Yes and no. But I have to get rid of your loaded terms and misleading juxtapositions. First, nobody here is a murderer. They are at war with Israel, and they killed people on the other side, just as Israel does to Palestinians.

Second, the guy clamouring to see bodies is a broadcaster. This means he is not one of the killers himself. It also means he's a paid propagandist, maybe some loudmouth like Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck.

Third. That's not even "the cause". The cause is Palestinian freedom, and part of that includes killing Israelis because they are the enemy of Palestine. If the celebrate the deaths, that has nothing to do with the cause itself.

The only difference you're showing me between Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians publicly celebrate the deaths of their enemies while Israel is more Western, so they don't. That's not enough of a distinction to claim that their cause of freedom isn't noble, so don't conflate the two.

That's the "No" part. The "Yes" part is, the cause, which is their own freedom, is a noble cause.

There. I've actually answered your questions. You've avoided answering mine by asking misleading questions.

Here are my questions (some repeated):

1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?

2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?

3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?

4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?

Answer my questions straight without dodging.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by dystopianfuturetoday.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Olbermanns-Segment-on-Romney-Argument-With-AP-Reporter

For the most part I agree with you. I'd say that maybe, for me at least, I haven't been enjoying the TYT as much recently specifically because of the tone; it gets an almost knee-jerk reaction from me.

>> ^messenger:

Good experiment. I did what you suggested and watched it again pretending it was Rush Limbaugh speaking, and here's what I was felt:
I noticed that their ranting tones and vocal styles are quite similar, and that I wasn't bothered by that. I noticed how I trusted that what Cenk was telling me was factual and balanced because Cenk prizes his image of being honest and fair. His arguments were so obvious that I didn't feel he was manipulating anything to fit an agenda. I also felt this because he almost never does so, and when he does, he admits it first. In this video, I felt he was genuinely worked up, and was delivering the pertinent details and venting like a person who was actually pissed off. In the last year or so that I've been watching a lot of TYT, I have rarely thought like he was telling people what to believe or speaking to his audience like sheeple (his often repeated assertion that women and gays who support the Republican party are either stupid or ignorant is the exception I'm thinking of), and I feel like if I were to talk to him, there'd be room for discussion on any topic, as long as I was bringing fact to the table.
This is mostly in contrast to how I perceive Limbaugh. The feeling I get from him is that he's a blowhard who succeeds by being loud, resolute, prejudiced, black-and-white in his opinions, spoonfeeding his audience an opinion (any opinion will do as long as they can repeat it at work), backing it up with bullshit or manipulation, and by directing his audience to grouphate an "other" that he invented. I think a better comparison for a lib Limbaugh would be Keith Olbermann. Again, I mostly agreed with Keith's views on things, but the way he went about voicing them was hateful, rude and divisive, and designed so the payoff was not of being better informed, but of enjoying a dig at the evil "other".
If you don't like Cenk, I think it's either you're picking up something else that's going over my head, or Cenk's tone is triggering associations with Limbaugh's (and Olbermann's) hateful and insulting rhetorical style.>> ^Shakesify:
I'm always conflicted when I see videos like this. I react positively since it supports my view, yet when a video comes with a view I disagree with and a tone similar to Cenk - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! - I react with disgust and disdain..how could someone believe in something so stupid?? Then I imagine a conservative me who reacts in exactly the same way, just to the opposite video.
There must be a better way to communicate my beliefs to others. When did Cenk become the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, watch the video again but imagine its Rush and not Cenk. Fits too well. Too much ranting.

Good experiment. I did what you suggested and watched it again pretending it was Rush Limbaugh speaking, and here's what I was felt:

I noticed that their ranting tones and vocal styles are quite similar, and that I wasn't bothered by that. I noticed how I trusted that what Cenk was telling me was factual and balanced because Cenk prizes his image of being honest and fair. His arguments were so obvious that I didn't feel he was manipulating anything to fit an agenda. I also felt this because he almost never does so, and when he does, he admits it first. In this video, I felt he was genuinely worked up, and was delivering the pertinent details and venting like a person who was actually pissed off. In the last year or so that I've been watching a lot of TYT, I have rarely thought like he was telling people what to believe or speaking to his audience like sheeple (his often repeated assertion that women and gays who support the Republican party are either stupid or ignorant is the exception I'm thinking of), and I feel like if I were to talk to him, there'd be room for discussion on any topic, as long as I was bringing fact to the table.

This is mostly in contrast to how I perceive Limbaugh. The feeling I get from him is that he's a blowhard who succeeds by being loud, resolute, prejudiced, black-and-white in his opinions, spoonfeeding his audience an opinion (any opinion will do as long as they can repeat it at work), backing it up with bullshit or manipulation, and by directing his audience to grouphate an "other" that he invented. I think a better comparison for a lib Limbaugh would be Keith Olbermann. Again, I mostly agreed with Keith's views on things, but the way he went about voicing them was hateful, rude and divisive, and designed so the payoff was not of being better informed, but of enjoying a dig at the evil "other".

If you don't like Cenk, I think it's either you're picking up something else that's going over my head, or Cenk's tone is triggering associations with Limbaugh's (and Olbermann's) hateful and insulting rhetorical style.>> ^Shakesify:

I'm always conflicted when I see videos like this. I react positively since it supports my view, yet when a video comes with a view I disagree with and a tone similar to Cenk - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! - I react with disgust and disdain..how could someone believe in something so stupid?? Then I imagine a conservative me who reacts in exactly the same way, just to the opposite video.
There must be a better way to communicate my beliefs to others. When did Cenk become the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, watch the video again but imagine its Rush and not Cenk. Fits too well. Too much ranting.

Yes, it's possible to hide evidence. Yes, it's technically possible there were WMDs and they were missed somehow. But all sides who are close to the issue now agree there were no WMDs. It's only wingnuts like you who haven't gotten the memo who still think that's the party line. It's OK, you can now drop the Fox talking point. Even Fox has dropped it. Or don't. It makes for entertaining poll results.>> ^lantern53:

If I think you have peanut butter in your house, and I announce that I am looking for it and am preparing a warrant to search for it, how difficult would it be for you to remove it?
Hey, isn't Keith Olbermann on? I think Rose O'Donnell is making an appearance! Joe Biden will make a prepared remark! lol
See how easy that is?

It's easy if you don't understand the point they are making in the video.

Your analogy sucks. It'd be more applicable if you were manufacturing peanut butter in your basement and had to get rid of all your equipment, ingredients and all of the records that you'd bought any of it. But then, that would be difficult to do…

What does Olbermann or O'Donnell or Biden, for that matter, have to do with it? Did you watch the video?

Let me summarize: TYT cited a poll that showed a significant number of Republicans (more than Democrats on the same issue) believed a well-publicized lie. That there were no WMDs for the US to find is a fact. Bush and Cheany have both admitted it.

Bush and Cheney switched to saying the region and the world are better off that the US invaded, even if there were no WMDs. This argument is nearly impossible to disprove with facts. It forces you to weigh the indirect results of the war (our failing economy, our loss of prestige on the world stage, our soldier's health and civilian casualties) against a hypothetical alternate future.
Most people, Republicans and Democrats, believed this lie when it was first made. At least, it wasn't 100% clear it was a lie until after the US invaded. That's not the point. The point is that there are a disproportionate number of Republicans who are unable to change their minds when presented with updated information.

TYT are blaming this on Republicans, their elected officials, their voters and their news network. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't double down on crappy leadership by believing nonsense.

Please note: None of this suggests that Democrats are blameless. Its childish to respond with "nu-uh, Obama is the devil" to any criticism of Republicans. In fact, look up some other TYT videos, they are pretty critical of the president and Democrats when it's called for.

If I think you have peanut butter in your house, and I announce that I am looking for it and am preparing a warrant to search for it, how difficult would it be for you to remove it?

Hey, isn't Keith Olbermann on? I think Rose O'Donnell is making an appearance! Joe Biden will make a prepared remark! lol

See how easy that is?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Prejudice --pre-judging-- has been keeping people safe for thousands of years
Just to clarify - what you're really talking about are STEREOTYPES. Now - stereotypes are very useful. They allow you to quickly categorize things so as to rapidly develop a frame of syntax and context. However, PREJUDICE is where you judge people by the stereotype rather than from personal interaction with them to the point where your stereotype determines your decisions rather than the facts. Stereotypes are great. Prejudices are not.
And Cunk is an idiot. He proves that every time he opens his ignorant piehole. He's also prejudiced, and rather racist (a specific form of prejudice) to boot. Conservatives aren't prejudiced. Liberals are prejudiced - and guys like Cunk, Olbermann, Maher, and even folks here on the Sift prove it daily. Sad really.


"Conservatives aren't bigots, they hate EVERYone."

Prejudice --pre-judging-- has been keeping people safe for thousands of years

Just to clarify - what you're really talking about are STEREOTYPES. Now - stereotypes are very useful. They allow you to quickly categorize things so as to rapidly develop a frame of syntax and context. However, PREJUDICE is where you judge people by the stereotype rather than from personal interaction with them to the point where your stereotype determines your decisions rather than the facts. Stereotypes are great. Prejudices are not.

And Cunk is an idiot. He proves that every time he opens his ignorant piehole. He's also prejudiced, and rather racist (a specific form of prejudice) to boot. Conservatives aren't prejudiced. Liberals are prejudiced - and guys like Cunk, Olbermann, Maher, and even folks here on the Sift prove it daily. Sad really.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It's always amusing when Prog-Lib-Dytes start eating each other.


And your solution?

Vote Romney/Fuckface 2012?

Your video, David Letterman - Keith Olbermann vs Current TV., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^longde:

What a fucking narcissist...great tepid response by Letterman.


Yeah, it's weird. His douchebaggery slipped under my radar, maybe because I tended to agree with his critiques and observations. If I can't reliably evaluate the character of people I agree with, that's not good.

Hi lucky, how are you doing?

I know this will probably be addressed in the new version, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway.

I'm not able to embed videos from one of Vs's Video Hosts.
Current TV has switched to iframe (example below).

<iframe src="http://current.com/bc/1505517746001?linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcurrent.com%2Fshows%2Fcountdown%2Fvideos%2Fkeith-olbermann-on-continued-false-e
quivalence-from-the-right-irin-carmon-comments-on-limbaugh-controversy" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

(no need for a reply)
I hope you are doing well and the new coding is going smoothly.
Later.