Thanks for the quality bump.
Since we both like to post TYT vids I sometimes worry that I might be stepping on your toes.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
*quality

>> ^bobknight33:

Both left and right smear facts when its convenient and both side are smearing this story for all its worth.
I don't think all the facts are in. I don't know who is right or wrong. All I know is that sadly there is a grieving family who lost their son.
Hopefully ideology won't get in the way of facts.


Yeah, it's certainly a fact that an unarmed teenage boy of his size needed to be shot in the chest with a gun in order to be dealt with.

So many in fact that there's no reason to detain the non-black person at all. Yeah.

Between this and Neocons demanding to hear what they like, rather than what's true, I despair for American politics and by extension, Western politics and beyond.

How do you debate with people who just plain don't care about reality? How can a country elect any kind of worthwhile politicians when a section of the voters, too large to be ignored, seem to have no idea about how things are now and have no idea about what either party stands for?

They want another Reagan, yet what they want is nothing like what Reagan did. They want tax cuts, but no cuts on defence, medical aid or the other big federal expenses. They demand the government stay out of health care, yet demand that Medicare and Medicaid aren't cut. They want the government to bring in less money, spent about as much (cutting insignificantly small bits here and there) - yet somehow stop operating on a deficit.

There are so many contradictory demands and demands made on fantasy. And they won't compromise, no, because compromise is for people who are wrong.

I'm starting to think that the answer is Glenn Beck and his ilk. The solution may be for people like Glenn Beck who, intentionally or otherwise, radicalise and mislead these nutters so much that they become more isolated and increasingly irrelevant. Then this lunatic fringe might see their numbers dwindle from just being so ridiculous. When they won't listen to anyone who speaks about reality, what else is there?

You know a situation is FUBAR when Glenn Beck is the answer!

I imagine that's why this was the last episode of Freedom Watch. It's no coincidence I'm sure. They did the same thing to Glenn Beck.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I find it hilarious that this is on fox. The same network that supported the military industrial complex. The same network that championed the violation of privacy (hell it's owned by Murdoch, need I say more?).
If the republicans were still in charge there's no way in hell this would have aired.

when you hold up Glenn Beck as any kind of ideal, your argument is pretty much fucked to begin with....

Probably a Glenn Beck viewer

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Yeah, but you're talking about the second video having a lack of presentation. If that counts then any video here that is preceded and/or followed by commentary/setup/introduction can be resubmitted with those few seconds chopped off the beginning and or end. I might agree if the original video had commentary during the video or something else that changed the context of the video. But I don't see that in this case. In fact in this case the "presentation" as you call it puts the event into context and also offers Romney's rebuttal to the incident. You're Glenn Beck analogy implies that Olbermann in this video goes on a biased rant about Romney. While Olbermann can go on a rant I don't see that here. >> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Grimm:
Explain. The dupe only has 30 seconds of content that is not in the original. Those 30 seconds are of another reporter asking an unrelated question....the reason it was most likely cut from the original.
"Minor changes in content...will still be considered dupes".
What am I missing here?>> ^marinara:
to clarify, a few minutes of additional content, can't be construed as a few insignifigant seconds. therefore, not a dupe


Say there is a video in which the exact same parts of the clip were used with the exact same length of commentary--but from Glenn Beck's show.
Do you see that this would make a significant difference?
Presentation matters.

>> ^Grimm:

Explain. The dupe only has 30 seconds of content that is not in the original. Those 30 seconds are of another reporter asking an unrelated question....the reason it was most likely cut from the original.
"Minor changes in content...will still be considered dupes".
What am I missing here?>> ^marinara:
to clarify, a few minutes of additional content, can't be construed as a few insignifigant seconds. therefore, not a dupe



Say there is a video in which the exact same parts of the clip were used with the exact same length of commentary--but from Glenn Beck's show.

Do you see that this would make a significant difference?

Presentation matters.

I forgot all about glenn beck

>> ^spoco2:

It scares me how many people listen to this dickhead, it really does


Meh I'm pretty even keeled and I listen to some psychotic fucking people all the time. Thing is people like getting worked up but when you talk sense to them they come around. If they didn't the US would pretty much be on fire by now.

Remember when George W. Bush used to say the names "Osama bin Laden" and "Saddam Hussein" in close proximity to one another in order to transfer the fear many had of Osama to Saddam? That's a type of psychological manipulation called 'fear conditioning'. The point is to teach you to be afraid of something by associating it with something else that you are already afraid of. I sense the cold war has shaped your politics to a large degree - which is common among conservatives and conservative libertarians - so the word Marxism is likely something that causes you great fear. Through conditioning, your fear of Marxism has been projected onto the Democratic party by FOX news, Glenn Beck and the entire corporate media echo chamber. In reality, the Democratic party is in no way Marxist. It's actually quite conservative, economically speaking.

In order to illustrate my point, I'd like you to explain to me what you believe Marxism to be, and then to detail how, in your own words, you see the Democratic party as Marxist. If indeed this is a case of fear conditioning, you won't be able to do it.

Good luck.

Glenn Beck endorsing Rick Santorum is kind of like Lecter endorsing vegetarianism...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

"Stop it B!" is the name of the series. It doesn't stand for Barack. However, given that misunderstanding, I could see how you'd think he's pinning it all on Obama. I wonder if Glenn Beck made the same error.
If you watch it again now, I think you'll see it's a rant against irresponsible government in general, with only a quick joke about black people not paying their bills directed at Obama toward the end.


Indeed, I bet he did. I bet a ton of people made the same mistake, given that the title of it is "Stop it B! Obama, pay your fucking bills!"

Even if I set that aspect aside, he's still mostly saying things that buy into a lot of Republican propaganda about the debt. For one, he makes it out to be some sort of urgent problem, which it's not. He acts as though hitting the debt ceiling is something new, and not something that happened almost every year under Bush. He acts as though the government hasn't been paying its bills, when in fact it's never failed to before, and only the hostage-taking from Republicans over the debt ceiling made anyone think that we might not. That also invalidates all the kvetching about credit scores, since we've never even been late on payments. Oh, and lots of individuals have worse debt ratios than the federal government, and businesses almost always operate on way more leverage than our government does.

But yeah, at least now I see he wasn't addressing it all directly at Obama like it was all his fault personally. So he's not batshit insane, but he's still pretty deep in a well of misconceptions.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^NetRunner:
Wait, he did a rant where he literally lays blame for the entire national debt on Obama, and Obama alone, and now he's annoyed that it got labeled as an epic anti-Obama rant?
What a fucking tool.

I haven't seen that one. Got a link?

Uhh, that's the one you linked to in your description, and the one they're talking about in the interview.
Or is "B" supposed to be someone else?


Yeah, I knew what video you were talking about. I was just being a smartass.

"Stop it B!" is the name of the series. It doesn't stand for Barack. However, given that misunderstanding, I could see how you'd think he's pinning it all on Obama. I wonder if Glenn Beck made the same error.

If you watch it again now, I think you'll see it's a rant against irresponsible government in general, with only a quick joke about black people not paying their bills directed at Obama toward the end.