Ah, no one is surprised you're critical of the US...." --having listened to supporting facts for several minutes, she comes back with tongue-in-cheek-but-not-really insinuations about bias. Subtly and with plausible deniability, attacking the person not the argument.

It's good that this kind of discussion appears on TV at all, especially on a major British channel, but they get away with the same kind of shit that people lambaste RT for.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Savage-discusses-bible-at-High-School-Journalism-convent

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Wow... that sounds horrible... I would have loved to know... well really anything about it.

Seems strange to me when your clearly pushing an agenda the way RT pretty much always is that they wouldn't produce the evidence they surely had to have to even run a story like this... right?.... right?

Civil forfeiture is a VERY real thing, but this kind of click-bait 'journalism' does nothing to help.

@ulysses1904 I wouldn't hold your breath. I find RT news makes Fox look truly fair and balanced.