*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by MrFisk.

"He said this last year."

Ancient Order of Marriage? Didn't that involve a mallet and a cave at one point?

Wow, talking heads arguing about talking heads, what a useful journalist. Perhaps if he dedicated his worst people in the world segment to murderers, dictators, oppressors and corrupt organizations I could take him seriously.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, talking heads arguing about talking heads, what a useful journalist. Perhaps if he dedicated his worst people in the world segment to murderers, dictators, oppressors and corrupt organizations I could take him seriously.


Well for one, the Toccata and Fugue in D minor that's always playing in the background clearly points out that this is not a serious list of the worst people in the world, but that's stating the obvious. I'm just saying, like it or hate it take this for what it is.

I enjoy his fact check like segments though, compared to the other talking heads he brings up on his show who just seem to spew whatever sift they can pull out of their asses. I think certain names come up more often because they give him the most ammunition to use. There's obviously at the least some media war bias to who he picks though, it's just they seem deserving of it.

Whew, until he said transcripts of the show I was worried some poor bastard had to actually watch every episode of the Glenn Beck show.

I love how people like Olbermann can't mention the complete name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (listen to the beginning of this video) If you would like to read Elder Oaks speech to the students at Brigham Young University you can go here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom

As if there is any defense for the obvious discrimination against gays who want to marry. What if straights were the minority and a gay majority told us we could not marry? Foolish to think straights would not seek to point out the discrimination.

Who cares what your denomination is? If you want your sect to have rights that others don't have, you are an oppressor. You are the type of person the founders rebelled against. We live in a country that values freedom, we have amended our founding document on numerous occasions to ban this kind of discrimination. We will do it again, and if you believe that gay people have less freedom than straight people, you will oppose this until you are dead. And once you are dead, future society will wonder why you were so insane. Just like how we now wonder why slave owners were so insane as to believe their country was a land of freedom while they were allowed to own people.

If we are not all equal as people, then we are not a free nation. If you disagree, then I believe you are not a true American.

>> ^Yogi:
Ancient Order of Marriage? Didn't that involve a mallet and a cave at one point?


Lol it's funny as hell to hear a Mormon talk about 'ancient' considering their entire made up religion isn't even 200 years old yet.

And beyond that, the whole idea of a family as we know it today originated only about 60 years ago, and the entire idea of marriage as we know it today in the US barely more than 100 years old. The human species isn't designed to have one mate for life and for most of our existence such an idea was preposterous in most parts of the world.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, talking heads arguing about talking heads, what a useful journalist. Perhaps if he dedicated his worst people in the world segment to murderers, dictators, oppressors and corrupt organizations I could take him seriously.


There's a new word out. It's called hyperbole. Google it.

>> ^Xaielao:
And beyond that, the whole idea of a family as we know it today originated only about 60 years ago, and the entire idea of marriage as we know it today in the US barely more than 100 years old. The human species isn't designed to have one mate for life and for most of our existence such an idea was preposterous in most parts of the world.


I'm sympathetic to what you're saying but this seems to be going a bit far. Monogamy and marriage are both concepts that go back much further than the last 100 years. I think the better point is to show that this isn't the only way humans choose to live. What little anthropological data I've seen on the subject suggests that humans tend to organize into polygamous marriage or at least serial monogamy.

My point is that fighting against people saying that same sex marriage is unnatural by trying to make the case that the traditional monogamous marriage is unnatural is going farther than I think the logic can take you.

>> ^Payback:
There's a new word out. It's called hyperbole. Google it.

Problem with hyperbole is it detracts from substantial issues, and directs to insubstantial ones. Olbermann is just another person using it because he knows people have a slavering love of "all things thus." If you're not using a position of authority to direct to a substantial issue, then you're just a talking head.

Much as I'm not a fan of Beck, he actually does touch on substantial issues from time to time. Which is more then most of his compatriots(Maddow, Olberman, etc) in the opinion section, tho they do occasionally albeit briefly. And yes they're all opinion not news.

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^Payback:
Much as I'm not a fan of Beck, he actually does touch on substantial issues from time to time. Which is more then most of his compatriots(Maddow, Olberman, etc) in the opinion section, tho they do occasionally albeit briefly. And yes they're all opinion not news.


Are you seriously suggesting, with a straight face, that Beck has more journalistic integrity than Rachel Maddow? That Glenn Beck actually "touches on substantive issues" more than Rachel Maddow?

You've blown any credibility you might have had. Gone.

Wait. Keith Olbyloon is still around?

>> ^KnivesOut:
Are you seriously suggesting, with a straight face, that Beck has more journalistic integrity than Rachel Maddow? That Glenn Beck actually "touches on substantive issues" more than Rachel Maddow?
You've blown any credibility you might have had. Gone.

Who said anything about journalism? They're all entertainment. If you haven't figured that out yet, you're not reading the news properly. You're still accepting everything at face value, rather than learning how to decipher what's said, as you would historical works you learned in highschool. None of them have any journalistic integrity, do they have opinion based integrity? Yes. Does one touch on particular issues of a more substantive nature than the other? At times yes, while the others no.

Besides, I'm not here for credibility. Yours or anyone else, if I was that would mean I was here for a popularity contest. And I don't care for those either.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by choggie.