>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.



Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.

And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.

CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email newsletter. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.

No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:

Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.


THANK YOU! I like YT comments that actually make sense.

Matt Damon is pretty cool, but teachers are obviously the problem we should invade the schools.

Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it, there's nothing wrong with that either.


The difference between cannabis and alternative medicine is HUGE! Cannabis has proven medical benefits with minimal side effects.

The reason why you see it used as an argument frequently is because the anti-cannabis idiots keep saying it should be illegal because it has no practical uses. Not only is this a ridiculous argument for a freedom-loving country, it is also patently false. So you see the medical uses being discussed a lot.

You are correct in your assertion that many people just want to be able to grow and smoke weed legally, but the "medical marijuana" angle is not just a front. It's a real issue.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)

I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.
Nice appeal to pity.
They can claim it all they want. Some of them probably also claim that crystals and homoeopathy help too. Doesn't make it true.
Look, I'm not saying it isn't possible that marijuana has some medical benefits, simply that it should be subject to the same medical study as other cures. Meanwhile, let's give up the false piety of "we just want to help cancer patients." Yeah right, that may be a positive side effect but have the honesty to admit you just want to get stoned, and have the moral courage to admit that's not a bad thing.


Don't give a shit about any of that. I know Marijuana helps with pain, and for people suffering from pain problems who can't play with their kids or do really anything it means a lot. So yeah that's a huge benefit.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)

I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.

Nice appeal to pity.

They can claim it all they want. Some of them probably also claim that crystals and homoeopathy help too. Doesn't make it true.

Look, I'm not saying it isn't possible that marijuana has some medical benefits, simply that it should be subject to the same medical study as other cures. Meanwhile, let's give up the false piety of "we just want to help cancer patients." Yeah right, that may be a positive side effect but have the honesty to admit you just want to get stoned, and have the moral courage to admit that's not a bad thing.

Much better. And welcome to the Sift.

If you want to update your info (add an avatar pic, etc.) roll over your username in the top right of the page, from the dropdown select 'prefs' and then click on profile. Happy Sifting.

In reply to this comment by hookskat:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/blankfist" title="member since July 4th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#29d4ff">blankfist I'm new here, so thanks for looking out! Changed the title to fit the limit.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)


I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.

@hookskat, may want to change the title. There's a character limit on VideoSift. Maybe "REASON.TV Nanny of the Month: Drug Warrior-in-Chief Obama"?

Somehow i highly distrust all this libertarian propaganda... why? Because it clearly is propaganda.



And they all seem like giant douchebags.





I know my opinions are not defined or founded by much fact, but reason.tv seems like a giant pile of horsemanure.

How is this currency safe from hackers? Who is the source making the money?

if net neutrality isn't free speech, what about media consolidation?
Should rupert murdoch be able to buy up every cable station on your cable tv?

Net neutrality is so simple that analogies just aren't needed.

Let's say I subscribe to AT&T's U-verse video on demand service. I can watch HD movies all day on it, but for some reason, HD movies on netflix just isn't working right. Because AT&T has a private network that it's own video on demand service is running on.

Thanks reason.tv, for taking AT&T cash (and making stupid analogies) so I can't possibly get HD movies from netflix.

net neutrality means that whomever wants to get on the internet, can, for the same price. Exactly what networks like verizon hate, when they block your IPhone from getting on netflix. A better example is comcast throttling the bandwidth of bittorrent users.

so censorship on the internet is a different issue.
Reason.tv actually opposes censorship like:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/france-attempts-to-civilize-the-internet-internet-fights-back.ars
so I'll give reason.tv a kudos for that.

>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.


Net Neutrality will kill internet free speech. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.

>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.


Cause regulation is what you need for free speech...just like radio and tv and movies aren't censored! Your opinion isn't shared by everyone, so it is hard to label them hypocrites You can't regulate free speech into existence, you can only regulate it away. It is like saying since I can't post things in someone else's news paper my free speech has been violated. The REAL culprit in the whole net nutrality debate is the lack of consumer choice in your broadband. A lot of that has to do with state and city regulations on who can lay cable, and you can bet it is a hotbed of mixed interests. If and when wireless is the mainstay of bandwidth, the entire net neutrality issue is moot. If you could choose between one of 300 networks, you would have more choice to choose against companies that don't play nice. Others, that don't care, won't make that choice. I prefer not to let government get its foot in the door for this last safe haven of free speech, the government has a much worse history than most things I can think of.

Not to mention that argument is completely flawed I might as well say you are a hypocrite because of your views on Net Neutrality and then use that to disregard your very sound opinion on abortion. ERROR ERROR does not compute! I will still allow you to touch me, though! (time for another drink!)