Lol.
Reasontv, the network of the insanity from Stossel, with the stated position that “free market and deregulation is the solution to any and every problem imaginable”. That’s the best you’ve got!?! Then you’ve got NOTHING. You actually complain that CNN isn’t trustworthy, then you post from Reasontv!?! Er mer gerd! 🤦‍♂️ why not just post Beck or Jones?

They completely misrepresent what the report, and climate activists, and politicians have said with bad editing and lies here, no surprise, you posted it, it was guaranteed to be DISHONEST nonsense propaganda.

Land temperatures reached 1.3C above pre industrial norms in 2020. Every prediction made has come true well ahead of schedule. Temperature rise is accelerating, it’s not the flat straight line nor a slowing rate like they showed but an increasing curve. The last 7 years were all in the top 10 hottest ever, the last decade had 9 of the hottest ever, and we are experiencing a global drought never seen by modern man….but according to you, nothing burger, totally normal, chicken little.

https://www.iflscience.com/nine-of-the-top-10-hottest-years-ever-all-occurred-in-the-last-decade-62232

There is one thing I agree with, the “12 years to stop climate disaster” notion (not what the science says btw) is wrong. We have -20 years +-. The CO2 we put in the atmosphere today will effect climate for hundreds to a thousand years, the nitrous oxide for about 120, methane around 10. We have reached the point where natural emissions will soon take over, adding more than humans ever did. Scientists estimate that’s at 1.5C, but every estimate they’ve made public has turned out to be optimistic in the extreme, so 1.5C is almost certainly wishful thinking and 1.25C is more likely the threshold. We can both mitigate the effects and slow the rate of change, but at this point staying below 1.5C is a pipe dream no one is actually even working towards.

I think the reality is that, using current models, assuming no surprises or feedback loops, we have (now 8 ) years before the adding these greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will carry us well beyond 1.5C above “normal” with no additional emissions needed….not that we will definitely hit 1.5 by 2030 but we will be able to coast there even with zero emissions.
I know, math and science together, way too hard, better to just listen to the oil spokesmen who say “it’s a hoax, pay no attention to the cities reaching 130F, the unprecedented heat globally, the rapidly melting (or melted) glaciers that historically provide drinking water for 1.9 BILLION people, or the never before seen by man extreme global droughts, they’re all normal and natural and why are you still talking about it?”.

No surprise, one more undeniable, in your face disaster you simply deny exists….like Covid, Jan 6, Russian election interference, -3.5%gdp, Trump terrorism, etc.
Can we have your name so when the global food supply is insufficient we know who’s family to deny food?

If this wasn’t Stossel, I might upvote, but because it is him, I’m feeling relatively certain that his eventual conclusion is faulty and many facts are just wrong. Remember, he’s the person who sued Facebook when he claimed the 2020 forest fires were primarily caused by forest mismanagement not climate change and Facebook labeled it “Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.”

It’s a near certainty that salient facts are being hidden to make it seem local government is stealing houses over $8 bills. That is how Stossel “reports”. For instance, any loans, mortgages, judgements, fines, outstanding bills in collections, overdue taxes, the cost of seizure, the cost of the sale, the cost to bring the home into sellable condition, etc are all paid from the proceeds before the “owner” would have any claims….and the government gets to estimate the value at seizure and set the starting auction bid accordingly.

The IRS seizes homes around 300 times per year, most are worth less than the debt owed.

Asset forfeiture is wrong. It’s legalized theft. I wish I could trust the source enough to support this video.

Stossel couldn’t back up that claim, that left and right are equally honest, because far right sites/outlets are intentionally +-95% untruthful while far left sites are 5-10% untruthful (and often print corrections).

Remember, I think it was Newt Gingrich who said “facts are for liberals”. The right wing abandoned facts and truth completely by 2008 at the latest.

A site that is designed to contain honest facts should, and seemingly does have no political affiliation, and should not strive to be politically balanced. It should strive to be correct. I think they do this. That leaves the lying right wing media out, but not based on politics.

To me, it appears the main point of Stossel's concern is that the point of view isn't balanced politically. That's fine and all, but using the accepted list of credible sources as the evidence is false equivalency.

The question of whether the sources are factual or not in their reporting is 100% different than whether the sources slant their reporting to a specific narrative.

If he wanted to make the case that all of the left/far left sites are as untruthful as the right/far right sites then he should have introduced some additional analysis of the truthfulness of the articles on the sites. He didn't do that so his comparison is basically invalid.

imagine being persuaded by john stossel and then proclaiming "i am not dumb". fascinating.

Nope.

Not a fan of Stossel. He has botched stories one too many times to be comfortable with his accuracy.

If he was an auto rental agency, only every 30th car would catch on fire but that's enough to dissuade me.

Rather go w/Limbaugh or Rather. At least one could be assured on the level of reporting. John Stossel? Give me a break.

Don't know what others do, but only use Wikipedia as a light reference. Rather go to Britannica for better accuracy

Let me educate you, John, if that's possible.
Why now?
Because now is when minorities have a voice and some power to back it up. Now is when the populace has finally decided that blatant racism is not just wrong, they should and can do something to counter it.

So ignorant. The same arguments racists have made for my entire lifetime....acknowledging and confronting racism make things worse for the victims. Just utter self serving nonsense from racists who don't like being called out.

Stossel lost his mind in the 80's and became a shill for the right.

stossel couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.

Only 3% of BLM rallies had violence perpetrated by some of those marching, the same as had violence perpetrated against them by right wing groups like proud boys and boogaloo boys. All bombings, police assassinations, drive bys, cars driving through crowds, armed gangs hunting BLM, and planned terrorism was by right wing actors often trying to blame BLM. You don't hear that on Fox.

Oh my fucking God, did that idiot just claim ALL media bias is from the left and against the right? Lmfahs! *lies and *debunked

Hilarious to hear Stossel complain about media bias, he's so far right he turned his back on reality decades ago. Another big fail, @bobknight33

Stossel is a far right propagandist these days.

My theory is they waste money by offering loans for the first two years at major private universities....knowing that the classes are designed to weed out >75% of students before their Jr year. Jr colleges aren't designed to fail or burn out most students, class sizes are exponentially smaller, and the teachers are often better, certainly more accessible to students.
By offering to loan the money they knowingly set up that 75% for failure and long term debt for nothing. By paying for those two years at Jr colleges they could let students figure out if they are capable of a full degree without the enormous expense. As long as the Jr colleges are qualified, 4 year universities will usually transfer credits already.

As to trades...yes perhaps professionals can, under some circumstances, make as much as some white collar professional, even lawyers, but that certification takes years of low paid apprenticeship to qualify for. I welded for years, I built bridges, water tanks, construction tools, industrial ovens, crash attenuatiors, race cars, boats, .... my average wage in that time was barely over $10 an hour, and never over $20. It takes a long time to start earning a real living wage in most cases.

Don't know this Stossel guy (seems like a tool), but was always a fan of Mike Rowe, and also his initiative to get more workers in the trades.

I've seen plumbers (2-yr degree + certification) with higher hourly rates than lawyers (8-yr degree + bar exam). I also know a guy who makes more now as a general contractor than he did as a DBA (B.S. in Computer Science).
I think part of this is supply & demand- not as many tradespeople so the wages go up to hire those willing, and the cost of higher wages gets passed on to the customer.

But the point of this video isn't "should you go to college?", it's "the liberals want hard-working people to pay for college for all these liberal students", which is a false premise and why I can't upvote it.

I think community college should be taxpayer-funded for those students who want more than just high school. (but they should have to maintain certain GPA to remain free)
As far as other private Universities, they should be able to charge for it. Colleges that receive Federal or State money should have a cap on the rate that tuition can increase per year (maybe based on inflation). Over the past 20 years, most college tuition has gone up way more than inflation or wages.

Rather than student-loan forgiveness, I'd rather see a federal program that will help those students who couldn't finish school go back and get their degree (where it will pay for itself) or get a different degree. Most of this sub-$10k student debt they talk about is for students who never got their degree.

stossel is still talking?

I think that's intentional. If we saw the full unedited video, i think it would be more clear he's describing Trump and the unpopular policies he instituted despite their unpopularity and lack of support.

Edit: Based on the background it looks like his interview with Stossel last year, but the shirt collar looks a bit different.

While I agree about Stossel, this time I think he's right.
By the standards described, my parents would still be in prison for egregious lack of supervision.
If police think a park full of kids and parents isn't a safe place for a child, that's their failure to make the community safe, not some fault by the parents. Police overreaction based on their irrational fear of the worst possible, however unlikely, scenario should be disincentivised.