This tops the Palin interview in my opinion. Three minutes of delicious waffling! Pass the syrup!

And Katie Couric did not let up with the question. After every waffle, she calmly posited the question again and again. Very effective demeanor, a good contrast to a blustery Chris Matthews interrogation. I think she made Beck look more the fool.

And, what's so hard about the question? It's a very simple, innocuous query. I think Beck was afraid he would not be able to control himself, and say something he usually posts on Stormfront.

....Either that or inadvertently confess to that rape and murder.

This is what happens when you don't respect the pepper. You feel the wrath of the capsaicin gods.

Also, "enhanced interrogation technique."

>> ^demon_ix:
Isn't reporting his interrogation statements and his reasoning for the attacks promoting his agenda? Isn't this exactly what he wanted to accomplish? I don't condone or approve of any press manipulation for or against any interest group, but this seems to me like the press not rewarding terrorism with free advertising.

I agree that divulging this information would further their agenda, but knowing the motive takes away the quality of terrorism out of it. He mentions atrocities committed against Palestinians and exploitation of Arabs and muslims.

If these are really happening, and being caused by the US government, wouldn't retaliation against such violence be morally justified? Wouldn't you want to know?

This video actually answered a question I've always had: Why the Twin towers, why not just military/government buildings? To "wake American people up", of course, duh! Too bad it didn't work, the majority of Americans are either too dumb and complacent with their government or because government has done such a good job of ensuring people conform/not care about what they do (conservatives want govt to keep doing the same shit, social liberals want to make it worse with more govt).

Congressman Ron Paul was the first man with guts to risk his political career and correctly state the 9/11 terrorists' intentions on a live nationwide TV broadcast. Many people who heard Ron Paul that day have woken up already.

Let's assume the following:
- That really was the reason behind 9-11, and Sheik Mohammed didn't just say anything to get his interrogators to stop waterboarding him.
- No one in the US government had any part in the attacks, directly or indirectly (meaning, no one knew the attacks were going to happen and didn't stop them, no one diverted air defenses away from the NYC area for a drill, no one planted explosives in the WTC to make sure they collapse, etc).

With that said, even if he was just a guy who woke up one morning, chatted with Osama about how bad it is that the US and Israel are committing atrocities in the Palestinian territories, and decided to take down the WTC as a result, Isn't reporting his interrogation statements and his reasoning for the attacks promoting his agenda?

Isn't this exactly what he wanted to accomplish?

I don't condone or approve of any press manipulation for or against any interest group, but this seems to me like the press not rewarding terrorism with free advertising.

Liberal Lies in National Health Care: Second in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."

Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as "the Carter years."

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.

You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."

That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.

Next you know this administration will use the ManBearPig for interrogations!

"It really is torture"

I wonder if bothersome phone calls was another "enhanced interrogation technique" that they used at Guantanamo.

So this brings up an interesting point. Is Videosift useful to advertising agencies as a medium for viral marketing?

Hypothetical question of course, because we all know that it is. I don't object to viral advertising when it's allowed to spread... organically? This doesn't seem very organic though. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but when a new user comes on board, and their very first sift is a vid from a viral advertising campaign...

This just feels very heavy-handed. Brutish even. Why do I think this is active viral marketing, and not organic?

Look at the video description above.

"MI6 are supposed to be the UK’s premier secret service, responsible for national security whilst employing the likes of Spooks and James Bond. Unfortunately, they were powerless when another group of agents infiltrated the River Thames and gave them an interrogation of their own.

Known only as ‘Agents of Change’, this crew of graffiti artists went on their own secret mission with a message for MI6, scrawled on the building opposite with lasers hi-tech enough to make Q jealous!"

That's pretty great copy. It's not something your typical sifter would bother to craft. Interestingly, it's also found (verbatim) here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12393612318

The description on YT is simply: "Graffiti by Agents of Change, secrets by MI6, all natural Cola by Red Bull."

Viral marketers: please be more subtle, else you just come off as trying too hard.

>> ^handmethekeysyou:
What percentage of law school graduates go into law enforcement?


I would doubt any. Most (municipal)judges don't have a law degree either.

I'm curious -- if he had been interrogated long enough or even "taken to the station" as threatened, and that made him miss his flight, any chance he could have sued for any or all of either the price of the ticket, a justifiable figure of productivity lost by the detainment, and potential legal fees?

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but I'd write a donation check to the ACLU if they represented suing the TSA in some incident like this...

Oh, I will make kitty cry. http://www.videosift.com/video/Blankfist-Gets-Interrogated-by-the-TSA#comment-839588

Great vid collection you got going on, btw. I'm loving it. The TSA interrogation I've heard before (obviously! You thin that slips past me!), but it's great to hear again because I forgot about it. BTW, the downvoted comments are all a joke, obviously.

>> ^TheSofaKing:
There are enough assholes and scumbags running around... regular people being hassled like this is retarded.


Is this your bag, sir? Come with me, please .

reliability...
fingerprints? nope.
bite marks? nope.
bullet analysis? nope.
eyewitness testimony? nope.
lineups? nope.
police interview? nope.
interrogation? nope.

DNA? yep, with caveats.

i'm taking a paper titled "psyc, crime and law", (lectured partially by people in the innocence project, who are heroes) and it's thoroughly depressing learning about all the horrific wrongdoings. i now have no faith in the criminal justice system (particularly the united states', glad i don't live there).

>> ^thepinky:
Ah, people can still handle American patriotism. The hatred isn't as intense or as widespread as some people seem to think. Of course it's there, but not to the point where G.I. Joe would be largely unwelcome.

It's not about the hatred for America, it's about the issue that the American GI Joe movie would have portrayed. With the images of Abu Ghraib, "enhanced interrogation" and bombed children's hospitals still in our heads, a GI Joe movie featuring America vs. the terrorists might not be preceived as a clear "good" vs. "evil" story as these hollywood movies often make it out to be, at least not overseas.

It seems, for the previous adminstration, that the concept "The Ends Justify The Means" is STILL, a Republican philosophy. This concept was always used in the Fox show '24', in which the main character routinely tortures people, and never has to face any penalities for his actions. It seems, sadly, that conservatives and/or Republicans, take this same view, that if they get what they want, at the cost of a US city being reduced to ash, its fine by them.

This IS insanity. This individual should be examined under a microscope, for giving possible terrorists not only a invitation to commite untold horror upon my fellow Americans, but fame/glory by the Republican party.

Anyone who advocates the harming of citizens in my country, to get political points for their cult-ish organization, should be sent to gitmo. Wouldnt it be amusing if conservatives got sent to gitmo, and had 'enhanced interrogation methods' used on them. Would be rather ironic, eh?

As a note to some of the posters above. The 1st Amendment, regarding 'freedom of speech' protects all persons within the country to a limit. Running in to a crowded theater and showing 'FIRE!" is NOT, covered under the 1st Amendment. Some of the stuff that comes out of Fox News, Mr. Beck, Mr. Limbaugh, and the like, is really borderline. Now, if ANYTHING, major happens, it will not be to difficult to find WHO motivated terrorists (domestic or foreign) to attack the country.