So, you admit Christianity has the same apparent issue of using a label that doesn't match the group (i think you admit Christians are fans of Christ, but not followers of his teachings), and there being no set definition of what a Christian (or Satanist) is exactly....then for no reason you give Christians a pass and continue to claim this group is doing it wrong. Um.......

(Edit: redacted -I misread)

I repeat, because their actions are political has no bearing on their beliefs which were barely discussed in the video. You assume they are secular and not religious, #notmysatanists, because someone else postulated that idea, not because they said it, right?

More evidence for my postulation that cruise ships are horrible, and should go away.

@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

@C-note

i am trying to unpack your comment to formulate a response,and then i realized that the reason i was struggling is because your comment makes no sense.

it just a generic,and lazy mish-mash of of inflammatory jargon slapped together to appear well-thought out and salient.

but in reality,it is gibberish,in my opinion.

your comment is a stream declarative statements based on nothing presented in this video.

1.o'neill is racist....to which there is no evidence.

2.o'neill is a misogynist....to which there is no evidence.

3.o'neill is a troll....while this may be a true statement,i see no evidence that what he is postulating is for the single and simple goal to get a rise out of the audience.

4.o'neill is using false equivalencies to justify rhetoric......i suspect you do not understand what "false equivalency" and "rhetoric" actually mean.especially in the context of this particular video.

5.o'neill is debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting.

no he is not debating someone "right" to hate speech,and here is the point where i suspect that you simply did not watch the video.you did not listen to mr o'neill's argument.you did not consider his points and the inherent problems when we begin to restrict language (because you didn't watch the video).

now you are certainly within your rights to disagree with mr o'neill,but you need to at least listen to his argument in order to formulate a cohesive and viable response.

i suspect you read the title,had an emotional,knee jerk reaction and responded in a very generic and lazy fashion.in fact,your comment actually makes mr o'neills argument.

instead of listening to his argument,you responded in the very manner that mr o'neill addresses,and criticizes.

you accused him of:racism,misogynism,troll and using false equivalencies to justify a point he never made!

and when you react by name-calling an insults you diminish the conversation,and shut down all interactions.

now i do not know you,so please take my comment in the humanity it is written.
if you disagree with mr o'neills argument,than can you please express your points and clarify why you feel his argument is flawed or outright wrong?

i am sincerely interested.

@bobknight33
ya know bob,at some point you are going to look back at these comments,or someone is inevitably going to bring them to your attention in the future,and you are going to be forced to eat a slice of humble pie.

i am not disagreeing with you in regards to corporate media bias,and that some people consume only those outlets that appeal to their own prejudices and biases.

as this election has made abundantly clear:both those who identify as democrat and republican are guilty of confirmation bias,and had fallen into the trap of their own personal echo chambers.

so many supposed "news" outlets were aught red-handed pandering,obfuscating and sometimes promoting outright propaganda.

the latest outlet to get caught in this fuckery is the washington post,and i suspect there will be many many more.

my point is simply this.
propaganda works,and it is an effective tool to control attitudes and opinions,they do not even have to "win" the argument,they just have to make a person reconsider their position by postulating possibilities,make one go "well,maybe..that could happen"...and they win.

so you are right in regards to fake news that appeals to the more "liberal minded" but do not think for a second that there are also corporate "news" outlets that appeal to the more "conservative minded".

we all,each and every one of us,are susceptible to this tactic.we all can be manipulated by appeals to emotions,our sense of justice and fairness,and of course..our prejudices.

the only way to combat this tactic is by remaining vigilant and do our due diligence.this starts by listening to people we may disagree.by fact checking and discussing with one another to test the veracity of the claims by certain outlets.

speaking only for myself i dumped corporate media years ago.

it is still an imperfect system i use,and i have posted fallacious content (not intentionally) and been called out for it's bullshit.

i didn't like being called out,and felt shame for my laziness and the fact i posted because it adhered to my own preconceptions,but i was the better for it.

so be careful when you make declarations of certitude by using corporate media outlets as a source,because more often than not,that information has been manipulated to appeal to a certain mindset and attitude.

liberals have known for decades the FOX news is a corporate media propaganda machine,but they have also been just as much a victim of the very same tactics by such outlets as MSNBC and CNN.

american conservatives are not the problem,nor are american liberals.

it is the corporate media who is beholden to those who wield power and influence,and seek to manipulate the opinions of the american people in order to retain THEIR power and THEIR influence and therefore diminish the cohesive community of the american people.

ok..i really don;t know where i am going with this..i had a point somewhere.

basically stop using corporate media as your references bob,otherwise you are going to be pantsed in public,and that is an ickly feeling.

Yes, Jesus is 1/2 human, but not the half by which our sin nature is passed down. The sin nature is inherited from the father and not the mother.

God is eternal. He is uncreated, having no beginning or end. In other words, He isn't subject to time, time is subject to Him because He created it. It's impossible to really wrap our minds around that, being finite creatures who are subject to time. It should then therefore go without saying that how an eternal being not subject to time deals with time is beyond our understanding.

Whether we are able to fully comprehend it or not, the important issue is that to God, Jesus' sacrificial death was justice for all sin. That is good news for us! That means that we can be forgiven and receive eternal life.

I am also not sure why you are saying the infinite room idea is a fallacy; do you think this is a religious concept? This is a paradox postulated by mathematicians, not theologians:

"Hilbert's paradox is a veridical paradox: it leads to a counter-intuitive result that is provably true. The statements "there is a guest to every room" and "no more guests can be accommodated" are not equivalent when there are infinitely many rooms."

It is a logically valid idea according to mathematicians.

The article linked above mentions Röpke and Eucken as champions of free market capitalism, so to speak. Ironically, Bernie Sanders is quite in line with many of Walter Eucken's core ideas. For instance, Eucken declared legal responsibility to be an absolute necessity for competition within a market economy. Meaning that under Eucken's notion of capitalism, US prisons would be filled to the brim with white collar criminals from Wall Street and just about every multinational corporation, including Volkswagen.

Ludwig Erhard, credited by many to be the main figure behind the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (nothing wonderous about it), postulated real wage growth in line with productivity and target inflation as an imperative for a working social market economy. Again, very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Maybe even to the left of Sanders. A 5% increase in productivity and a target inflation of 2% requires a wage increase of 7%, otherwise your economy will starve itself of the demand it requires to absorb its increased production. You can steal it from foreign countries, like Germany's been doing for more than a decade now, but that kind of parasitic behaviour is generally frowned upon. Minimum wage in the US according to Erhard would be what now, $25-$30? So much for Sanders' $15...

Sennholz further mentions the CDU as a counterweight to the SPD. Well, the CDU's "Ahlener Programm" in 1947 declared that both marxism and capitalism failed the German people. In fact, it put significant blame for Germany's descent into fascism at the feet of the capitalistic system and called for a complete restart with focus NOT on the pursuit of profit and power, but the well-being of the people. They called for socialism with Christian responsibility, later watered down and known as social market economy or Rhine capitalism.

As for the economic policies conducted by the occupation forces: German industry, and large corporations in particular, were shackled for the role they played during the war. If you work tens of thousands of slaves to their death, you lose your right to... well, anything. If they had stripped IG Farben, Krupp and the likes down to the very bone, nobody could have complained. No economic liberties for the suppliers behind a genocide.

Next in line, the comparison with Germany's European neighbours. Sennholz wrote that piece in '55, so you can't really blame him for it. Italy had more growth from '58 onwards, France had more growth than its devastated neighbour from '62 onwards. The third Axis power, Japan, had significantly more growth from '58 onwards.

Why did some European and Asian countries grew much more rapidly than the US? Fair Deal? Nope, Bretton-Woods. Semi-fixed exchange rates caused the Deutsche Mark and the Yen to be ridiculously undervalued compared to the Dollar, thus increasing German and Japanese competitiveness at the cost of the US. Stable trade relations created by the semi-fixed exchange rates plus the highly expansive monetary policy in the US – that's what boosted Germany's economy most of all. Sort of like China over the last two decades, except we were needed as a bulwark against the evil, evil Commies, so the US kept going full throttle.

Our glorious policians tried the same policies (Adenauer/Erhard) in East Germany after reunification, even though global conditions were vastly different, and the result is the mess we now have over there. The entire industry was burned to the ground when they set the exchange rate too high, thus completely destroying what little competitiveness remained. Two trillion DM later, still no improvement. A job well done, truly.

Anyway, if anything, Bernie Sanders' program is closer to post-war German social market economic principles than to the East-German bastard of socialism, state capitalism and planned economy imposed by an autocratic system. However, even that messed up system produced significantly less poverty, both in quality and quantity, than the current US corporatocracy. No homelessness, no starvation, proper healthcare for everyone – reality in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). And despite the fact that they were used as cheap labour for western corporations, no less. My first Ikea shelf was produced by our oppressed brothers and sisters in the East. The Wall "protected" the West from cheap labour while letting goods pass right through – splendid membrane, that one.

PS: Since that article was written in '55, I have to mention one of my city's most famous citizens: Otto Brenner. He was elected head of the IG Metal, this country's most influential trade union, in 1956 after having shared the office since 1952. The policies he fought for, and pushed through, during his 16 years in charge of the union are very much in line with what Sanders is campaigning for.

@artician
you always have the same criticisms.
with the same conclusions and yet you never offer an alternative.
now i understand your criticisms and they are not exactly wrong,but rather too over-simplified in my opinion.

what i DON'T understand is how you can bring that same criticism for a trailer.this is a small sniglet to get people to watch this movie.a glimpse of the content using dramatic music and flashy visual imagery all with the specific intent:to get people to watch this movie.

this tactic is used for every trailer,every commercial for a tv show or reality series,it is even used to sell BOOKS!

and to postulate that the mere appearance of manipulation invalidates the content,even if true,is illogic made manifest.

of course a documentary is going to have a certain bias,they are trying to make a point,but if the facts are solid and the logic reasonable..who cares if they use dramatic music to set the tone?

chomsky relays some of the most in-depth criticisms of american hegemony but he also is soft spoken and monotone.he puts many people to sleep.so it doesnt matter that his facts are backed by reams and reams of data,he simply bores many people.

see what im saying? because it appears to me,THAT is what you would prefer.no music,no dramatic production,just straight facts delivered in a monotone voice.

meh../shrugs.guess we just disagree on this point.and that's fine.

I'm not a historian so i might be getting this wrong, but i'd been led to believe:

a) Germany itself was in debt after WW1, and the economic hardship forced on them in the form of reparations has been postulated as a reason why the Nazi party rose to power in the first place. When people are desperate, they look for someone to blame. Over in the UK, the government have ensured that we're blaming immigrants and anyone on welfare for these economic hardships that were caused by the rich elite and ruling classes, corrupt to the very core and no longer working in the interests of the country and its people.

b) European countries agreed to forget large portions of Germany's debts, because back then we seemed to know that is was pointless to wreck a country and cause untold misery, pain and death to the residents all in the name of profiting off them.

I am so disgusted and overwhelmed by how badly everything is being run, and how obviously it is being run for the benefit of a minority. I hope Greece sticks two fingers up to the lot of them and does an Iceland, followed by every other European country doing something similar. We can't hope to carry on like this, we can't let power hungry psychopaths control the world... we won't survive like this.

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

You are disturbed, but I like that.
So, you are postulating, in the style of your post:

A mouse stuffed into a hamster, stuffed into a guinea pig, stuffed into ?
then roasted?

lol. Good grief.

@Truckchase
i was referring to how harris was crying on how he is so misunderstood and how everybody is getting his ideas wrong,or misrepresenting them.
i agree with him when he postulates that some people may be misrepresenting him to further their own agenda but i found it beneath him to whine due to disagreements with certain people who were just espousing their opinion based on his words.

maybe write clearer and more succinct in order to convey your ideas?

as a philosopher he should be accustomed to this,it is practically expected but it can further the discussion.

meh..thats how i took it anyways.just my opinion.

@gwiz665
you were the guy who encouraged me to look further into harris work.which i did.
and happily so..i found him far more reasonable and nuanced than my original impression.

so thank you my friend.

the arrogance i am speaking of is in the latter part of the video where harris does the two-step when cenk calls him out on some of his positions in regards to foreign policy.

you cannot acknowledge that certain historical events were monsterous and then double back and suggest we still have moral authority to USE the very same power structure,that only a second ago you admitted had perpetrated inhuman crimes,to impose your own sense of what a society should be.

and THEN,when cenk doubles down and calls you out AGAIN,suggest that what you are REALLY asking is just a hypothetical "philisophical" question.not actually offering a policy solution.

another point harris got stuck on and,in my opinion,where his REAL arrogance was exposed,is to suggest that democracy is the best form of government but islamic nations are not ready and would need a 20year buffer and maybe the western worlds could place a leader in order to help the transition towards democracy.

check,point.match.

this is where harris always loses me.i understand his criticisms of religion,others have done it far better than him but when he dips his toes into foreign policy,history and politics he wades into waters where his expertise is revealed to be severely lacking.

harris makes many exceptional points and i love that when given time (which cenk gave him) a lot of his ideas are allowed to flourish and blossom.this is a good thing.i may not be a harris fan but i am most certainly not a harris hater either.

i just dont think he is the best atheist thinker out there.

I don't know if it is junk science, but I read that boy baby rate is plummeting. The postulation is all the plastics in the environment are increasing estrogen in men's systems and they are making fewer Y sperm.

Or something like that. I'm too lazy to google it. But @ChaosEngine 's anecdote bears some witness to this.

@lantern53

learn to read and stop injecting your own bias on the comments towards you my friend.

nobody said you were racist (not on this thread anyways) they said you "seemed",which is to say 'appeared" "your intent may possibly be".

i have not seen anybody on this thread state with conviction that the cop was in the wrong.in fact i am seeing most here postulate the exact opposite i.e:the cop may just have been in the right.

what i was attempting to put forth was that this may be a systematic flaw and not just one individual incident.the "US vs THEM" is a technique that works particularly well with most people and even more so with police (at least the ones i have spoken with).this polemic can be evidenced in this very thread."you lefties".."you progressives" .

all labels meant to divide people.
and they are meaningless.

but it easier to judge someone when they have been demonized.

Worm hole = the worst bullshit fantasy since Star Trek.
This film looks WORSE than Mission to Mars.

To even postulate that the Earth or Humanity could be 'saved' by a multi-billion dollar mission light years away is so fucking ridiculous I can't even be bothered to write anymore.

This is way worse than even Inceptions 'a dream in a dream in a dream up your ass' crap.

Love the thumbnail for the video, McConaughey looks so dumb in his plastic toy space suit.