Get rid of loop holes and just flat tax Corporations.

Net Runner I agree that this is a damn shame. Is not a Democrat / Republican thing. Its a corporate using loopholes to its advantage.

Agreed GE is shameful. I ought to know, I work for this morally bankrupt corporate greedy meatball and it is sickening.

They are GE nuclear plants. I guess your parent company GE did not think of this issue way back when these were built.
GE's Mark I systems

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by notarobot.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

So you want to discard this because you posted a video of an idiot that you believe in that was made out to be a complete fool?


Do you work for GE? You sure love drinking their Koolaid.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

Turns out, Reagan literally didn't know what was going on.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^AeroMechanical:
Ronald Reagan.

Reagan gets a bad rap when really he didn't know what was going on. He spent most of his later years simply saying what rich people told him to say...as GE spokesman and then as President. Everyone knew that if Reagan went off script you had to shut him up or he was going to say something crazy.
If you don't buy it think about this. Ronald Reagan was credited with starting a Revolution, for being the man who formed the modern republican party. Yet after he left office how many interviews did he do? How many experienced journalists went to talk to him about the future of his party and what they should be doing? Nobody of any significance because all the journalists knew he didn't know what was going on, that he wasn't in charge at all.
It was the PATRIOTS!!

>> ^AeroMechanical:

Ronald Reagan.


Reagan gets a bad rap when really he didn't know what was going on. He spent most of his later years simply saying what rich people told him to say...as GE spokesman and then as President. Everyone knew that if Reagan went off script you had to shut him up or he was going to say something crazy.

If you don't buy it think about this. Ronald Reagan was credited with starting a Revolution, for being the man who formed the modern republican party. Yet after he left office how many interviews did he do? How many experienced journalists went to talk to him about the future of his party and what they should be doing? Nobody of any significance because all the journalists knew he didn't know what was going on, that he wasn't in charge at all.

It was the PATRIOTS!!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

Thanks for the clarification.

We seem to be circling the same point. But I can tell we won't ever agree.

Except we can agree to drop it!

I am always happiest when I can find agreement. Means we really listen to each other, on however small a point.


In reply to this comment by Yogi:
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
I'm moving to here so we don't bore anybody.

Look, your main point seems to be that if you don't agree that Assange approached this whole wikileak business exactly the way he did, then the person who disagrees with you automatically is a shill of corporations. That is the only thing that I am arguing with.

I am very tired of the ascribing of motivations to people that happens quite a bit on the sift. This is just another example of it. Maddow had a reasoned position for her point of view, that was somewhat complex. One word was pulled out of her reasoned position -- "minor" -- and all holy hell was brought down to refute that one word, while ignoring the whole of her argument, and this somehow became proof that she is Corporate Monster.

I really am not interested in defending her argument. I thought it was reasonable. I have other issues with the way Assange has gone about doing what he purports to want to do. I understand your point of view, I have had this conversation with other people who believe passionately in what Assange is doing and think of him as fighting the good fight. I have heard the arguments, and so far I am not swayed. I have wavered -- and the bullet point list certainly gave me pause -- however I always come back to about where Maddow is. I may yet change my mind as more information becomes available to me.

So what does all this mean? It means I truly am listening, and I just don't agree with you.

That doesn't make me a shill of corporations.

Can we agree on that? That a difference of opinion doesn't make me -- or Maddow -- some corporate monster?

In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, I read it. Doesn't change my opinion that she has a valid point of view.
I disagree with you. I agree with her. That doesn't make us a scourge of humanity. Nor a shill of corporations.
Just two people who have a different opinion than you.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:
I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?
She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.



Really? You think that playing the "It's just a different opinion card" works in this situation rather than refuting the evidence against your argument that has been presented?

Possibly you have an opinion on any of the bullet points at the top of this page?

I guess I didn't make it all that clear. I was pointing out that this reveals to those who think Maddow is somehow special that she's not...she'll attack Wikileaks just like any member of the American media. Now you could defend her opinion that's fair I'm not going to sit here and discuss the strategies of Wikileaks or her opinion of them.

I am going to say though that she would not have her job if she hadn't already been indoctrinated sufficiently and wasn't already a corporate shill. Maybe she's less so than other people but I'm tired of having this argument with some liberals who say that Maddow is smashing the system. She isn't she's a part of it, you don't need to dissect all of her arguments and opinions to know that. She has her own show on MSNBC...she is funded by GE and Microsoft and several other corporations, these are huge bastions of power in the US.

We're not really arguing about the same things though, so we might as well drop it.

>> ^lucky760:

Fixed! discard


Thanks. How did you fix it?

Although the percentile number does show a bit of bias from different companies, the number count of the donation clearly makes News Corp stand out the most

>> ^NetRunner:

News Corp (owner of Fox): $1,074,700 to Republicans, $105,500 to Democrats
(91% to Republicans)
GE (owner of NBC/MSNBC): $410,100 to Republicans, $688,900 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)
Viacom (owner of CBS/Comedy Central): $64,000 to Republicans, $108,700 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)
Disney (owner of ABC): $95,000 to Republicans, $110,500 to Democrats
(46% to Republicans)
Time Warner (owner of CNN): $41,500 to Republicans, $70,500 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

>> ^Mashiki:

What are you talking about? The parent companies of NBC, CBS and ABC all do the same thing. The only difference is they're happily lying to your face about it.


Bzzt. Completely wrong. First, this is all a matter of public record, both on the part of Fox, and the parent companies of the other three major networks.

Second, there's a big difference on the partisan split (and total amount) of money being spent. According to CNN, we're looking at numbers like this:

News Corp (owner of Fox): $1,074,700 to Republicans, $105,500 to Democrats
(91% to Republicans)

GE (owner of NBC/MSNBC): $410,100 to Republicans, $688,900 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Viacom (owner of CBS/Comedy Central): $64,000 to Republicans, $108,700 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Disney (owner of ABC): $95,000 to Republicans, $110,500 to Democrats
(46% to Republicans)

Time Warner (owner of CNN): $41,500 to Republicans, $70,500 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

But wait, you're saying, doesn't this go to show there's a liberal bias in all other forms of media? No, not really. It's pretty normal for companies to tilt their spending to the party in power, especially when they hold the White House, and large majorities in both chambers of Congress.

You can identify partisan organizations by the way they always lean toward one party, regardless of their level of control over congress, or merely by the naked one-sided nature of the tilt (like 91%!). In the case of News Corp, you have both.

Oh, and a final point about the quantity of contributions. I'd note that while GE's total donation amount is comparable to News Corp's, GE isn't just a media organization, it's also a major manufacturer, and a defense contractor. If you compare them to just the pure media companies, you see that News Corp donated nearly ten times as much just to the Republican party as the next largest media company's total spending on campaign contributions.

Olberman / MSNBC and all it Leftest GE ilk controlled media outlets are so misleading. Go drink the Kool aid. Thank God there are clear thinking accurate fair and balanced news and commentary on FOX.

This is the kind of misleading "news" that fools the un intelligent and let them think they are correct.

The placing of the mosque anywhere near this area is an insult to America.


Hey nerunner do you even know what America is?

>> ^dag:

Perhaps we could have an option not to use the fancy quote formatting. That would solve most problems.>> ^ForgedReality:
Dag, problem with the quoting system. Is there a way to make it not use HTML tags, and be more intelligent? This is aside from the quote appearing beneath the quoter's message (something that I still dislike greatly), but I believe it happened when that transition occurred.
The problem is, it's a lot more confusing to look at in the message you're editing, so if you want to remove old quotes, like when the quote string starts to get long, you have to be very careful what you remove, or you'll end up screwing up the whole rest of the page, as seen here:
http://videosift.com/video/Guy-plays-in-the-traffic-and-ge
ts-hit-by-a-van?loadcomm=1
It's not my quote that did it, it's residue's, the person above mine. His quote was all screwed up when I went to quote him, and I had to edit mine to be cleaner, but as you can see, the html tags in his message are screwing up the rest of the page. The quote/reply stuff appears after his message, but before the quoted text, when it SHOULD be at the bottom of the message box. Then when I quoted him, the page still thinks that the information belongs within the same element on the page, so now my message is all screwed up. I suspect that the next person to post on this page will continue that trend.
I tried putting closing divs in the top of my message as well as other things, to no effect.



I use the block quote feature that the Sift has always allowed if the quoted text is discombobulated. But given that most users don't eat, sleep, and breath code that could be asking too much of the average user.

<blockquote>
Quoted Text using the tags above and below this line of text.
</blockquote>
Adding @dag to mimic contacting someone about quoting them with the blockquote HTML element.

It's not a solution, it's just a work around. One that has always worked for me.