Well, since it's a Project Veritas thing, I'll assume it's more total faked bullshit.
If ever there was a media organization based in fake news, it's them. They're the bullshit artists that cried wolf, I won't be suckered again by them....If only I could put a source of videos on ignore, Veritas would never darken my screen again.

All I've seen about this is someone saying their channel thinks ratings are important...like every other media organization. That doesn't make the story fake, it explains why they stick with it and ignore more important, but less sensational news.

Coming from the people that believe Alex Jones, Faux, and Veritas itself, this is the pot calling the dirty glass punchbowl "black". Need proof? Benghazzi....birth certificate....pizzagate.
Member those? I member.

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.

Good point.

I don't dispute racism exists, and its effects are amplified by power and reach. There is a difference between quality and quantity when it comes to racism. Western racism seems of a low quality, but it generates a high quantity due to pragmatic reasons. Strangely, perhaps, I find this less reprehensible than high quality of racism that is mitigated by distance or political clout. That's definitely a bias I have.

EDIT:
I think the above video and my response to it demonstrate some of the problems in that stance. Akala confidently lists a collection of events that he clearly considers egregious. A subset of those I've addressed in my criticism, to varying extents. If detecting racism in our culture is disagreeing about how effective a foreign navy should be in it's coast guard duties on a foreign shore, perhaps we're disappearing down the rabbit hole. If detecting racism in our culture means finding a sub 1% discrepancy in prison death rates in a small sample size, then it could be we're missing the forest for the trees.
It isn't to say that there aren't still problems in western culture, but we are teaching ourselves to cry wolf constantly, and we know where that leads.

Bernie or bust.


25 things I trust more than Hillary Clinton:
• Mexican tap water
• A wolverine with a ‘pet me’ sign
• A mixed drink served by Bill Cosby
• A straight shave from Jodi Arias
• An elevator ride with Ray Rice
• Browns going to the Super Bowl
• Brian Williams memory
• Pete Carroll coaching decisions
• Loch Ness monster sightings
• Pinocchio
• The Boy that cried Wolf
• A snapping turtle in a mud bath
• A Nigerian inheritance email
• A pilot alone in the cockpit
• A factory packed parachute
• A test fart in bed with the flu
• Tying Anthony Weiner’s shoes
• Harry Reid’s exercise equipment
• A kiss from Judas
• An Afghan wearing a backpack
• A Dana White apology
• Keeping my healthcare plan
• A North Korean trial
• A BIC pen that won’t leak
• A tuna fish sandwich left on a city bus

ok, so you have a peaceful revolt...




...then what?

saying you're pissed is easy. Saying there is a problem is easy.

But where is your solution to address these ills. How do you plan to stop it from happening again?

I find it interesting that you seem to imply that violence is a tool of a state. That's rather disingenuous, don't you think? As if the state is more predisposed to use violence than other groups? the state, like every organization, is made up of people. so if the state is violent, it's because people are violent and we really haven't solved that problem yet, have we. Violence is still part of the human condition and not an inherent part of the state...or playing video games, etc.

I would argue that many of the conflicts we are currently in are because of monied interests and their influence on gov't. remove that influence as I suggested and I'd wager that we've have a less violent gov't.

and I'm sorry, I must have missed something, but are you implying that Obama personally shut down Occupy Wall Street? gonna need you to provide a citation for that. Speaking for my city. The local occupy group was evicted from it's spot by our governor, a republican, but not that it matters because the whole Occupy movement was poorly thought out to begin with. very few people want to camp out 24/7 on with college hipsters and homeless people. It was just a badly implemented idea....period. It was one of the few times I genuinely agreed with our governor. While I might have agreed with Occupy's intentions, they were absolutely ineffective at conveying any meaningful message and an absolute nuisance to the area.

Bottom line, is that as that Japanese general alluded to, America is a sleeping giant. For all the rhetoric and for all these ills you have mentioned, the average American citizen is still largely insulated from it. American life has not fundamentally changed during the administration of Bush and/or Obama despite what the pundits on either side try to cry wolf about. Because we have an all-volunteer military, even the average american citizen is largely insulated from our wars as well.

When those things change, then maybe you'll see something happen.

And yes, I know my view is optimistic. But optimism works. Wasn't that long ago that many things we take for granted today was viewed as optimistic but niave or unrealistic.

Sure, keep crying wolf but one day you're going to be cornered by a herd of raccoons in your kitchen and Drake won't save you.

More stupid liberals crying wolf.

Frack on.

Very effective. The only problem, as @VoodooV mentioned, the symptoms are very similar to other non-life-threatening conditions. It's only natural to not want to run into the embarrassing scenario of crying wolf. Also, those in the medical profession often tend to make you feel stupid for "overreacting". Also, from what I understand about women's heart attacks is that they're not as immediately debilitating as in men's heart attacks. This might seem like a good thing, but the longer you go without treatment, the more irreparable damage is being done to the heart.

So to be on the safe side they should cry wolf every time they get any sort of blip?
Does this mean if someone gets hit by lightning when it was only supposed to be a light rain, the Meteorologists better get a lawyer?

The only question I have would be, "Were they incompetent?" Because, if not, then you can't blame them - they can only read the data and make educated guesses based on the data. I don't think anyone has ever successfully predicted the size of an earthquake before it has happened.

This sounds more like a witch-hunt and scapegoat scenario.

The video numbered 13/14 is clearly faked. There is a "convenient" pan to the ground, a very strange change of the stuff on the ground at 1:53 just as the camera pans back up, and suddenly the darkness of the shadows has changed. The one posted here, 14/14 is better, but it's still faked. There is a strange blur and movement when the guy runs toward the camera at 21 seconds, then at 22 you can see his shadow goes straight off to the right, while the other guys who run back have shadows that are angled away and to the right.

I really hate shit like this, because it's a "boy who cried wolf" sort of thing. When someone else actually builds new technology, potential investors are going to remember all of the hoax crap that has been pulled before.

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

>>> For the long speech you'll have to wait. As for the apology,

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

--Ron Paul, Business Wire

A poster on the site "The Daily Paul" summed it up nicely:

What if you rent your home out, and the people use the house. to molest children. Should you be required to accept responsibility? Your name is still on the mortgage, so are you accountable for every action of the renters?

All you could tell people is that you had no knowledge, but admit you should have kept a better watch on your property, and accept 'moral responsibility' (versus actual responsibility, since you did not molest anyone and don't advocate that action).

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

>>> Due to the above statement I disagree that Dr. Paul is denying any fault. Based on what I've read, he has taken receipt of this newsletter flap. That he hasn't worded an apology precisely that is satisfactory to you is out of his (or my) control. I could be 100% wrong, but I do not believe you harbor a change of heart that will be triggered by a Paul apology. You are no under no obligation to support or believe him. Can we agree you're not a libertarian frustrated only by the doubt created by the Ron Paul newsletters?

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.

>>> Please allow me to clarify my original statement: the problem with LIBERALS labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless.

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.

My point about "all of us" being racist is, if we're all covered in poop, no one can accuse anyone else of stinking.

Easy, (Paul) says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

>>> I have no easy answer for you, not because Dr. Paul is wrong but because the details of how a libertarian society deals with racism are complex (yet probably less complex than the maze of government coercion now).

A private citizen has a right to refuse to associate with others s/he dislikes, but does the government have the power to create an underclass of citizens? The answer is NO.

Some good comments here on this topic. Not gospel, just snacks for thought.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).
The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:
RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!
No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.
'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'
What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.
You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?
We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n gg rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.
Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

@NetRunner

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.

Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:

RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!

No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'

What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.

Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias.

>>> The youtube goofus who originally posted this is a crackpot with the usual chemtrails/truther crap on his/er youtube page. I fully support his/er right to free speech, but it's obvious s/he has an axe to grind with police and other authority figures. If anyone is at fault for the original dumb title it's him (or her) and now has a slightly improved title on the sift.

Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it.

>>> The fact remains: she was acting the fool. As I wrote once before (and now have to again, apparently) the use of force was excessive. The officer in question is no longer an officer and is being brought up on charges. What more do you want?

>>> What's the real beef here? Are you simply upset that I don't share your EXACT level of outrage?









>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^quantumushroom:
How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."




The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

Yer forgetting a few things oh, programmed and wearing blinders-

The system is geared towards profiling the weak and uneducated
The system produces those who would abuse it (i.e. breeds thugs which later become cops
America has a history of one of the worst examples of human bondage-Most conquering armies treated their slaves better after an initial onslaught

Racism however, probably played a small part in this fiasco-Some thug got impatient, forgot his job, showed his ass, and fucking slammed a female against the wall-Case closed, the guy was a cop, and is still a complete douche.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."