all conspiracy theorists know that LHO had an identical twin, who was working in the government, and posed for said photo. Yes it's a real photo, of a real man, posing to be his twin brother. Of course the footage of the moon landing was real film, it was simply filming a fake moon in a studio. come on people!

(for those who lack sarcasm detector, the above statement is sarcasm)

>> ^quantumushroom:
Criticism from a state-run media lackey, whose masters think the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch and use a gross distortion of the phrase "promote the general welfare" as an excuse and blank check to spend on whatever they like, e.g. soviet-style health care.


yeah very interesting and all but was that in the constitution or not?

ps. go back to the moon landing sound stage and start planning how best to help the jews do another 9/11, you insane conspiracy nut. "state-run" my ass.

Here are the assertions Beck ascribed to "liberals":

1. If you're against health care you hate the poor.
   
2. If you oppose their "climate change bill", you hate the planet, or are flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If you oppose illegal immigration you're anti-hispanic.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's just because Obama is black.
   
5. If you oppose Obama's budget deficits, you must have been okay with Bush's (and are a hypocrite).
   
6. If you "support the troops", you're a warmonger.
   
7. If you attend a tea party, you're crazy.
   
8. If you "support traditional marriage", you're a homophobe.
   
9. If you oppose abortion, you're against women.
   
10. If you oppose the fairness doctrine, you hate diversity.
    
11. If you oppose "strong-arm" unions, you're against the workers.
    

He then characterizes the sum total of all those arguments to be a form of discriminatory hate speech.

As someone who spends a lot of time wallowing in liberal swill, let me correct Beck's assertions:

1. If you're against universal health care, you don't care if the poor live or die.
   
2. If you refuse to believe that human activity has been changing the climate in ways that will cause humankind harm, you are a flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If your only solution to illegal immigration is to engage in massive police action against those who've immigrated illegally, you're anti-hispanic, anti-muslim, and generally a bigoted xenophobic moron who doesn't believe in individual human rights.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's because you are either a) a moron who thinks government spending can't help a sagging economy, or b) a partisan who's more interested in scoring political points than helping the country.
   
5. If you're going to go out into the streets and protest deficits in 2009, you should have been doing it ever since Bush's tax cuts turned a budget surplus into a deficit. Also, there should have been a large contingent of the so-called conservative base against continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the cost. But there wasn't, so there are lots of people who only believe in keeping spending in check when it's a Democratic administration doing the spending, and that destroys your credibility on the subject. (Shorter alternative: The left protests spending tax money to kill people, while the right protests spending tax money to save people.)
   
6. If you think the only way to "support the troops" is to keep them in harm's way indefinitely without clear goals, then you're a warmonger, and definitely not supporting the troops!
   
7. Most of the people attending the tea parties were crazy, or crazy-tolerant. A lot of people were protesting against conspiracy theories (e.g. death panels). A lot of people were threatening violence. A lot of people were using racial imagery or language. No one seemed to mind their presence at the rally, or asked them to leave. If there were reasonable people there, they let the crazies usurp their message, and that reflects poorly on them.
   
8. If you oppose civil unions with equal legal benefits for gay couples, you're a homophobe. (As an aside, if Beck's objecting to being called a homophobe, it's more proof we've already won this fight, since even the right believes that word has a negative connotation that they're uncomfortable with)
   
9. If you support criminalizing abortion, you fundamentally don't trust women to be able to make important decisions about their health and life, and that's sexist.
   
10. We're pretty divided about the fairness doctrine, actually. Our smear against opposition to it would be about conservative elites wanting to preserve their for-profit propaganda enterprises though, not about "diversity".
    
11. If you oppose making it easier for workers unionize (which is what the Employee Free Choice Act would do), you're against the workers.
    

If "liberals" are to be demonized for what they say, let's at least start with what they're actually saying.

I would also point out that the language I used is often more harsh than what any real Democratic representative would use in public. The Republican party leadership has no problem talking about death panels, birth certificates, baby-murder, yelling "You lie!" at the president in a formal address, or any other extremist language.

Alan Grayson came dangerously close to saying #1, and everyone was completely shocked that a Democratic freshman congressman would say such a thing.

"Crazy" doesn't stem from any one ideology. They'll latch onto just about anything... 9/11 inside job, death panels, moon landing, aliens, Kenyan birth certificates, etc.

They're entertaining to watch so they make the news, but that doesn't mean people take them seriously. As easy as it is to link the crazies to larger political groups, they really only represent the individuals involved.

>> ^Psychologic:
I would have loved to see someone walking around asking the 9/12'ers if they believed the moon landing was real. I imagine there would have been more than a little skepticism.


And WHAT ARE YOU GETTING AT??????????????????????????

I would have loved to see someone walking around asking the 9/12'ers if they believed the moon landing was real. I imagine there would have been more than a little skepticism.

Some good points, but he doesn't believe in the moon landing and does believe in bigfoot? *thumbs down*

They differ BARELY. They all contradict the official flight path. They claim the flight path started above The Navy Annex, NOT their own heads. They describe that in a lot of detail, along with the banking to the right. That 'damned surveillance video' showed practically SHIT ALL! We see a glimpse of the tail, then boom, fire, smoke. We don't have the ability to predict every physical interaction and result from yadda yadda yadda - but we have the ability to smell BULLSHIT. And this whole official story REEKS with it. Don't even try to lump in this among moon-landing-hoax-conspiracy rubbish. THAT'S insulting. This was a thorough, fairly professional investigation, not absurd, baseless conjecture.

Interesting how all the witness flight paths differ. And, coincidentally, they all show a flight path that starts "directly over their own heads" and continues in a straight line to the impact zone. Doesn't sound at all suspicious to me that all witnesses interviewed claim the plane flew directly over their heads.

Now, the conflicting eye witness reports are used as evidence against the digitally recorded data and the physical evidence of downed light poles? And what about the damn surveillance video SHOWING THE PLANE APPROACHING THE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE EXPLOSION? Hmm...

In my opinion, people have unrealistic expectations form watching too many CIS/Forensic Detective shows. Truthfully, we do not have the ability to predict every physical interaction and result from a collission of that magnatude. Any number of physcial reactions could have taken place to account for the aftermath as it was observed in the days and weeks following the collision. Certainly amateur attempts to produce data the supports preconceived ideas is to be handled with some skepticism.

Personally, I find the conspiracy theories concerning this event pretty insulting. But I suppose once Buzz Aldrin started punching people it wasn't fun anymore to make up moon landing conspiracies.

NASA built LLRV (lunar lander research vehicle) and later the LLTV (lunar landar training vehicle). They were not tethered. They used a jet engine, oriented vertically on a gimbal to lift the vehicle so that it would behave as the actual lander would over the moon. (The moon's gravity is about 1/6 of Earth's.)

Neil Armstrong said that the moon landing would not have been possible without these test vehicles. More info here: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-026-DFRC.html

If you want to see one, I know they have one on display at NASA Dryden in Southern California. I think they only do tours ever other Friday, though.

>> ^Lolthien:
BTW Shiner, post video of liberals doing this, and I'll address it, otherwise it's friggin hearsay, which seems to be all it takes to get the conservatives up in arms now. Next thing you know these people will be pissed cause we faked the damn moon landings.


What's the point? Videosift ignored those videos then and they will ignore them now.

Nobody here was up in arms when code pink was storming Condoleeza Rice with fake blood on their hands disrupting hearings. That type of disturbance doesn't bother people because it's in line with their agenda. But when people protest something they agree with, well now it's time to start bashing them and claiming they aren't playing fair.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

PUH - LEAZ.

His so-called 'conservative opposition' has nowadays reduced itself to endless nonsensical, openly unpatriotic hateful drivel - just look at all the Glenn Beck and Fox&Friends clips in recent months. And the ironic part in this (which this guy seems oblivious to) is that it was enabled by one of his culprits - the 'leftist' media, who unlike Fox News in their efforts at actually being "fair and balanced" started giving airtime to stupid, ignorant hacks for the sake of having a "balanced debate". You wouldn't entertain the idea of a moon-landing-hoaxer debating NASA in front of a televised audience, would you (3:13)? You wouldn't invite the KKK to a debate on racism, would you? Same principle applies to why Bill O'Reilly shouldn't have a show.

Also, can somebody please explain to me how in the world would net neutrality be used to shut someone up? This claim is beyond ridiculous, the whole concept is that of no censorship. Seems to me logic and common sense just joined journalism and political science on the list of things this guy fails at.

But then again, this is a guy who says there could (and should) be a movie that supports 'war on terror' and that Bush is Batman, among other things. Yyyeeeeeaaaaaaaaah.

BTW Shiner, post video of liberals doing this, and I'll address it, otherwise it's friggin hearsay, which seems to be all it takes to get the conservatives up in arms now. Next thing you know these people will be pissed cause we faked the damn moon landings.

>> ^looris:
O M G
look at the link at 0:46!!!


http://bit.ly/PjEXY4
It's a Youtube video of Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up - You've been RickRolled

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.