search results matching tag: doesnt

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (113)     Sift Talk (14)     Blogs (94)     Comments (1000)   

Bill Maher: Richard Dawkins – Regressive Leftists

xxovercastxx says...

This is just another part of the hypersensitivity movement

Racism does only apply to racial transgressions, that's why 'race' is the root of the word.

In the same vein, every wrongful killing is now called murder even if not premeditated and sometimes even if not intentional. Hell, it even applies to fish.

People who do this seem to feel more righteous and I guess they think that will help their cause, but all they're really doing is preventing proper conversations about difficult/complicated subjects from occurring by stripping the meaning from the words we use to talk about them.

ghark said:

Firstly, he hasn't looked up the definition of racism, it doesn't just apply to 'race'.

RT-putin on isreal-iran and relations with america

coolhund says...

I never said to rely on Putin or RT solely. I just tried to explain that ignoring him and RT because of stupid reasons like that is not very wise, because the west isnt much better. You have to see all the sides to make a proper judgement.

A, B and C are irrelevant. Ownership is irrelevant because the western media is also "owned" by people with an agenda. But even between those different people there is a common agenda. You can see that in Germanys media right now very well. They are outright lying collectively to the people just to stay politically correct.

Reputation also is irrelevant because objectivity > reputation.

Funding is also irrelevant, as you said yourself. You can see it very well that it doesnt change much where they get their money from. The agenda matters. Also very well observable lately.

Putin first and foremost is a counterweight. He makes the western mistakes more obvious. He also has very good points when defending his own countries actions. Even the homosexual ones, if you ever listened to him on that topic. Yes, as a political leader he is of course manipulating, but he makes much more sense, actually uses facts and doesnt nearly lie as much as any politician I have ever seen.
You of course need to have and acknowledge those facts to realize that. But you made it clear that you arent. Comparing Russias imperialism with Americas shows just how much. Its pretty much clear the USA was involved in that coup detat once again. Now imagine how the USA would have reacted if Russia did that in Canada or Mexico. Or imagine how the USA would react to being completely surrounded by Russian military bases, having decades of history of destabilizing and overthrowing countries and whole regions, breaking and ignoring international law, even threatening the country where the international court sits to never dare to bring one of their before their court and then Russia claiming that the USA is the aggressor.

Actually Russia has long been very passive about the eastern expansion of NATO and they forgave that bleeding out of Russia towards the west in the 90s. Something like that happening at their doorstep actually justifies much MUCH harsher reactions, but they didnt use them. Instead they actually took another (hypocritical) slap in the face rather passively and silently with those sanctions.

Syria... I am surprised you even bring that up, because thats just stupid to use that for your argument. Syria has been a long ally of Russia and they asked for help after the US and NATO started bombing their infrastructure instead of ISIS. The war in Syria is even more obviously an externally funded war, not a civil war, while in the Ukraine you can actually see parts of a civil war, it started like that, because those people didnt want the new government. Also again mostly due to America and their support of other totalitarian regimes in that region.
You should read this:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/31/holes-in-the-neocons-syrian-story/

RedSky said:

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

RT-putin on isreal-iran and relations with america

coolhund says...

1) Thinking that any other western media outlet doesnt do exactly that is naive to put it friendly.
2) If you would have seen several interviews with Putin by western media, you would have realized that he is extremely well informed and prepares himself much better for interviews than any western politician I know. I would go as far to say that he is a political genius and very intelligent. He can talk any western politician into the ground and even the interviewers look extremely stupid when talking to him, since its made obvious how PC they are and how much they follow their agenda, which is not neutral or objective in the slightest.

RedSky said:

Considering RT is Kremlin funded, I expect he had all these questions in advance. That's how he routinely does it for his domestic news. Also a reason I tend to avoid this 'news' outfit.

Understanding the Refugee Crisis in Europe and Syria

coolhund says...

Extremely one sided "explanation". His view is pretty much the same as an extreme right winger, just from the opposite direction.

He says that people say that immigrants and refugees is the same in this crisis. The thing is for some countries it is. If they are in that country, even if they are not accepted as immigrants, they are allowed to stay. Look at Germany for example. Only EXTREMELY few people get deported from there. Period. If youre lucky enough to get into Germany, you will most likely stay there.

He also says that most people arriving in Europe are refugees. Thats also bullshit. Only about a third are refugees from unstable countries. Thanks to speeches like that of Merkel and her politics people are streaming into Europe in hope for a better life, because everyone expects the land of milk and honey.
The fact of the matter is that nobody would care much if it all were refugees, who will be there only temporary.

He also puts most blame on Assad and Iran and Russia, blah blah. He even puts the chemical attack on Assad, even though NOTHING has been proven and actually point more towards the extremists incl. ISIS. The USA, UK and France started that war by supporting those extremists from day one and even before that! The country was stable before that! Same mistake like in Iraq and Libya! And their allies in that region supported them too! And then he wonders why they dont take refugees. LOL! Unbelievable...

Here is a MUCH better explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB4WWYSnXmM
Notice how they avoid to talk about the real cause of this crisis, yet get a huge applause when they mention it. Guess why. Same reason most western media avoids it.

I just lost a lot of respect for this guy. Because if he doesnt get this right, he wont get other things right either.

Monsters beware

artician says...

I do this exact thing with the Scottish pronunciation of "Shite". I can use it around most people without them realizing, or if they do realize they don't say a thing just because it doesnt sound like "shit".

Americans are stupid. My mother would wash my mouth out with soap when I was a child if I said something "Sucks".

modulous said:

It's funny how language works really. 'Ass' is not a nice word? In my UK experience we tend towards 'ass' being the PG version of 'arse'

nanrod (Member Profile)

oritteropo says...

Ah ha A man who knows his geography!

I missed the Caribbean, and having played pirates I have no defence.

So about half the problems are due to changes since the film was made, and half were taking liberties to get it to rhyme.

There was an interesting article on the BBC News web site about what constitutes a country... I'll have a quick look and send you the link if I find it.

p.s. Got it http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20131212-bribery-and-brandy-in-a-country-that-doesnt-exist

Transnistria not quite the subject I remembered, but that was the article I was thinking of.

nanrod said:

Other than Yugoslavia and Czechslovakia there is the split of Sudan, name changes for Benin/Dahomey, Myanmar/Burma. Many are included as countries that are in fact possessions of other countries. (Puerto Rico, Guam, Bermuda, French Guiana). The Caribean is pointed to as a country but the actual countries of the region are left out mostly (Dominica, St. Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Antigua & Barbuda etc). Like I said in my comment I'm sure this wasn't intended to be an absolutely accurate listing even for 1995 and things were included to make the song work. Gaum is rhymed with San Juan and neither one is a country. What can I say, I'm a trivia player whose strong suit is Geography. And don't get me started on places like South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh, Nakhchivan, Transnistria. People can't even agree on how to spell them let alone whether they qualify as independent countries. And I shouldn't forget Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland.

On Point with Sarah Palin 'Interviews' Donald Trump

Guns with History

BicycleRepairMan says...

Tobacco: 229875
Alcohol: 65678
Drunk Driving: 22204
Drug Abuse: 16423
Prescription Drug Overdose: 9852
..........
Gun related: 8,561


Dishonest use of numbers. the "gun related" tallys the number of people killed by gun violence ie people shot and killed intentionally by other people, it does not include suicide (about 20k dead a year) or accidental shootings (about 700 dead a year)

Secondly, lets look at these other causes of death: Lets see, all of these, except drunk driving, is people KILLING THEMSELVES, unintentionally. Theres a pretty big difference. Drunk driving is ILLEGAL, and nobody is arguing that it would be a good idea to have more of it. And you know, its not like we're trying to get more people killed by tobacco, for instance, in fact, lots of people are working on trying to lower the number of deaths from all these other things, but just because more people die from alcohol or tobacco use, ten to fifteen thousand murder by guns a year doesnt really count??

Secondly, people are on the whole not actually working to get guns BANNED, but to implement restrictions, perhaps in the same way owning and driving a car has its restrictions. Cars, you see, are not banned. But there are RESTRICTIONS. Does anyone feel there arent enough cars around?. No. But there are restrictions. You need a drivers license. you need to follow some traffic rules. Similar things could be implemented for guns. It would be a start.
Another place to start is gun CULTURE, which is probably the intent of this video, changing people minds about guns.

Heres a challenge to your statistics: The number of people SAVED by guns. We always hear of the elusive situation of a bad criminal breaking in to kill your family, but luckily dads an NRA member and chases the bad guy away with a trusty old gun. How often does shit like that ever actually happen?

Guns with History

robdot says...

Gun rights people always seek to quote other causes of death, as if that has any bearing at all on the arguement..IT DOESNT..we shouldnt do anything about guns, because people drown? Thats fucking retarded. we shouldnt regulate guns, because people smoke? How fucked up is your thinking process? Hey, we shouldnt have seat belt laws ! Because, you know,,,people also overdose !! I have heard this line of bullshit repeated over and over, and it has to be one of the stupidest fucking arguements...ever......

Mordhaus said:

So, lets start a list shall we?

1. Incorrectly secured gun
2. Incorrectly secured gun
3. Incorrectly secured gun(s)
4. Legally owned gun(s) that were registered. Due to a series of errors, the shooter was not stopped.

2015 deaths so far in the USA:

Tobacco: 229875
Alcohol: 65678
Drunk Driving: 22204
Drug Abuse: 16423
Prescription Drug Overdose: 9852
..........
Gun related: 8,561

When you break it down, this is fucking low brow propaganda to scare people into banning something without a true understanding of how that will affect their other freedoms.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm.....if you want some facts instead of this crap.

ant (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't), 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 26 Badge!

ant (Member Profile)

krazyety (Member Profile)

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Mandatory Minimums

yellowc says...

God can they stop country blocking already. IT DOESNT WORK GUYS, everyone and their dog knows how to use a proxy site.

Like everyone, my retarded computer friends showed me the damn sites. My mother does it on her iPad, the only computing device she's ever owned. MY MOTHER CAN BYPASS IT.

God I just want this world to be less stupid, just by little bits at a time and geoblocking will be the biggest joke to our future kids. We're going to look like idiots, we will anyway but why make it worse. Let's at least let them say "Well at least they didn't...".

</rant>

american empire:an act of collective madness-trailer

enoch says...

@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.

Germany Caused the Crisis, Germany Must Solve It

coolhund says...

I am German myself and I am disgusted how the German media and politicians are only blaming Greece. Some conservative papers (like welt.de) are ticking out completely and are turning to phrases that are very close to our Nazi history and are not allowing overly critical comments.

How Germans could chop down wages so quickly and without much opposition from the people and other parties?
The main reason is Hartz IV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept
Its a reform for the unemployed people, which at first sight doesnt have much to do with wages of the working people. But it does have everything to do with it. Let me explain:
Before Hartz IV unemployed people didnt have much to fear from the state. They got their unemployment (Sozialhilfe) money every month which was enough to live without much fear of anything. It didnt mean much to be unemployed. But people found a job if they wanted to. Of course, like every country, it was exploited by a tiny minority. People were happy with it and many countries were envious of that system because it provided so much social security that people got very peaceful and crime rates were pretty much non-existent.

Hartz IV was planned to cut the massive costs of that social system. The left wing government (which turned out to be massive hypocrites), a coalition of a socialist party and a green party, claimed it would decrease unemployment rates massively and save lots of tax money and they would force those lazy useless unemployed people to get jobs. They emphasized on "the hard earning people whos tax money is stolen by lazy unemployed" and used the tiny minority of exploiters to get Hartz IV under way. Hartz IV was basically a cut for unemployed people where they would barely have enough money to live from or pay the rent from it. It also allowed the government to use many tricks to adjust the unemployment rate. They for example excluded people who were unemployed at a certain age or people who were send on useless trainings (like how you write a job application or how you use a PC), which were forced on them from the government. If they didnt attend, they would get cuts on the already not enough Hartz IV money.

They got it through the parliament (since there was no oppositon of mention thank to their "democratic" coalition) and it went all downhill from there. Unemployed people were suddenly massively discriminated, even by the politicians, because they had created so much hate against unemployed and built many stereotypes in the process, supported by stupid fake shows in the media, just to push Hartz IV through. As I said before, they only used the minority that exploited the system before in their arguments, and didnt care about the majority. That also lead to companies falling for the created stereotype and not employing people who had been using Hartz IV at one time and even going as far as them looking at older employees as inferior. They got rid of them in a massive purge, which also led to the trick of excluding old people near pension-age from the unemployment statistics. Pensions dropped because those old fired people didnt get a job anymore and had to use Hartz IV. That meant that they had to use up their savings before they get Hartz IV money (that rule is part of Hartz IV), which drained old people of their money and also caused them to get caught in an even worse trap:
After a few years of getting Hartz IV money, they dropped to the lowest pension rate, which was barely above Hartz IV. It didnt matter if they worked 40 years of their life in a well paid job. Now they were poor and would never get a pension that was appropriate to their former job. That lead to a massive shift in wealth away from the normal people (middle class and poor), to the rich people. The buying power of Germans was destroyed, and it became even worse after the socialist/conservative government (yes, a stupid coalition like that is possible here) increased the sales tax by 3% to a whopping 19%. As result of this living costs exploded and black labor skyrocketed. Cost of energy of any kind, taxes, food prices, gas, rents, every day stuff you need increased massively. The Euro was to blame too, because prices of many things (especially food) were just exchanged 1-1 to the Euro. So for example if there was cheese before that cost 1 Deutsche Mark, it would now cost 1 Euro, even though 1 Euro was worth 2 Deutsche Mark. Wages collapsed, while everything got much more pricy. Hartz IV made all that worse.
Now for the main reason how Hatz IV pushed wages down:
The fear of dropping into Hartz IV (for the reasons I mentioned) was massive. Nobody ever wanted to drop into Hartz IV because they knew then everything was over. So they accepted extremely low wage jobs, even if that meant they would get less money than they would from Hartz IV, which already was barely enough to live a crappy live from. They took 2, 3, 4 shitty paid jobs instead, and the companies loved it, because they saved a lot of money with that. The problem with that was that even well educated people had fear of Hartz IV and accepted lower wages because of it. Wages didnt rise for 20 years (and they dont rise much now either). Yet living costs, as I said, increased massively. It all came together.
Germanys economy was very low at one point, yet they still tried to tell us that the unemployment rate dropped again (even 2007/08 and every year after that). People started to learn how they manipulated us and now we are here. Companies making revenue records after revenue records, yet nothing is arriving at the people. The media claims everything is well, the statistics still lie to us that the unemployment rate is low, but its not.
And now they are trying to blame the Greeks for our problems. Just like the unemployed Germans before, and the stupid masses fall for it again.
Yet they still wonder why Germans are a dying breed (population has been dropping for years now), and dont get that having children is very expensive in Germany and only few people still have money or time for that (since both women and men have multiple jobs to be able to live) because of these developments.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon