@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.

>> ^aurens:

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; >> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this.

I didn't make a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation, I only made a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation.

>> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.
...
I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none.

>> ^aurens:

NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.

Definition of slander: "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report"

I'm not accusing you of slander, I just think you're presenting a malicious, false, defamatory report.


Definition of disparage: "to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of"

I'm not disparaging you, I'm just accusing you of slander, opportunism, and generally being unhelpful.

I'm not personally attacking you, I just was calling you out by name and saying your moral character leaves a lot to be desired.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sure [...]


"So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted."

Glad you cleared that up (and there's your first—and very telling—misinterpretation).

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; I think it remains to be seen whether or not it has merit. I was, however, making a judgment of the *presentation* of his accusation. When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.


I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found.

Yes, and I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none. One of the reasons, I assume, is that they're looking to confirm some of these accusations, the confirmation of sources being a foundation of trusted journalism.


IMPORTANT: NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.


It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Who said Ron Paul is my "hero"? I certainly haven't. This from one of my replies to dystopianfuturetoday:

"Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video."

Hardly sounds like hero-worship to me.


Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

I read some of them. In short, I'm skeptical when I see attribution tags like "Here Are Some Emails From Kelso Regarding Racists Working For Ron Paul’s Campaign" and "Here Is An Email From Someone In Ron Paul’s Campaign To Kelso." Who are these supposed campaign workers? How are they connected to Ron Paul? Are they low-level campaigners who work independently of him? Are they his trusted advisors? All of these things matter in the interpretation of this situation. As of now, I've seen no articles that provide enough context to the e-mails, or enough detail about the senders and recipients of the e-mails, to make a judgment one way or the other.

>> ^aurens:

For clarification's sake, and for future reference, which part of my posts are you considering a "personal attack"?

Sure.

>> ^aurens:
Was it this: "Great video, @NetRunner"? (Surely that's not an inappropriate level of sarcasm.)

Well, the rest of that comment was "That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail."

So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe you didn't just want to make this about me.

>> ^aurens:
Or my explanation of why I take issue with your posting of an uninformative video (which many other people took issue with) under the title you chose to give it?

There are tons of "uninformative" videos on the Sift. It's rare that you ever capture every facet of any subject in a single video clip. I don't really think the appropriate way to react to that is to disparage the poster. How about just going on your merry way to another video, or just asking for more info...or better still providing more info?

I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found. Fully informative now. But rather than shift into a discussion of the validity of the accusation on the merits, you just kept trying to hammer home how dishonest and slanderous you think I am for posting this video in the first place.

>> ^aurens:
Or something from another of my posts? Or maybe my use of a Ron Paul quote to call you, humorously, "overly sensitive"?

Yeah, I found that rather ironic. Paul used that quip on Santorum because he'd mistakenly thought a comment Paul had made was directed at him. You called me out by name, and accused me of some sort of moral failing for posting this video, then called me "oversensitive" for merely describing that as a personal attack.

>> ^aurens:
Sorry, but I don't see anything there that could be construed as a "personal attack."

I know, which is part of the issue.

Like I said, I get it. It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

Don't mistake my downvote for a dismissal of these charges; I'll be keeping an eye on this story. (Not that it matters much. RP ain't getting the nomination.)

The video is just bad. Sam Seder will say anything to get some attention so he's one of the last people who I'd take at his word. If it weren't for the link you provided, @NetRunner, I wouldn't even have given this a second thought.

Yikes. As Ron Paul said to Rick Santorum a few weeks ago: I think you're a little "overly sensitive!"

I haven't "lashed out" at anyone, and I certainly haven't demanded information of anyone. (Where are those accusations coming from?) I called you out for posting an uninformative video (uninformative in the sense that, in an attempt to share a story about Anonymous' "exposure" of Ron Paul, you put up a one-minute clip of Sam Seder making generalized statements without any specific evidence—and note that other people in this comments section share my opinion on this), and I took issue with @dystopianfuturetoday's overly simplified discussion of states' rights.

The issue of states' rights is obviously something of a complicated one (this part of my response if for @Boise_Lib, too). I'm aware of the historical weight of the term, but I'm also aware that there's no inherent link between states' rights and racism. There are lots of people on the Sift who care about states' rights and who appreciate our federal system of government, one that allots certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states, and yet I've never seen ONE comment on the Sift that showed any sort of overt racism. (I haven't been around as long as many of you, so it's possible that there have been some; it's just that I've never personally seen one.) That should be a good example, in and of itself, of the fact that states' rights, for many people, do NOT go hand in hand with white supremacy. For dystopianfuturetoday to make that suggestion in the context of a Sift discussion on the issue *is* insulting to many of us.

And for the record, @dystopianfuturetoday, Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video.

I suppose that frustration at being continually disappointed by these racist "exposures" is all wrapped up in my original reaction to the video (and its title). In any event, though, I'm interested to see how this new issue plays out. As I said in my second post, I want to know the truth about his relationship to these white supremacists; if it's damning, then let's see some good journalism exposing it as such.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)
Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.
Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.
Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.
Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

>> ^aurens:

(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)

Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.

Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.

Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.

Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

That totally does suck. As a Ron Paul supporter, I can't be honest with myself and still do the knee-jerk-reactionary denial to some damning material against him if it turned out to be true. I would probably not support him anymore (not that I have an alternative).

This video really doesn't do much to prove anything other than that Sam Seder is kind of an idiot though.

The material on the link on the other hand, if taken as the same level of validity as most other media, does seem to suggest the guy has used the support of these white pride groups to support his campaigns in the past. That totally sucks, and makes me lose respect for Paul a great deal.

So now all the candidates suck again! Yay!

Also - please try to be bigger than the idiots who just label various groups of people with their cute little, derogatory nick-names. "The Paulies". What a joke. Any time you label someone as a group just shows how much of a failure in communication you are. People support who they support for good reason, and if you actually ask them why, and actually listen to their reasons, you might learn something about those who hold different beliefs than you. Fucking fools.

I'm calling you out because you posted an uninformative video with a spurious and sensationalistic title. (See @Grimm's comment above.) If Ron Paul is inappropriately connected to white supremacists, then by all means: expose him! This video certainly doesn't do the trick.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.
For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-
mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

>> ^aurens:

Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.


I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.

For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

>> ^longde:

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist.

I find it rather fascinating how shy people have gotten about using the word racist.

What does one have to say or do these days to "be a racist?"

Does one have to be a full-on white supremacist?

IMO, a "callous, almost criminal disregard for latino constituents" is what racism is usually about. You don't have to go that last mile and actively hate minorities to be a racist; treating minorities like they're not real human beings is good enough to qualify you for the label.

It only makes it worse if someone's response to being told that what they said was insensitive is to launch into a tirade about how oppressed they are by the PC police. It makes me think they're mostly pissed off that they bit back the racial slurs they wanted to use in the first place, and still got crap anyways.

Add in the fuller context (he's being interviewed about the police being investigated for using racial profiling!) and it's hard for me not to call him much worse than "racist."

I'd be horrified if I ever said something like what this guy did, and would get very contrite very quickly in response to the "don't you think that's insensitive?" question, especially in a situation like that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sam Seder' to 'Sam Seder, gene marks, poor black kid, forbes' - edited by xxovercastxx

If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.


In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.