"The reason why GM crops are here is based on a deception that occured in the FDA." (25:00)

"From a corporate standpoint it was a brilliantly orchestarted takeover [of the FDA]" (30:00)

"Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of Serle which was a Monsanto subsidiary. The former US trade ambassador Mikey Canter ended up on Mansanto's Board. Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto. (44:00)

"Biotechnology is so important that we can't let a few little questions about cow safety or human safety get in the way." (43:20)

"Round-Up ready [genetically modified] soybeans account for ninety percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S.. In fact seventy percent of the food in American stores contains bio-engineered elements." (58:00)

This film is so incredibly quotable in it's detail about how Monsanto is a danger to the health of the food of the world, but I'll stop here.

Sorry, I've got to go do other things, so I'm going to predict your next comment.

You: Our problems, too, have more to do with our political system than our economic system.

Me: It is our economic system that is the catalyst for corruption, and the catalyst for big business's hostile takeover of our government, capital and national resources.

>> ^Jinx:

Man, that Sharia Law bullshit keeps getting referenced without people really knowing the facts. Research it please, and that means going further than the Daily Mail I'm afraid.
Ok, lets get some actual stats up in this.
Christian - 41,000,000 - 71%
Muslim - 1,600,000 - 3%
No Religion - 8,500,000 - 15%
Why is Mohammed the most popular name? Probably because it accounts for a very large percentage of those 1.6 million. The rest of us Brits make names up, steal names from other cultures and generally aren't naming our kids as traditionally. Consequently no one name trumps Mohammed. So is Maher racist for his remarks? No, just horrible misinformed. I expected better.
Oh, and of those 71% Christians I expect the vast majority are basically agnostic or deist. As for seperation of Church and State...well it might be in your constitution but I think we do it more justice. Some irony huh.


I'm amazed that someone as informed as Maher would make such a stupid mistake in logic and such ridiculous remarks. There is no threat of a Muslim majority rising up in any EU nation. Yes their birthrates are higher than the national average but it has been decreasing as more Muslims get assimilated into society.

Sadly a lot of Europeans share the same ridiculous ideas as Maher and this has led to an alarming rise in fear and bad sentiment towards Muslims.

Newsweek: Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong
"There is no Europewide data available, but one study says fertility rates among Turkish-born women in the Netherlands fell from 3.2 in 1990 to 1.9 in 2005, barely above the figure for native-born Dutch."

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by blankfist.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Chris-Hedges-Talks-About-Corporate-Takeover-Of-Democracy

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by pho3n1x. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof="http://videosift.com/video/Chris-Hedges-Talks-About-Corporate-Takeover-Of-Democracy"

@Matthu: There are over 600,000 muslims living in NYC. Do you see the place blowing up every weekend? There is already a mosque one block from this one. Should that now be demolished because it hurts Gingrich's fee-fee's? What about the mosque that's INSIDE THE PENTAGON?

And no. Most muslims aren't fundamentalists. If they were, they sure as fuck wouldn't be living in NYC.

Muslim's do have lots of kids. But so do catholics! My family has 6 of us, and I have some 48 cousins. Are you fearful of the be catholic takeover of America?

Last: People keep saying "a mosque near ground zero!". Well, the USA have been building Ground Zero's around mosques in Iraq for over 7 years now.

I know, I know...the government is bad. Same song, different day.

I don't really give a rat's ass for the FCC. I don't even care about prioritizing between different types of data. Giving VOIP priority over filesharing traffic is fine and makes perfect sense, one's gap-sensitive and the other isn't. What I want is one simple rule. The -source- of the data packet cannot be used in that prioritization. IOW, all VOIP packets must be treated the same, all video must be treated the same, etc.

Allowing the big network providers to do WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY THREATENED TO DO is just stupid. Allowing them to do so because you're worried about something that -might- happen later is even more so. It's like allowing a mugger to stab you, because you're worried that fighting back or running will allow him to file a claim against your insurance.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.
The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?

^xxovercastxx
I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.

The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?



^xxovercastxx

I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to you but, since I apparently am, here it is: I think net neutrality is a lose/lose situation.

First off, there's no 'neutral' option in this argument. The options are either to allow corrupt megacorporations to determine which traffic is prioritized or to allow a corrupt government agency to determine which traffic is prioritized.

Either way, us regular people are out in the cold. Basically, I mostly agree with you.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?
I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.
Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.
( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it.
And leaving it all up to the very people that are threatening to destroy it will save it? Fat fuckin chance. Leaving it up to the corporate thieves is like leaving banking practices up to Wall Street...it won't "ultimately undermine it", it'll utterly destroy it in very short order.

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?

I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.

Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.

( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Nope, I don't. Bush lost in the popular vote but he didn't steal the election. It's just a case of an anomaly in our screwy election system.
This was a good example of why you're such a poor debater, though. If you can't make an argument you just change the topic. You've apparently got nothing to say on the topic of Net Neutrality so you start whining about the election from a year and a half ago. When I call you on your crappy source, you strawman me and start whining about the election from almost 10 years ago.
Most of your "opponents" here are just as ignorant, I know, but you'll have to

It is a commentary on his lack of experience...

Sure Winstonfield, sure.

In the last 18 months these RADICALS...

Have you ever considered that you are the radical (or reactionary)? Is it possible that paranoid gubmint hating god fearing folks are the nutjobs? Any objective view Obama suggests he is still very much right of center, even if it doesn't fit into your worldview. It takes a certain kind of true-believer to suggest Obama is nearing communist territory - and a healthy disregard for political scaling or measurement. Ask anyone who isn't a partisan or teabagger. Better yet, ask anyone from a different country. They'll tell you. Hyperbole is so much more fun though, right?

doubling down on leftist economics, europe in shambles, right-wing economics to the rescue

Even Britain's Conservatives are wild-eyed radicals in your mind. Federal money for kid's hospices? Communist!!!

Please...
Lousy polling?

45.7% after a months-long oil spill....this man is clearly hated by the country and 'Real Americans'TM are clearly lined up against him.

I guess in your mind the following numbers are proof positive of a complete outrage on behalf of 'Real Americans'TM? Or does this suggest that maybe Americans enjoy government intervention?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/Verdict-Healthcare-Reform-Bill-Divided.aspx

And what's this? Majority of Americans support the creation of a public option? Heresy!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/185853.asp

I can't tell if you really believe all this, or just like to fuck with people. I don't know which scenario I dislike more.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

gotta love the understated racism (man-child)
Incorrect. It is a commentary on his lack of experience, his spoiled & selfish behavior, and his general lack of any ability to actually deal with opposing ideas with any degree of maturity. But false accusations of racism when faced with opposition is a tradition on the left - as we've seen all too often lately.
the hyperbole (radicals)
In the last 18 months these radicals have implemented a plan to ration health care, quadrupled the national debt, established huge unconstitutional increases in federal power over finance and other industries - all against the will of the people. Bailouts, industry takeovers, tax increases, cap & tax, amnesty, health care reform, and on and on and on - all things solidly opposed by a 2/3 majority of the people (or higher). This administration and congress is the most left-wing, radical, out of step clot of extremists that this nation has ever seen in positions of power. The only people that 'like' what they're doing is the 25-30% or so of the country that occupies the far left. Conservatives, Repubicans, and Independents are roundly rejecting everything these radicals are doing - and they make up 65-70% of America.
the blanket portrayals of Europeans as poverty-stricken communists
While Obama & the other radicals are doubling down with leftist economics - Europe is doing the opposite. Greece, Italy, Spain, Britain, Germany - day after day the stories pile up about how they are turning to 'privitization' in order to save themselves from fiscal disasters. It isn't that they're poverty-stricken communists. It is that they have followed the misguided principles of leftist economics, and now they turning to capitalism to pull themselves out of the hole... All while the Man-Child is doing the opposite and putting American further in debt in a time of economic turmoil & trouble. Says something, don't it?
And the rhetorical attacks on Obama (how's his polling these days?
Pretty lousy - actually...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_ob
ama_job_approval-1044.html
Isn't there majority support for Health Care reform? Isn't there still majority support for a Public Option?
In NeoLib-Lala-Land maybe, but not on planet Earth. The only thing there is 'majority support' for is for repealing the bill.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten
t/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010453-503544.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/2
8/poll-finds-low-enthusiasm-high-skepticism-for-health-care-overh/
Folks on the left need to learn a lesson quickly. YOU ARE THE FRINGE. The left likes to walk around thinking they are mainstream and popular. You aren't. Leftist policy and philosophy is radical and unpopular. And when you try to ram it down people's throats it makes you even more radical and unpopular. Leftism isn't compassion. It is cruel. Leftism doesn't lead to prosperity or tolerance. It leads to poverty and balkanization.

Putting logic to the test. Well done, sir.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Nope, I don't. Bush lost in the popular vote but he didn't steal the election. It's just a case of an anomaly in our screwy election system.

This was a good example of why you're such a poor debater, though. If you can't make an argument you just change the topic. You've apparently got nothing to say on the topic of Net Neutrality so you start whining about the election from a year and a half ago. When I call you on your crappy source, you strawman me and start whining about the election from almost 10 years ago.

Most of your "opponents" here are just as ignorant, I know, but you'll have to step your game up if you're going to try to argue with me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Doesn't bother me in the least. You probably think Bush "stole" the election in 2000, based on...what?
Less than this.
Feel free to google Franken, felons voting illegally
The punishment for electing a liberal is...getting a liberal