@eric3579
agreed,and i suspect most people struggle with this,but i think he made a really important point that we all need to address,and that is our own bias.

too many people for far too long have sought information that aligns with their own narrative,their own,personal and subjective understandings.we see those who identify as conservative reject anything that does not adhere to their own,narrow worldview,and we see those who identify as progressive do the exact same thing.

and yet if challenged,BOTH will stubbornly declare that their information is solid and without reproach.this is statistically impossible.

another great point he makes is how some people have been conditioned to accept opinion and conflict as somehow being "news".

he also makes a point on how some news outlets have done shoddy and poor work,but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.while this may be true,i feel he was far too lenient on those who profess to be journalists.he gives them a pass for doing mediocre work,because that is what many journalists do in this new climate of:partisan hackery,access and propaganda.

so when we talk about "mainstream media",we are talking about only a few,monolithic corporations who DO have an agenda,and that agenda is PROFIT.

so we can look back to the run up to the iraq war,and see how phil donahue was fired from MSNBC for being critical of the war.the highest rated show on that network at that time.so if PROFIT is the model,then donahue being fired makes no sense..UNLESS you consider that the owners of MSNBC were general electric,who at that time were heavily invested in military contracts on the dawn of a new war.

so the profit was not from advertising from donahue's show,but rather the billions in defense contracts general electric was poised to receive from the impending iraq war,and donahue's criticisms of that war had the possibility to affect the profits of general electric.

and that is the one point that is missing from mr green's take on the mainstream media:their inability or outright refusal to criticize the current corporate establishment,and how many journalists kneel at the altar of their corporate masters.

so while he makes a lot of great points.that particular glaring omission is disturbing.

speaking only for myself i tend to only consume independent media,and focus on journalists who have earned my trust.

ultimately it is up to us to decide who we trust and who we are suspicious of,and to discuss those important issues among ourselves to better refine our understandings.

@newtboy
you were not the only one who put me on the defensive for supporting chis hedges.
so if you feel singled out,i apologize.

the point of this post is put into light an adored spokesperson for the left,and a commentator who is also left leaning (and many of his upvoted videos can be found on the sift) to make a point.

and by your comment,you are struggling to reconcile the two.
but you DID reconcile,and you did so by giving maddow a tacit pass and condemning kyle for being a "complete bombastic liar".

when the truth is:
they both are...kinda..sorta..

they both are approaching,and making their points by using biased and slanted data to influence you,and i for that matter,into adopting their viewpoint.

these are not outright and pernicious lies.they are lies that serve a purpose and i find maddows far more egregious,because it is far more subtle..and you appear to have bought it.

she did so by using the innocuous word "might",yet her inferrence cannot be mistaken.they call it the "dog whistle".this is a wink and a nod that those dirty ruskies own our new president.

wink wink...nudge nudge..know what i mean?

now kyle is not exactly lying either.
he is using russias reaction to the new deployment from putin himself.who has stated that there was an agreement that there would be no new encroachment after the GDR,but that simply reveals the cleverness and political saavy of putin.

the real truth is this:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

or is it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
from 2009?

maybe this is the truth?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
from 2016.

well,personally i am going with the LAtimes and der spiegel.
brookings is a right wing think tank with deep tentacles in the pentagon and DoD.

but CNN reports that poland LOVES the new troops:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/

look,
while i will agree that putin is a vicious thug,who murders political opponents and tortures dissidents.that he is ruthless and relentless political player.

i do not see any evidence of russian hacking influencing our elections,nor do i see a new russian empire pushing for those cold war expansionism days.

the only entity/country i see pushing for expansion and a renewal of the cold war..is us..the pentagon and the department of defense,and those juicy juicy defense contracts!

i feel my time on the sift is coming to a close.
having to defend my admiration for a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent and author is just...weird.

at least i know i am biased,but i do my best to self-correct.

Really dude? This technology could be incredibly useful. I wouldn't cast it off like you have.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

This thing has Congressional Pork all over it. If they could just cut all the utterly stupid defense contracts like this one the US economy might have a fighting chance.

I think you misquoted that, shouldn't it read, ""The AlphaDog Proto is a lab prototype for the Legged Squad Support System, a robot being developed by Boston Dynamics with funding from DARPA and the US Marine Corps. When fully developed the system will be capable of draining tax-dollars at a rate impossibe for current technologies to match."

This thing has Congressional Pork all over it. If they could just cut all the utterly stupid defense contracts like this one the US economy might have a fighting chance.

>> ^blankfist:


But you're changing what you wrote above. Sure, when someone protects themselves or others that's being defensive, but you made a point of them enforcing the law - and doing that means they're an offensive force of violence, not defensive.


The law is ultimately there to protect people. As a society/culture/species we've made a collective decision over centuries that we are willing to trade some rights for protections, i.e. the right to assault someone v.s. that persons protection from assault. If a cop enforces the law then they are supposed to be protecting the citizens from whatever harm the perpetrator is committing.

Does that go wrong? All the time. Cops enforce unjust laws, or act (as the video subject did) outside the law. But there's no way in hell, I'd trust a corporation to fulfil that role.

>> ^blankfist:

To your second point, there'd be a better system of checks and balances with a private security firm over a public police force. Regardless of performance of the public option, you must pay for it. If you hire a private option and don't like it, you can let them go and are no longer required to pay for their services. Also with the private option you'd have competition which would lead to better services and lower costs.


You seem to feel that corporations are primarily beholden to their customers. I'd argue that's not the case. If recent history has shown us anything, it's that corporations are beholden to their shareholders.

>> ^blankfist:

This goes hand-in-hand with DFT's comment above about Blackwater and the other companies hired by the US State Department. You and I don't want to fund them, but you have no choice as long as taxation is compulsory. The government forces you to pay for compulsory services you may loathe whether that be public police forces, huge national defense contracts or even private military security companies like Blackwater.


Yeah, governments do stuff I don't like, but that's the point of elections. You can vote in someone who won't do that. OTOH, it's a lot more difficult to get rid of an entrenched monopoly.

But I suspect that, interesting as this discussion is, it's getting away from the point of the video.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
I don't think you can simply it that much. If I saw someone being beaten assaulted, I'd step in. I'm not being directly defensive, but I'm defending someone else. And ultimately that is what cops are supposed to do. Protecting the public from harm.
I completely agree that the kind of "cover up" culture we see in some police forces is bullshit, but are you really suggesting that a private security firm would be better? What makes you think that the same culture wouldn't develop there? I don't buy the line about hiring a different security company. In the real world such a choice wouldn't be possible and a private security company would have even more motivation to cover up.


But you're changing what you wrote above. Sure, when someone protects themselves or others that's being defensive, but you made a point of them enforcing the law - and doing that means they're an offensive force of violence, not defensive.

To your second point, there'd be a better system of checks and balances with a private security firm over a public police force. Regardless of performance of the public option, you must pay for it. If you hire a private option and don't like it, you can let them go and are no longer required to pay for their services. Also with the private option you'd have competition which would lead to better services and lower costs.

This goes hand-in-hand with DFT's comment above about Blackwater and the other companies hired by the US State Department. You and I don't want to fund them, but you have no choice as long as taxation is compulsory. The government forces you to pay for compulsory services you may loathe whether that be public police forces, huge national defense contracts or even private military security companies like Blackwater.

Yes---we have to much entitlement in America. We need only look at Defense contracts, free health care for our Congressmen, a courthouse's lavish luxuries, the "war" on drugs, giving to other countries, Iraq and Af-gan, so they can piss away our money threw corruption--You get the point.

@dag, I think it's a mix of both. Republicans may be unanimous and vociferous about it, since the whole chest-thumping tough guy image is part of how they appeal to their base, but the people who wind up on the committees that write the defense budgets are all getting a flood of money from the military-industrial complex, regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans.

There's also the whole problem Republicans have with economics. According to them, government spending cannot possibly create jobs...unless they're defense contracts, or unless it's spending that brings money into their district. Preferably it's both. It's a politically safe way for them to bring pork back to their district, while pretending to be against wasteful government spending.

The defense companies know that, which is why they intentionally designed the F-22 program so that construction of the planes would involve parts being made in 48 different states. Makes it hard to vote to kill the F-22 program when for 96% of the Senate a vote to kill it will also cost their state jobs.

1. Bye, have fun with your new nation. You wont be missed. But thank you for just making the Republican Party even more irrelavent in Congress. Maybe you can ask GWB to be your leader. He does have experience running a country in to the ground....maybe he'll do better with your nation.

2. Sounds like a bunch of people with bloated ego's and not enough wisdom. I'm sure this is not even 2% of texan residents thoughts. Notice that all the people speaking, and those in this crowd are white, and seem to hate those who arent.

3. So if this does happen, what are the things that will happen?
A. No more military support or funding. That's right, all those communities that rely on military and defense contracts disappear, and those people are put on unemployment. The tax revenue disappears.
B. Most citizens of the USA flee to other states, further losing tax revenue.
C. The Coast Guard pulls out, and no longer protects the sea ways. Customs agents move out of Texas. Like wise, the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and even FEMA pull out. That's alot of money going in to texas communities.
D. The US Goverment no longer gives financial support to Texas, and treats them like any other country.

So after all that, what does this new Texas nation have to look forward to:
1. High unemployment
2. Creation of its how military service (can you say 'Drafted'?). This includes land, sea, and air units. The sheer logistics that go with fielding a military are also figured in.
3. Infrastructure. Roads have to be maintained, communication systems have to be set up, and even clean drinking water has to be in place for anyone to live there.
4. Creation of your own goverment, along with all the idiots you hate to have with it. In our goverment, we call them lobbyists, other goverments have names for them. These guys will try to draw the lion's share of your meager income in to their pockets.
5. Revenue will be a bitch. Since to pay for all this, you will have to tax ever citizen about 87% of their take home pay. Funny how you complain about taxes in the USA right now. Go have your own nation and find out how deluted thinking works.

So yes, if these bloated idiots want to succession from the USA, let them. When they finally learn that they were stupid and foolish and want back in, we say 'tough shit'. And if we, the 49 states of the Union vote them back in, I'm sure there will be a consetion that each of these people will have a tattoo placed on their chest that says 'I am an idiot', and have no right to vote until the day they die.

DEMOCROOKS

$34,000: the amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.

$75,000: the amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Costa Rican rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn't speak Spanish.

$93,000: the amount of petty cash each Congressional representative voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.

$133,900: the amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.

$140,000: the amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

$356,000: the approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

$800,000: the amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so. Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to Government-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."

$1,000,000: the estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.

$12,000,000: the amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's ex-directors.

$23,500,000: The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

$2,000,000,000: ($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. Craig Obey is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.

$3,700,000,000: ($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms ."

$4,190,000,000: ($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of "Community Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio.

$1,646,000,000,000: ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.

It seems like every conservative media outlet in this country feels that the only thing wrong is that there isn't enough spanking at home.

It's become an entire "philosophy" based on a premise that there are no real problems, just people trying to game the system, and that all hardships are a direct result of those people ("minorities" he says in this instance).

Don't dare try to suggest we actually have government act in service to its citizens -- that's blasphemy. All of our tax dollars are meant for no-bid national defense contracts, oil subsidies, and banking firm bailouts.

People with autism clearly can't bring home the bribe lobbyist money those guys can, so they must just be "minorities" who are "faking" it for "benefits."

This is a needless system as mentioned before. Someone up in The US Navy wants a new toy. Someone else needs a military defense contract. Someone else needs to develop his weapons system.

This what I hate about Future Weapons they never really discuss how exactly this new system is better, more efficient or more cost effective then the current solutions offered and fielded.

How exactly is this justified in the current era of fighting asymmetrical warfare in places like Iraq? Resources should be flowing into more efficient bliztkreig type small specialized units, training for Urban combat environments, specialized armor for combat units and so on and so forth.

Yet from my viewpoint the military is just spreading into all fields at once instead of focusing on fighting the wars it will fight tomorrow rather then 50 years from now.

This is exactly why I hate Moore covering any topic anymore, anytime he attaches his name to something it becomes a leftist conspiracy to turn the whole country into a Socialist state. The issue becomes lost in the salvos of left vs right arguments.

No one here can deny the fact that health care as it stands in the US is in serious need of reform.

Corporations exist to make profits, thus it's in their best interest not to pay out medical care to make a high return on costs. Medical care is an important part of social policy, because simply having a healthier workforce is a boon to the economy in the long term. If you outsource all your health care to private firms, their aim isn't the provision of fair, affordable health care for all but the pursuit of the profits.

I don't understand why America believes that all it's ailments and problems can just be solved by outsourcing government tasks out to private contractors, everything from military defense contracts, to education and health care.

This in no way implies nationalized health care the likes of France and Cuba, but enough with burying our heads in the sand.

OK, taking leave of my senses and assuming for a moment that the 9/11 conspiracy is truth, why do you need to implode WTC7 on BBC TV to further your aims of cashing in your stock options in the military-industrial complex and occupying Iraq?

What are the testable hypotheses behind 9/11 Truth?

1) The "terrorists" were actually US government agents working for Dick Cheney
2) The FBI was complicit
3) The CIA was complicit
4) The structural damage did not cause the collapse of the towers; the planes were merely the magician's flash to cover the controlled explosives
5) The invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by controlling the oil pipeline and the attacks gave us the political leverage
6) The invasion of Iraq was solely motivated by controlling oil and providing single-source defense contracting to Bechtel and Halliburton and the attacks gave us the political leverage
7) A state of fearfulness secures a permanent Republican majority

But which points of Gabriel's speech do you disagree with here? "It is stupid" is the Beavis and/or Butthead response. Although Brigitte Gabriel is a battle-scarred veteran of the right-wing radio wingnut circuit, I don't think that she is entirely wrong here.

Radical Islam does indeed seem to be a cancer both in Islamic nations and in growing Islamic communities in Europe. I disagree with the overwrought apocalyptic language used by both Bush neocons like Gabriel and the jihadists. And I understand fully that preventative war is a synonym for sole source, high dollar defense contracting.

But I do believe that Europe will have to come to terms with the radicalization of its Islamic communities. Particularly since George Bush has adopted Christian Crusading as the default mode for his foreign policy. I prefer Hirsi Ali to Brigitte Gabriel, but this little diatribe was alright.