Yes, that's it. If a member of the CFR who has studied the issue for 30 years (i.e. made a career out of it) disagrees with an amateurish journalist, it's the former who's unqualified.

Right. And the moon is made of swiss cheese.

If you had actually watched the video, you would have seen that "unqualified" in the summary referred to Dobbs' statement that the NAU was unelected and unsupported by the people.

Hey??? badtofu?....my moon is made of swiss parts and movements....and dude, this is no, "mind blowing documentary"...it's a news segment....get a room!!!

like in a library, the collectives should codify, organize....not a private masturbation area for all comers....anyhow, yeah....close the borders or don't

oh...and CNN??? A FUCKING TOOL!, Dumbasses....the conspiracy is real, and in your mind, that it is not, and the world changes for the good, the bad, and the ugly....check a mirror,

..and for crissakes, read a goddamn book!

lol. Had there not been a CNN logo I would have thought I was watchin Fox News.

jwray: I did watch the video, That's how I know the guy has worked on the issue for 30 years. Dobbs implied the THE GUY was unqualified to speak authoritatively on the topic because he was unelected (and because his research was unsupported by the opinions of most Americans). That's absurd enough that it shouldn't need any rebuttal. He's a citizen and an expert on the issue--much more so than Dobbs--and that's all the qualification he needs.

Also, it wouldn't even make much sense to say that the "NAU was unelected," sinced the NAU is an idea, and we don't elect ideas. We elect people. So, if that's what Dobbs said, then fine. He's a retard either way. This issue tends to draw them out. Finally, I'd point out that you seem to be on the same side of this as Choggie. Doesn't that...um...scare the fuck out of you?

Choggie: I didn't give it the mind-blowing documentary tag. So calm down. Also.....Huh?

ajkido: I know. Sad.

Two things that would improve America exponentially:

1) A useful publicly-owned news channel, like BBC or CBC
2) More political parties besides the Democrats/Republicans

cardboardhut: I agree wholeheartedly on #2. As for #1, we have PBS/NPR. They are good, and I get alot of my news from them. But they don't get to be the only game in town like the BBC (I'm assuming). In other words, they have to compete with other, privately owned stations. This is as it should be. It leads to a greater diversity of voices, and allows each station to develop excellent niche programs (e.g. This American Life, 60 Minutes, etc).

We have C-Span and C-Span2.

*conspiracy

Adding video to channels (Conspiracy) - requested by EndAll.