No, being on RT does not negate his reputation, but it tarnishes it, imo. It doesn't make him a liar, it makes him SUSPECT....less trustworthy, not untrustworthy.
I think using the reporter's chosen organization's reputation as one piece of evidence to make that determination is proper, I think we may just disagree on the weight we give that piece of evidence.

I explained that he doesn't have to stoop to the level of demagogue to serve the propaganda machine by lending them his reputation, and that harm's his rep. He may be 100% honest and factual, but he still helps spread obvious propaganda just by his presence, and I think both he and they know it well, and that's a huge disappointment from him for me.

Yes Chomsky is a good example of how, even though he's correct in his assertions, he gives a skewed view by omitting a comparison with the only alternatives (in speeches).

Again, imo, all news is suspect, there is hardly an example of "hard hitting journalism" in main stream media today that's not tainted with bias either by the reporters or the news organization that employs them. I'm not special, I don't have access to good news, and I'm not sure I could recognize it if I did, at this point. I think most reporting done today is at least in part an echo chamber/bubble meant to reinforce bias, which is why it bothers me so much when one of the few decent reporters takes a job with a propaganda factory...choices matter, who you surround yourself with matters, and surrounding yourself with unapologetic liars should hurt anyone's rep, especially a reporter with a reputation for telling unbiased truth.

Being critical of power doesn't cut it for me if it's designed to hide or excuse other criticism of another power....that's why I need to see him be critical of Putin on RT to regain some trust...until then, bye Felicia.

>> ^renatojj:

When I was a kid I played with Construx, anyone remember that? Not legos, I despised legos, they're for babies. Construx had these knots that really hurt your fingers, specially when you had to snap them off. Toys should hurt you, the pain makes you stronger, helps you grow. Or something.
Now legos are everywhere, Construx is nowhere to be found, and you can build your own marble maze out of legos.
What is wrong with the world?


They're both baby toys. All hail the Erector Set!!

>> ^renatojj:

When I was a kid I played with Construx, anyone remember that? Not legos, I despised legos, they're for babies. Construx had these knots that really hurt your fingers, specially when you had to snap them off. Toys should hurt you, the pain makes you stronger, helps you grow. Or something.
Now legos are everywhere, Construx is nowhere to be found, and you can build your own marble maze out of legos.
What is wrong with the world?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construx

Discontinued in '88, revived and discontinued again in '97. I can't say I'm surprised, either, considering how far Legos have come, what with all the motors, sensors and programmable stuff.

I had a ton of Construx as a kid, enough that at one point I built a "robot" that was roughly my own height. I use the scare quotes because there were no motors or other forms of self-motion. It was articulated, but I had to move it myself.

I had Legos, too, but not as much. I also had Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoy, both inherited from my uncles, so I guess I had a lot of construction toys. I probably spent more time building things in the yard with sticks, rocks and dirt than with any of these toys, though.

When I was a kid I played with Construx, anyone remember that? Not legos, I despised legos, they're for babies. Construx had these knots that really hurt your fingers, specially when you had to snap them off. Toys should hurt you, the pain makes you stronger, helps you grow. Or something.

Now legos are everywhere, Construx is nowhere to be found, and you can build your own marble maze out of legos.

What is wrong with the world?

>> ^tagomi77:
>> ^Tymbrwulf:
Even if he "obviously meant to say Afghanistan"... Afghanistan doesn't border Iraq either.... Unless you meant saying Iraq Instead of Afghanistan. But those two words are pretty far from each other.

McCain meant to say Afghanistan and Pakistan, when talking about problems in Afghanistan... he misspoke when saying Iraq.


What? He was making a point of mentioning how dire the situation is in Iraq whereas Afghanistan isn't so dire which is where Obama wants troops. In doing so he mentions the assumingly Afghanistan (for which he said Iraq) and Pakistan border, therefore supporting Obama's argument, which can't be so. Can it?
If so what a moron. If not than what is he talking about? The Iraq Iran border maybe?
This shows his complete lack of knowledge regarding the situation, for which he should know. This should hurt him harder than it has.

(2) start taxing speculative market operations, especially those involving overseas transactions;

I agree with this one, as right now speculative market transactions are done at seemingly no risk. But I would also add compounded debt instruments because its exactly that kind of claptrap created this mess in the first place.

I find it ridiculous that the Fed, the banks, credit evaluators and the investors are basically being bailed out for what I believe is careless, greedy, haphazard gambling of the mortgage market through bundling of various financial instruments.

They got themselves in this mess by seeking ridiculous and unrealistic profits but now they are trying to socialize the costs. No one is being held accountable, meaning that playing of the financial system will only continue.

The financial system should be based on evolution, bad ideas and endeavors should hurt those who took part in them or at the very least punished but no one is. It's ridiculous.

See - I've forgotten what these wonderful people have done to keep me safe from the terrible children of Afghanistan.

God forbid anyone should hurt the feelings of these fine, upstanding, courageous - intelligent - examples of American manhood.

Behold all of the marvelous things those poor, pitiful, under-appreciated grunts have done for your country, America.

I'm in favor of this amendment as well.

It has always seemed to me that the self link rule was in place to prevent people from promoting their own work and or profiting from the sift. I don't see why it should hurt people who are just trying to sift up content that is not available from somewhere else.