Hitting a dog always kills the mood.

(edit) from the description it seems the dog they hit was already dead.

What kills me is they thought this video was somehow worthy of posting on yt for everyone to see.

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

The question isn't whether you can be good without God. Atheists and agnostics can do good works as much as anyone else can. They love, they have kindness and compassion, and so on.

Do you know that if, when I died, I arrived at Heavens gate and I met Jesus..and He asked me this question "Why should I let you into My Heaven?" and my answer was, "because of all of the good things I did", He wouldn't let me in?

Why is that? Atheists and most religious people actually have something in common; a fundamental misconception of what goodness is.

Most people have a list of certain crimes in their mind that, so long as they have not committed them, they consider themselves to be good people. They'll say to themselves "I'm a good person. I haven't killed anyone." "I may not be perfect but I am no Hitler or Stalin". Or, they think if their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, they're good people. There are some religions like that.

It's a relative goodness. Most everyone will acknowledge that they've done some wrong, but most will tell you far more right than wrong.

The problem with a relative goodness is that is all it is; it is relatively good. It is only good some of time. That is how human beings are. Goodness in Gods eyes is not relatively good, it is perfectly good. That is why the bible says there is no one good except God. The reason why Jesus won't let me into Heaven based on my performance is because once I've sinned even once I have failed to meet Gods standard; moral perfection. That is the only thing God considers good. Once there is a fly in the ointment, it is ruined.

The inference here is, if that is true then no one can get into Heaven. That's the dilemma, and that is why God sent His Son to die for our sins on a cross. Jesus had met Gods moral standard, He had never sinned. He was Gods spotless lamb, qualified to be a sacrifice for our sins on our behalf, taking the punishment that we deserve. Because of sin we are disqualified but Jesus qualifies us, that is why we need Him, why He is the Messiah.

Because Jesus took the punishment for our sins, when we believe in Him as Lord and Savior, God can forgive our sins and impute the righteousness of Christ to us. God counts our faith in Jesus Christ as righteousness. Not because we ourselves are righteous, but because He is righteous and our faith is counted towards us as righteousness. It is a legal transaction, once we believe God can dismiss our case because justice has been done for our sins by the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

So, when Jesus asks me why I should be allowed in, the only possible answer is this: "I am not worthy to get in; it is your righteousness counted to me that will open these gates. You died for my sins and rose the third day; I believed your gospel and received you as my Lord and Savior."

Atheists can be good without God, so can hindus, buddhists and even Christians. The trouble isn't whether they can be good, the trouble is that it isn't good enough.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Not to be that guy, but Science Fiction is an essential part of thinking about science and is not worthy of putting down. Anyone who has played Last of Us knows a thing or two about Cordyceps.

Idk about FTW as a channel. This was actually pretty boring. Not downvote worthy, but my favorite thing to do as of late is promote and upvote. Maybe I'm missing something.

The original game was only a couple of hours long, and not really worth playing more than once. Not sure how this is gonna be a worthy contender in today's modern gaming landscape unless they change the story a lot to add a lot more content and perhaps replayability.

But I don't really see how this is remastered. Remastered games in the past have been a lot more drastic. Like the Monkey Island series or King's Quest. This just looks like they ran the graphics through a resample algorithm. Not feeling it.

@bobknight33 --

I agree with @Sagemind that it was not technically a dupe, but pretty close. I was one of the upvotes on your other one.

I think there are 3 reasons why this submission got more votes. In order of importance:

1) This one was timely. The fact that yours was posted 2 weeks ago makes Moore's impressively accurate prediction all the more evident, but the polling, media, and "experts" were telling people it was going to be a landslide for Hillary. Right up until later on election night when it started looking like Florida could flip. Anyway, people didn't want to hear it then, but they are rightly impressed now that his "crackpot" prediction panned out so perfectly.

2) Being video helps it capture the context of what Moore was actually saying a little bit better than yours did. As audio only in yours, I was struggling to reconcile what I was hearing with Moore's political views. This makes it more clear that he is speaking from the perspective of those disenchanted voters, not his own personal opinion. Not as important as #1 up there, but I think this is a legitimate item that at least in part explains the vote disparity in the two submissions.

3) The Sift as a site/community trends more to the left than the US in general, and there's a lot of ire directed at you, personally, for being one of the few vocal people on the other side here. I think it is fantastic that you're here, keeping the conversation from being largely/completely one-sided.

...But, being that voice means that you're going to get some downvotes and have some of your worthy submissions not get as much attention as if they were sifted by anyone else. I'm sure that accounts for a non-negligible portion of the current 5:43 upvote ratio between the two sifts, which may be unfortunate but perhaps isn't surprising?

we're definitely on the same page

I think also that trump's narcissism is what make him want to be in the spotlight and think that he alone can solve the problems. Also, there's a lot of people that think if someone is very successful (arguable in trumps case) that they're worthy to follow or that they of course would have the solutions.

I have only one complaint. Calling "Get away from her you bitch!" the most famous line underplays the fact that this film is chock full of the most quotable lines in film history.

Compared to just about anything Apone says, also Hudson and many from Hicks, that line is pedestrian.

-"I like to keep this handy, for close encounters."
-"How do I get out of this chicken-shit outfit?"
-"Game over man... game over!"
-"Well why don't you put her in charge?!"
-"Me and my team of ultimate bad asses are here to protect you!... We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks," etc.
-"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure."
-"A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade - I LOVE THE CORPS!"
-"What do you want me to do, fetch your slippers for you?" etc. and "Look into my eye......"

I'll stop before I end up pasting the entire script.

Edit: One final complaint - i consider Aliens to be tarnished by associations with modern wonder woman, which IMO was indicative of the abject failure of rich Hollywood males to produce a worthy female superhero.

I'm only critical of this guy because he was part of the media establishment that cried wolf repeatedly and created the hyperbolic partisan swamp we live in today. You keep calling George W. Bush the second coming of Hitler, and guess what? When there's finally a candidate worthy of a Hitler comparison, nobody's going to believe it. The only people who believe that Trump has said strong man dictatorial and racist type statements are Democrats for the most part, even though Trump totally said those things.

No matter how dishonest Hillary Clinton may have been about her email and what not, she's not a racist bigot.

But it doesn't matter. Most of the country is so partisan they can't consider voting for the other candidate that doesn't match their political leanings/party. Whatever moderates are left think both candidates equally suck. They hear about how bad Trump is, and they just think Clinton is right there with him, or they dismiss things too outlandish they don't want to believe a major party's nominee would actually say that.

And that's this election. Despite my misgivings about Clinton, she is by far the obvious choice and desperately needs to be elected because Trump is so jaw droppingly awful.

But good luck convincing people of thinking that if they don't already. And a lot of that is because we the people demand partisan hackery and media hyperbole instead of the truth about the complex world we live in, and the media was oh so eager to give us what we wanted to make a buck.

Your blog post doesn't "simply mention" anything. Your blog post is clearly an attack on Dr. Greger's credibility.

For starters the blog post title is "The case against Dr. Greger" AND!!!!! you put "Dr." into quotations to suggest he's not a doctor, or not worthy of being one.

You try to catch him out on a technicality, which you misword in your post to make it sound worse than it is.

Your artifical sweetner claims are also weak. ( The number of industry funded positive studies don't outweight the recent studies showing how bad artificial sweetners actually are, from obesity, to aspartame turning into formaldehyde in the blood).

These aren't the actions of someone that is "simply mentioning" something. You had a clear agenda when you wrote that blog post. Which was either to create controversy in order to get traffic to your website, or to justify your non-vegan diet at the time of writing.


Also if you're having digestive issues, it's most likely dairy. Not just milk and cheese, but the milk powder they put into processed foods.

Edit:
Chicken nuggets are poultry yes, but they are highly processed - which puts them into the processed meat category. The WHO report doesn't specifically mention every single type of processed meat and brand because they're assuming that people can tell what processed meat is. But apparently they've given people too much credit.

Look out for that Oscar-worthy performance of Jeff Goldblum as sickly nutrion-enthusiast! Just like Leto in Dallas Buyer's Club, you could smell the AIDS by simply looking at him. Award season's close, man! Fingers crossed!

Squatty potty worthy *promote 'awesome'

For as much dislike of Hitchen I have I must say this was very interesting and worthy of the watch.

*promote