The uploader keeps calling these folks "open Marxists". Where does that come from? He never shows or quotes these people as saying they are Marxists or socialists so how does he get to that conclusion. I am confused.
twin towers was a terrorist attack however the pentagone was a missle to destroy the records cuase on 9/10/01 they lost 300 trilion dolars the twin towers gave them the perfect excuse to fire a missle and claim it was another plane in the video you would of seen a plane but you dont but you wouldn of seen a missle. the us goverment can and did creat the flight and the pasangers that hit the pentagon out of thin are in computers.
@BorgKing001 No. It means that a larger portion of the youtube community is more interested to hear what liberalviewer has to say. And that doesn't suprise me because this guy is a moron. Ofc if alot of people believe something it doesn't make it true or right ( like religion). What's your opinion on all of this?
@kuhj278 why is he a moron, prove that he is wrong. I'll grant you there are alot of liberals on youtube but most are just here to name call and troll. Howtheworldworks actually backs up every claim he makes with facts.
@BorgKing001 He's a moron because he has no idea what he is talking about. Also I don't understand why you single out most liberals to be trolls and claim that HTWW backs up his statements with ''facts''. Are you actually trying to defend this guy? First of all attacking liberals with a claim based on nothing really doesn't serve any other purpose other than to show how unknowingly thick you really are. Second of all I have a hard time believing that HTWW really is this stupid. It wouldn't
@kuhj278 Surprise me if he was trolling or just being an attention whore. This guy has holes in his arguments and makes claims that are just ridiculous. HTWW is the laughing stock of civilized world of people who can see things from more than one angle. Honestly I don't care if you think this guy is legit. But to me and anyone else who's watched this guys with more than two braincells to rub together will see him as a hypocrite fool that makes wild claims and suggestionswithoutthefactstobackitup
@kuhj278 3 times i have asked you for proof, an example of why he is all those names you called him. And yet again your reply "he has no idea what he's talking about" and nothing else. No proof, no facts, no examples. Nothing. Nothing pretty much sums you up.
@BorgKing001 I can only recall you asking me once. Plus you never explained why you said most liberals are trolls. So you lied to me and that was totally unnecesary and a bad move. If I am to get over the fact that you just lied me straight in the face without actually posting a valid argument in respone like you should do. I need an apology and explanation to why you act in such a way. Also when you misquote me I just facepalm so epicly. Write a proper response if you want my attention nexttime
@BorgKing001 You did want my attention. You responded to my question directed to HTWW and not you. Without reason you also misquote me and lie to me. You sir are a troll, now gtfo the internet
Howard 'the duck' Dean - "Poor poor Van Jones had thousand of people swarming him, shoving Evil Conservative clipboards in his face, asking and screaming for his beautiful autograph, calling him the N word and spitting at him with teabags in their holsters...
What else could clean, articulate, light skinned negro dialected Van Jones do but sign the Evil Conservative clipboards???"
continuing on, dileberate/negligent, whatever you want it to not be called, it doesn't matter. Its not the jobs of the countries or the writers of memos to give direction for what steps to take. Its the job of the president, his advisors and security team to investigate and make the decisions of what to take. Not to just ignore it because it doesn't tell you what to do. If you report a death threat against you to authorities, do they not investigate the validity of the threat?
@ammo99 you are falling for the bait & switch tactics that "LiberalViewer" intentionally used... that's sad
right here in this video, HTWW very clearly points out how Van Jones signed a petition calling for investigation due to 'evidence' that the mistakes leading to 9/11 were INTENTIONAL as a pretext for war
no matter what your points or views are, and i'm not judging them, but no matter what they are to not admit that LibViewer is blatantly trying to cover for VanJones LYING is ignorance
@Zaxxon2008 You're assuming I'm defending Van Jones for signing this petition. My belief is he knew what he was signing, probably because the notion that Bush Administration DID have sufficient evidence to look into possible terrorist attacks. And the fact that the safety of American lives was not enough to investigate, is in my opionion GROSS negligence. I would have signed the petition too. The difference between me and Jones is I would have had the balls to stand by my signature...
@Zaxxon2008 Further more, in light of recent events with the Sharrod smearing by FoxNews, I've noticed a trend when it comes to the treatment of Liberal politicians and officials. If FoxNews wants to label the demographic that believes the previous administration were negligent in handling of obvious threats as "Truthers"... then if it waddles and quacks like a duck... it is one. Thanks for being polite in the response. I enjoy a civil debate.
Fox only covered the story 1 hour earlier than CNN & i've never been able to find what time MSNBC first covered the story
but that's besides the point
and again i would only point out to you the difference between what the petition alledges (that an investigation was necessary re- an intentional PRETEXT for war) & the difference in your opinion on the subject, which is more rational (re- negligence)
"... this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions **that suggest that people *within this current administration may indeed have deliberately* allowed 9/11 to happen,** perhaps AS A PRETEXT FOR WAR."
also, i didnt mean to assume you agreed with Van Jones. if that came across it wasnt my intention. i was only trying to point out the difference between what you said & what Van Jones signed & therefore alledged
You're freaking crazy! What did Allen Jones want?! Uhhh, I don't know... maybe for the President to take steps to have security heightened? Lets not forget to mention this was NOT the only warning the Bush Administration received. Lets not forget the day after, that administration stood in front of us and said there was never a warning for this when in fact several countries had sent warnings. And evidence has been brought up that indeed there were warnings of highjackings to come.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh great Van was going to create all those green jobs now who's going to do it. if this was a socialist government we would all have a job, its about time somebody takes control Emperor Obama's hand's are tied thanks to the capitalist pigs. If George Clooney was Emperor we might have a chance.
@greptor If this was a socialist government we would all have a job. Right since that's always been true in the past like in Russia & Nazi Germany,..NOT!!!
I see lots of comments on here saying "what's wrong with Marxism anyway"?
Maybe the fact that it theorizes the inevitable bloody revolution of the working class against the wealthy. That would mean the murder of all business owners in the United States. Not only is that morally objectable, but it makes for idiotic economic and social philosophies.
Slightly better than your first one, but still really bad. Your grasping at straws. Half as many people saw the second part as the first, I'll check the third part but if their are no valid arguments, (and it is not looking likely that their will be) than that is it for you.
You throw around the word Marxist like it means baby killer. You sound like McCarthy hunting out the queers and the commies. Also socialism is not Marxism, I would expect an educated man like you to know that as well as the fact that most socialists and leftist understand that Marx's work specifically was flawed. It does not present a workable system. Its best to have a mixed system of free market and socialism. Unless you want to have corporate armies to protect only those who pay the bill.
How the world works has deliberately distorted the facts or rather - outright LIED!! Van jones is NOT a admitted Marxist or even a Marxist at all. Even so - what wrong with having Marxist ideals anyway? There's nothing wrong with the idea it just hasn't worked in practice yet
You would be right if I was talking about socialism. But what I think the difference between here and there is that liberalism in politics here has a different motive than there.
By liberal in the comment below I mean many states in Europe are considered very free; not many socially restrictive regulations.
Ie they do things like naked hot tubs, pot is legalish in most places, police will not beat you up... too often,
prison sentences are less, you are less likely to be arrested or prosecuted, tends to be warnings for lesser offences no intimidation by authorities, politician baiting is a national sport.
@GlennRoxWyo The economies which are trashed are the ones which followed trickle down crap.
Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain are the crashes economies, what made them different was de regulation. data.
"only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that capitalism was works" "Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were necessary."
"29,000 people in 27 In only two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five people feel that capitalism works"
@marsCubed if you think "Trickle Down" doesn't work when it is tax Cuts for the "wealthy" ending up in more hiring & therefore more wealth for the rest of the economy, then apply this theory -
Increase taxes on the "wealthy"
see if they just bend over and take it up the ass
OR
see if they end up letting those tax increases "Trickle Down" to 'the little people' by hiring less, paying less, not giving raises, buying less, not expanding their business...
@Zaxxon2008 For decades Denmark & Norway, highest tax in the world on top 5%.
They've become the most Equal & Wealthy populations on Earth, best standards of living, low crime, superb healthcare & education, high-tech, green, skilled innovative economies.
Robot engineers & designers, informed, very democratic.
-
TAX the top sensibly hard.
Invest in infrastructure, become an intelligent balanced economy.
@marsCubed No... thinking you or anyone else CAN be the arbiter of "equality" or "fairness" is the true FAIL
Denmark & Norway supply the world with nothing. OK, maybe herring. other than that, nothing. they have no military, they rely on us for defense. and their populations are pathetically small compared to the US. you cannot blanket apply methods of a small country to a huge one. thats why our founders had states, and states rights. if 1 state wants to be a US version of Denmark, fine
@Zaxxon2008 LOL, Supply USA with defence more like, remember Iraq? Afghanistan?
It's a spectrum right across Europe.
-
It was free-market nuts crashed; Greece up to 30% GDP undeclared in tax evasion scams! That is why Greece is broke. conservatives let free-market profiteers syphon off GDP for yachts in Dubai.
Inequality and rip off is all conservatives did.
Reagan gave banks self regulation. myopic profiteering, Ponzi schemes inequality & trickle-down, transfer pricing. it trashed economies.
@marsCubed Yes, we all hail the Dane & Norwegian SUPERforces in Iraq & Afghanistan! LOL
Greece is broke because of Unions and "tax evasion scams"(tho thats more Greece govt fault)
Reagan did NOT give banks "self regulation." That is flat-out false. I'll just chalk up to u not knowing any better, or for being a foreigner with no knowledge of Reagan beyond the press.
i agree with u on Ponzi schemes & transfer pricing. not on "trickle down" (which works) tho
@marsCubed No, Regan was Reagans Treasury Secretary. since you are a foreigner and maybe dont understand, only Congress can change regulatory rules, not Tres. Sec.
N. Europe most certainly did crash. where have u been? they all bought bad bundled loans & securities. we bailed out ur banks as well as our own.
trickle down boom was the 80's & 90's.
for the last time when u cry "inequality" logical reply - Nobody is qualified to determine "fair"
@marsCubed as JFK said re- "trickledown" / tax cuts - "A rising tide lifts all boats"
and if you dont think trickle down works as far as tax cuts, then you must also believe trickle down doesnt work for tax increases. to which i would say you are being foolish
to think the "wealthy" will just take a tax hike in the ass, and not pass that cost along to consumers (higher prices, less hiring, lower wages) then you have your head in the sand
@Zaxxon2008 Obama cut tax for working & middle class. Transfer pricing meant richest declared zero taxable income under Bush. How much more unequal do you want it ? .1 % owning 99.0% ? - Europe will become robot engineers & designers high-skills, innovation. BMW today announced big profits. GM is back making $. Conservatism is myopic profiteering & bonus fraud, it is all they know. Gonna sell plastic toys to Japan? They already have robots for that. free market = sheer neglect & inequaluty.
@marsCubed N Europe has the most informed, educated, and democratic places in the world? Well the U.S. is not a democracy, because its the ultimate tyranny. And have you ever been there? They assume the way people are portrayed (sp) on T.V. is true...
Maybe because soap operas usually base themselves on how people live.
Some people dress like Elvis.. It's part of how people project personality & aesthetics. 'Friends' says friends & fun discussions.
Some people have boring home lives because they have fun jobs.
Conservatism is the rigid dogmas; 'moral' laws, religious intolerance, police in bedrooms, dress codes, Boss authority, inequality & harsh punishments.
@marsCubed For 1 thing the places you mentioned are hubs for socialism, #2 I don't simply listen to claims. You can claim anything on the net, especially yt. BTW, I never said anything about GlobeScan & neither did you until now. I'm done with you.
the US has been the most successful economy in the history of the world, and it hasnt been because it "taxed the top 5% hard & reinvested in the population"
and your theory that tax incentives or even tax cuts for the wealthy (OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER) end up in "That was health, schools, housing, low crime all given away as bonuses to the richest 1 %" is pure idiocy in action
you assume it is the Govts money to start with... ITS OUR MONEY, not the govts
Van Jones is not a marxist nor is he a 9-11 truther at all. This was another thing that got legs and he unfortunately decided not to stay at the White House. This is a big loss to the work on the environment. The whole 'czar' flap is another ridiculous hot button for the right. Reagan started these advisory positions and every President since has had them.
Dude you are so awesome! Keep up the good work. As the pastor in my brother's church in Orlando says, "When you know the truth, you'll know the lies."
It just bugs me. Its always slipped into news that "AND HE IS A 9/11 TRUTHER" as if that should discredit anyone. Also just FYI they are still investigating the Lockerbie bombing, do you call these people Lockerbie truthers?
I think "truther" refers to someone who is willing to ignore actual facts in order to support some crazy star-wars/james bond conspiracy theory and call it "reality". In other words, they're short-minded idiots. So saying that a leading politician is one of these people shows the mental capacity (or lack thereof) of that politician. That's why it's a slur.
And I'm pretty certain the Lockerbie investigation is over. They already know who did it, and that person was locked up.
You can admit to something and there not be hard evidence to back it up. I can walk confess to the killing at Fort Polk but they would have a hard time finding concrete evidence to back it up. He is listed on FBI website for terrorist acts.
For bombing embassy's. You would think something as massive as 9/11 would be mentioned dont ya think? Anyways the original point is why is it a slur? Plane crashes and disasters are re investigated all the time. SO people calling for a new investigation into 9/11 should not be a slur. Just my opinion.
Do you actually believe what you just said, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I hope it's the latter, because if not, you're the most gullible person on Earth. Only an idiot would believe that crap. By "idiot," I actually meant smart.
I agree with HTWW on some issues, and even complimented in on another video in this series. I have also criticized LV.
The argument in this video is a stretch at best, and partisan hackery at worst. Just because people see thought the BS on YOUR side doesn't mean they are idiots from the OTHER side.
LV's point on this one is completely valid, and HTWW's "rebuttal" to it is ridiculous. The fact that you didn't address any POINTS clearly demonstrates that you're just being reactionary.
What points did I not address? Clearly, LiberalViewer was distorting the facts like he does in almost all of his videos. Show me what facts I managed to skip over, please.
You didn't address ANY points. You simply asserted that I was wrong, without explaining why. YOU are the one claiming I'm wrong. The onus is on YOU to show why that is the case.
Point number three in your comment is a lie. You don't even get it. Liberal Viewer debunked his own argument in the same video. His argument was that Fox did not present the facts about Van Jones correctly, and to prove what the facts really were, he used footage from another Fox News broadcast. Do I even have to explain to you how ridiculous that is?
That clip was NOT shown in the context of the ORIGINAL STATEMENT that LV is addressing, and even when the clip was shown, it was set up with the the bias that the information in the clip was inaccurate ("Still defending this guy").
Yes, please explain how "ridiculous" it is IN THE CONTEXT of the point he was making - that the original clip misled viewers by not showing it, and that Fox News is biased.
It is ridiculous. Will you use your brain for one second, please? You can't accuse Fox News in its entirety of being biased and then use a clip from another Fox News show as your reference for the truth. It's a contradiction. If he has any beef at all, it would've been with the anchor Megyn Kelly, not Fox News. Calling Fox biased, then showing video of Fox giving someone the air time to tell what LiberalViewer feels is the truth, is stupid and inaccurate.
Megyn Kelly was the FOCUS of LV's video. THAT IS THE CONTEXT HERE.
Does bias have to do with WHAT is shown? OF COURSE IT DOES. Bias can ALSO be shown by HOW that information is presented.
If Fox News was NOT biased, they would have set up the clip with journalistic objectivity, and NOT by stating the CONCLUSIONS the audience should draw ("still defending this guy") prior to showing it rather than living by THEIR OWN MOTTO "We report, YOU decide".
Now you're distorting the facts. The purpose of the video was to demonstrate that Fox News (NOT Megyn Kelly) was "biased." If you read the last comment in the sidebar of LV's video, he even makes that clear. The entire premise of the video is debunked by the other Fox News clip that includes in the video.
Megyn Kelly works for Fox News, and is a completely adequate example to use when attempting to show bias on a broader scale. This is ONE EXAMPLE in a broader argument. How would you propose that somebody demonstrate bias in a news organization without citing examples from specific commentators?
Here's one way you don't prove that bias of an individual news network. You don't point to somebody to prove that the network itself is biased and then use footage from the very SAME network in order to debunk claims from the first. What's so hard to understand? His assertion was that Fox News failed to present the facts. So he showed a second clip of Fox allowing the "facts" to be presented? What a joke.
I understand what you're saying. I really do. You think that the original claim that Fox news didn't give the whole story is false because the information not shown in the first story was shown later. I get it.
However, I've explained this to you three times already. Why can't you understand the concept that CONTEXT is important? The clip was shown in a DIFFERENT CONTEXT. A context, which, by the way, ALSO demonstrates the bias.
LV did NOT try to hide this. You're grasping at straws.
Not in Fox News, though. If the network gives the facts, which they did, then that is not an example of Fox News leaving out the other sides argument. That would be an example of Megyn Kelly leaving out the other sides argument. Whether you want to accept it or not, there is a big difference between the two.
And what do you have to say about what Liberal Viewer did with Van Jones in claiming to know what Van Jones actually believes?
"Of course, I don't believe saying 9/11 was deliberately allowed to happen is justified, but of course, neither does Van Jones." - Liberal Viewer
Will you admit that this is a distortion or not? He did not say Van Jones claimed "blank" here. He was telling his audience what Van Jones "really" believes.
She incorporated her own commentary into it. So what? As Liberal Viewer inadvertently proved, Fox News did present both sides of the argument, which is that Van Jones denied these things. I did not see her segment in its entirety, and I don't trust anything that Liberal Viewer puts forth, but even if she didn't mention Van Jones' denial, Liberal Viewers assertion about Fox News would still be wrong.
Unlike you, I've actually took a couple classes and read a couple books on media studies.
You analyze media institutions based on many factors, the primary ones being what stories are shown and in what context.
In BOTH instances, bias is CLEARLY demonstrated, in one case by omitting critical information to understanding the story, and in the other by setting up a perceptual bias.
The only possible way you can not see this is if you already have the preconception that the claim is incorrect.
And what does all of this have to do with anything? You asked me to demonstrate how Liberal Viewer has lied in this video. I've given you an example which you can not refute. He DID claim to know what Van Jones believes. Fact.
As for the video itself, his goal was to show that the network was biased. If anything, he showed Megyn's bias. The second clip demonstrates that Fox News did allow the other sides argument to be presented.
"He DID claim to know what Van Jones believes. Fact. "
NO HE DIDN'T. He STATED what Van Jones SIGNED and what he later STATED, and CONTRASTED that with what Kelly CLAIMED his position was. Yes, it was one piece of evidence suggesting Kelly's bias, and is one example of many suggesting an overall bias of Fox news.
This is not about showing the "other side" of the argument. It is about the CONTEXT and FRAMING of the facts presented.
I posted what Liberal Viewer said verbatim. You can stop saying "he didn't" over and over. Read the quote. He did claim to know what Van Jones believes. You're in denial.
"Malicious" intent? I don't think LV is being any more "malicious" than HTWW. Yes, HTWW has demonstrated LV's bias in other videos, but HTWW has just as much bias as LV does, and the absurd stretch that he uses in this video shows that clearly.
Anyone who ISN'T a partisan reactionary can see this pretty clearly.
No. HTWW wasn't trying to demonstrate his bias. He demonstrated the fact that he gives misinformation and distorts information in his videos. Everyone is biased. That isn't even the argument here.
LV did NOT give anyone "misinformation" here. What piece of information was incorrect, let alone DELIBERATELY incorrect.
I have already stated that the "bait and switch" accusation was a stretch at best, as LV was speculating (and ADMITTED it was speculation, as he said "perhaps") about the MOTIVATIONS for not giving viewers a vital piece of information to understand the issue.
He claimed that Van Jones does not believe the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. That statement can't be proven; it's a lie. Like what Liberal Viewer did with Van Jones' statement, Van Jones CLAIMED that he mistakenly signed a petition that talked about the Bush officials deliberately allowing it to happen.
"He claimed that Van Jones does not believe the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen."
No, he didn't. He correctly stated that WHAT HE SIGNED and WHAT HE SAID were BOTH different from what Fox News CLAIMED his position was.
He SIGNED a statement and CLAIMED he was mistaken, while Kelly CLAIMED that "he believed Bush...was BEHIND the attacks", which is unsubstantiated. You can't read minds. You can claim he's lying, but what you IMAGINE he believes is not a fact.
Wow, you're clueless. Watch the video. He states "I don't believe that saying Bush admin allowed 9/11 to happen is fair, and neither does Van Jones." So, yes, he did say that. What he did was claim to know what Van Jones does and does not believe. First off, you really can't do that in any situation, especially not when you have conflicting evidence (the signing of the petition).
OK, you got me. He is claiming to read Van Jone's mind to, which is a presumption that is JUST AS BAD as the one YOU are making ("it's a lie"), namely, that Van Jones does believe it.
Well, when I said that, I was referring to the statement that I just quoted (Liberal Viewer's). I personally believe Van Jones is lying, yes. But I'm not presenting my assumption to an audience as fact as Liberal Viewer did.
We're just going to keep going back and forth on this Kelly thing, so I'll let you have the last word on that. But I've proven my main point, which is that Liberal Viewer's video did contain distortions.
You can't read minds, correct, which is why Liberal Viewer was WRONG. He flat out claimed to know what Van Jones believes. He did NOT mention the word claim in that statement.
Yes, I watched the videos, and argued for a little bit with OTHER people who have watched the videos. Only a partisan hack wouldn't understand my problem with HTWW's interpretation.
I keep asking what facts he distorted, and nobody seems to be able to answer. Kelly said that Jone's believed Bush was behind 911, which is not what he signed, nor what he said he believed.
LV simply pointed that out. His presentation was far more objective than HTWW's.
So you're claiming that he is lying? Are you claiming that what he signed takes precedence over what he said, or are you claiming to read minds? I think a far more likely explanations was that Jones really was too lazy to read the petition he signed, but I don't read minds, so I can't attribute anything. All I can say is that signed one thing and said it was a mistake. This isn't about taking him at his world, it's about a news organization that nonobjectively asserted that he was lying.
OK, so you're speculating, like Fox News did. That's fine. He might be lying, but I can't read his mind, neither can you, and neither can Fox News. We have two facts - what he said and what he signed. There is no "fact" here about what his actual position is. The closest thing we have is his stated position, which is clear.
No' I'm not speculating lol, the guy isnt the average joe, he probably reads everything he signs. I dont believe for one second he wouldn't read something like a 911 truther movement petition before he signed it. Actions speak louder then words. If you believe an admitted communist czar I have a house in New Orleans I wish to sell you.
So you're saying that he's too smart to have signed something he didn't completely agree with, but not smart enough to know Bush wasn't behind 911?
I think it's entirely plausible that his stupidity simply lied in signing something he didn't completely understand, but I'm not stating that. I'm stating facts, facts which simply do not point to your conclusion.
Well actually between you and me I'm the only one using facts to support my stance. He signed a 911 truther petition, that's fact. Saying he didn't read it or understand it is speculation.
Sure, but how can you trust him? If he would lie about being confused and not understanding the petition, he could lie about supporting it. What makes his signature any more more accurate or honest than his own words?
Because he believes the government created AIDS to kill black people among other conspiracy theories. plus there are pictures of him wearing a 911 truther shirt showing the twin towers being destroyed and in yellow text on the shit "bush knew" as well as a well known 911 truther website on the shirt.
Despite the title, nowhere in this video do you show me distorting any facts, deliberately or otherwise. You can see a detailed description of your mistakes in this video on a webpage I created for that purpose at
tinyurl(.)com/HTWWMR3
Don't forget to remove the parentheses when pasting that address into your browser
I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and
You basically debunked your previous argument with that link. According to you, if someone doesn't listen to you, that makes your beliefs fringe. Therefore, since (according to you) the Bush administration didn't act after being warned about Osama, the person that warned them could be classified as fringe.
"Therefore, since (according to you) the Bush administration didn't act after being warned about Osama, the person that warned them could be classified as fringe."
So... whats wrong with what? If there was indeed someone warning he Bush administration about an imminent attack, and Bush thought he was a wacko idiot could we indeed call this person fringe?
It wouldn't be an accurate statement, nor would calling Malkin "fringe" based simply on the fact that Republican leadership wasn't listening. As I pointed out to him, I could easily call LiberalViewer fringe for not seeing the facts as we do. This is not an appropriate way to determine whether or not someone is "fringe."
And another thing: After showing a clip of Megyn Kelly and claiming that this was a clear example of Fox News bias, you preceded to show another clip that "filled in the facts" you thought were missing from the first. And if I'm not mistaken, that second clip was from - yep - Fox News. You used statements made on one Fox show (which you accepted) to prove that Fox is biased based on another shows commentary. How stupid. A more accurate statement would be that Megyn is biased.
@realnarutoboy. "How stupid. A more accurate statement would be that Megyn is biased."
Indeed, but she is representing Fox news. Since she is just an anchor she probably gets a script from the producers.
If Fox news leaves out important facts for its viewers in one clip, it is not a redeeming factor if we find some correct statements on another potion of fox. LV could obviously tell the difference between the correct information and the incorrect information.
1. It's stupid to try and make a point about someone's bias by accepting information from another show on the same network. 2. He statement was that Fox was bias, when in fact his beef was with Megyn Kelly and not Fox itself (they very network he later pointed to that allowed the "facts" to be presented).
come on lee, this video is a toss-up too, you make some good points, but liberalviewer does as well, i think he comes out on top. if van jones was a truther, he would make actions while in office to suggest that, as in reccomend more investigations. he never mentioned it.
Still, he signed something that suggested the government was behind 9/11 as a pretext to war. No politician in their right mind, even if they believed the government was behind it, would sign something like that. It's political suicide. Van Jones should look before he leaps.
HowWorldWorks, yah the 9/11 Conspiracy Queers do the bait and switch LibViewer does here often, it's usually the squishier conspiracy freaks that do it though, first they say Bush was involved in 9/11 or knew it beforehand, then when pressed they switch it to claiming he was just negligent in stopping the attacks. Lib Viewer switches from fantasy (Bush knew about 9/11) to reality (He got a memo detailing Alqaeda threats from the 90's, the title of which has given uninformeds orgasms for years)
....and they started the KKK as a means to control free blacks and enforce the democreat "Jim Crow Laws". Abolitionism was a republical ideal, and the civil rights bill that asserted full rights for all citizens was another republican bit of legislation, largely rejected by democrats, like Al Gore Sr. Monolithic black support for democrats is as disturbing as "Stockholm Syndrome"
The uploader keeps calling these folks "open Marxists". Where does that come from? He never shows or quotes these people as saying they are Marxists or socialists so how does he get to that conclusion. I am confused.
LiPeachy23 4 months ago
@LiPeachy23 he only called Van Jones a open Marxist because if you google his name, well just google it and tell me what you find
maximunoutlaw32 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 was an inside job
AustereAustrian 6 months ago
Liberals are straight up Hypocrites
ThatHaloGuy117 8 months ago
@ThatHaloGuy117 and are total tools!
austenbosten 6 months ago
@austenbosten how?
TheClone3000 3 months ago
@TheClone3000 as how are liberals are hypocrites?
austenbosten 3 months ago
@austenbosten sorry I miss read it, your right they are tools.
TheClone3000 3 months ago
Mr. Doren, yours is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, to quote the Bard.
lmelvina 8 months ago
twin towers was a terrorist attack however the pentagone was a missle to destroy the records cuase on 9/10/01 they lost 300 trilion dolars the twin towers gave them the perfect excuse to fire a missle and claim it was another plane in the video you would of seen a plane but you dont but you wouldn of seen a missle. the us goverment can and did creat the flight and the pasangers that hit the pentagon out of thin are in computers.
sixwingproductions 10 months ago
Why do you think he's got more subscribers than you?
kuhj278 11 months ago
@kuhj278 Because liberalViewer is right, wait, does that mean since the right wing has largest radio audience, they are right?
BorgKing001 10 months ago
@BorgKing001 No. It means that a larger portion of the youtube community is more interested to hear what liberalviewer has to say. And that doesn't suprise me because this guy is a moron. Ofc if alot of people believe something it doesn't make it true or right ( like religion). What's your opinion on all of this?
kuhj278 10 months ago
@kuhj278 why is he a moron, prove that he is wrong. I'll grant you there are alot of liberals on youtube but most are just here to name call and troll. Howtheworldworks actually backs up every claim he makes with facts.
BorgKing001 10 months ago
@BorgKing001 He's a moron because he has no idea what he is talking about. Also I don't understand why you single out most liberals to be trolls and claim that HTWW backs up his statements with ''facts''. Are you actually trying to defend this guy? First of all attacking liberals with a claim based on nothing really doesn't serve any other purpose other than to show how unknowingly thick you really are. Second of all I have a hard time believing that HTWW really is this stupid. It wouldn't
kuhj278 10 months ago
@kuhj278 Surprise me if he was trolling or just being an attention whore. This guy has holes in his arguments and makes claims that are just ridiculous. HTWW is the laughing stock of civilized world of people who can see things from more than one angle. Honestly I don't care if you think this guy is legit. But to me and anyone else who's watched this guys with more than two braincells to rub together will see him as a hypocrite fool that makes wild claims and suggestionswithoutthefactstobackitup
kuhj278 10 months ago
@kuhj278 3 times i have asked you for proof, an example of why he is all those names you called him. And yet again your reply "he has no idea what he's talking about" and nothing else. No proof, no facts, no examples. Nothing. Nothing pretty much sums you up.
BorgKing001 10 months ago
@BorgKing001 I can only recall you asking me once. Plus you never explained why you said most liberals are trolls. So you lied to me and that was totally unnecesary and a bad move. If I am to get over the fact that you just lied me straight in the face without actually posting a valid argument in respone like you should do. I need an apology and explanation to why you act in such a way. Also when you misquote me I just facepalm so epicly. Write a proper response if you want my attention nexttime
kuhj278 10 months ago
@kuhj278 i don't want your attention, i already owned you, now go away
BorgKing001 10 months ago
@BorgKing001 You did want my attention. You responded to my question directed to HTWW and not you. Without reason you also misquote me and lie to me. You sir are a troll, now gtfo the internet
kuhj278 10 months ago
I don't think LV tries to. I think he doesn't have good reading and comprehending skills.
daboodeef179 11 months ago
@Demonyk1 TROLL, WE GOTS TROLL 'ERE BOYS
Poor thing probably doesn't even know what its talking about, like some mindless puppet.
mikeyboy236 1 year ago
You cant smear Van Jones. Van Jones is a smear.
cozyfoxstudio 1 year ago 2
Howard 'the duck' Dean - "Poor poor Van Jones had thousand of people swarming him, shoving Evil Conservative clipboards in his face, asking and screaming for his beautiful autograph, calling him the N word and spitting at him with teabags in their holsters...
What else could clean, articulate, light skinned negro dialected Van Jones do but sign the Evil Conservative clipboards???"
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
continuing on, dileberate/negligent, whatever you want it to not be called, it doesn't matter. Its not the jobs of the countries or the writers of memos to give direction for what steps to take. Its the job of the president, his advisors and security team to investigate and make the decisions of what to take. Not to just ignore it because it doesn't tell you what to do. If you report a death threat against you to authorities, do they not investigate the validity of the threat?
ammo99 1 year ago
@ammo99 you are falling for the bait & switch tactics that "LiberalViewer" intentionally used... that's sad
right here in this video, HTWW very clearly points out how Van Jones signed a petition calling for investigation due to 'evidence' that the mistakes leading to 9/11 were INTENTIONAL as a pretext for war
no matter what your points or views are, and i'm not judging them, but no matter what they are to not admit that LibViewer is blatantly trying to cover for VanJones LYING is ignorance
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008 You're assuming I'm defending Van Jones for signing this petition. My belief is he knew what he was signing, probably because the notion that Bush Administration DID have sufficient evidence to look into possible terrorist attacks. And the fact that the safety of American lives was not enough to investigate, is in my opionion GROSS negligence. I would have signed the petition too. The difference between me and Jones is I would have had the balls to stand by my signature...
ammo99 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008 Further more, in light of recent events with the Sharrod smearing by FoxNews, I've noticed a trend when it comes to the treatment of Liberal politicians and officials. If FoxNews wants to label the demographic that believes the previous administration were negligent in handling of obvious threats as "Truthers"... then if it waddles and quacks like a duck... it is one. Thanks for being polite in the response. I enjoy a civil debate.
ammo99 1 year ago
@ammo99 FoxNews in no way "smeared" Sherrod
Fox only covered the story 1 hour earlier than CNN & i've never been able to find what time MSNBC first covered the story
but that's besides the point
and again i would only point out to you the difference between what the petition alledges (that an investigation was necessary re- an intentional PRETEXT for war) & the difference in your opinion on the subject, which is more rational (re- negligence)
a copy of the text from the pettion follows
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008 petition says -
"... this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions **that suggest that people *within this current administration may indeed have deliberately* allowed 9/11 to happen,** perhaps AS A PRETEXT FOR WAR."
also, i didnt mean to assume you agreed with Van Jones. if that came across it wasnt my intention. i was only trying to point out the difference between what you said & what Van Jones signed & therefore alledged
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
You're freaking crazy! What did Allen Jones want?! Uhhh, I don't know... maybe for the President to take steps to have security heightened? Lets not forget to mention this was NOT the only warning the Bush Administration received. Lets not forget the day after, that administration stood in front of us and said there was never a warning for this when in fact several countries had sent warnings. And evidence has been brought up that indeed there were warnings of highjackings to come.
ammo99 1 year ago
What kind of idiot signs something without signing it? Oops, I guess liberals in Washington and liberals who are buying houses they can't afford.
buisyman 1 year ago
that was a sad attemp at discrediting liberalviewer
smithbrass 1 year ago
Both HTWW and Liberal viewer distort facts.
Only option is to not believe either side.
TheMango121 1 year ago
Most people in the world have experienced capitalism in the last few decades.
In recent Global surveys only 11% of the total population believe capitalism works. only in USA and Pakistan do more than1 in 5 support it.
Most see the Bush de-regulation as theft by the right & obscene inequality. the rich have become massively richer.
In the USA 1% now have 43% the money.
unequal countries which crashed.
Trickle down is a lie and worse.
In Greece now they are calling for conservatives to be jailed
marsCubed 1 year ago
impeach SCOTUS
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh great Van was going to create all those green jobs now who's going to do it. if this was a socialist government we would all have a job, its about time somebody takes control Emperor Obama's hand's are tied thanks to the capitalist pigs. If George Clooney was Emperor we might have a chance.
greptor 2 years ago
@greptor If this was a socialist government we would all have a job. Right since that's always been true in the past like in Russia & Nazi Germany,..NOT!!!
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
I see lots of comments on here saying "what's wrong with Marxism anyway"?
Maybe the fact that it theorizes the inevitable bloody revolution of the working class against the wealthy. That would mean the murder of all business owners in the United States. Not only is that morally objectable, but it makes for idiotic economic and social philosophies.
Albyiscool 2 years ago
Slightly better than your first one, but still really bad. Your grasping at straws. Half as many people saw the second part as the first, I'll check the third part but if their are no valid arguments, (and it is not looking likely that their will be) than that is it for you.
Sansfeur 2 years ago 2
You throw around the word Marxist like it means baby killer. You sound like McCarthy hunting out the queers and the commies. Also socialism is not Marxism, I would expect an educated man like you to know that as well as the fact that most socialists and leftist understand that Marx's work specifically was flawed. It does not present a workable system. Its best to have a mixed system of free market and socialism. Unless you want to have corporate armies to protect only those who pay the bill.
jfraas1 2 years ago
Comment removed
marsCubed 2 years ago
How the world works has deliberately distorted the facts or rather - outright LIED!! Van jones is NOT a admitted Marxist or even a Marxist at all. Even so - what wrong with having Marxist ideals anyway? There's nothing wrong with the idea it just hasn't worked in practice yet
3122tan 2 years ago
@3122tan then what was the soviet union? Marxist (aka communist). What happened to them?
alamoallies 2 years ago
@alamoallies A better example is Norway or Sweden etc, they have the highest tax and the most equal populations in the world.
They are also the wealthiest populations with best healthcare and education.
considered the most liberal and democratic by everyone.
They are not perfect, but educated democratic people are difficult to push around, they are also innovative and flexible.
It makes the USA look dumb, miserable and years behind.
Dump the far right wingnuts and tax the 1% who own 95% hard
marsCubed 2 years ago
You would be right if I was talking about socialism. But what I think the difference between here and there is that liberalism in politics here has a different motive than there.
alamoallies 2 years ago
@alamoallies A problem is terms were distorted by cold war propaganda in the USA.
The term middle class for instance is used for those who work.
Liberal, historically means the progressive rich, but it is the only allowable way of saying left by anyone.
This same propaganda is still used to silence ppl.
The debate USA is having now is overdue IMO
You do not even have socialists in the USA. Your dems are way to the right of UK's ruling labour party
Some 'conservatives' are like the nazis.
crazy
marsCubed 2 years ago
By liberal in the comment below I mean many states in Europe are considered very free; not many socially restrictive regulations.
Ie they do things like naked hot tubs, pot is legalish in most places, police will not beat you up... too often,
prison sentences are less, you are less likely to be arrested or prosecuted, tends to be warnings for lesser offences no intimidation by authorities, politician baiting is a national sport.
human rights respected
we regulate corps not people.
marsCubed 2 years ago
@marsCubed You are less likely to be arrested or prosecuted means the laws are lacks or just not enforced allowing crime to spread.
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo Glenn, it is much more than that,
There is next to no crime in many parts of Europe, well educated social people.
The reason is decades of high tax on the richest has equalized the society and made most people well off.
No child poverty etc.
Unemployed get housed, re skilled, health/education is free, crime is dealt with by social workers & a system which is funded enough to actually work.
It is not perfect, but much better.
Denmark & Norway are best examples of how it can be.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Nice try. I'm not buying it especially since there is rioting in countries like Greece over such things.
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo Let' try to explain.
The economies which de-regulated (laws put in place in the 30s to stop crashes) crashed.
The right ran a scam which allowed conservatives to buy elections with fake money.
Most banks r OK small business loans, most of mortgages.
But the right ran a Ponzi scheme (look it up).
new investors & subprime to 'seem' to make profit.
regulated economies like Germany are now bailing others out.
In USA kick out your nutty dogmatic market hype.
Invest in people. esp skills
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Give it up just because you drank the kool-aid doesn't mean every1 else is that dumb.
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo HAhaah
in Greece the banners on the general strike read;
'Put the de-regulators (conservatives) on trial'.
Greece was the country which most followed the USA model, it invested all it's money in magic free market hype and borrowed against trickle down..
The conservatives wrecked the economy by allowing scams to syphon off money to the hyper rich to tax havens.
The countries which did not crash were they ones which had high taxes on the rich.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Nice spin, they're pissed because Euro-trash socialism has run them into the ground & their economy is strangeled by debt & inflation.
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo The economies which are trashed are the ones which followed trickle down crap.
Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain are the crashes economies, what made them different was de regulation. data.
"only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that capitalism was works" "Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were necessary."
"29,000 people in 27 In only two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five people feel that capitalism works"
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Trickle down economics is something you know nothing about. & I don't care about your liberal run so-called poll.
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo Oh I know about tricke-down Glenn.
Look up 'transfer pricing' it is corps moving a patent to a tax haven and declaring zero taxable income.
Many of the richest have paid zero tax for years.
Microsoft for instance halved tax in a single year when it began to do this.
While during the same period regular working people have had to pay and borrow more and more.
Trickle-down is trickle-up.
Rich are richer than ever.
According to you it should be booming.
why no boom?
it was a scam.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed tricke-down? HAHAHA!
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo
Conservatives encouraged transfer pricing; corps putting patents in an office in a tax-haven then declaring ZERO ! taxable income at home.
Microsoft for instance halved it's tax in one year by doing so.
That was health, schools, housing, low crime all given away as bonuses to the richest 1 %.
The General population were forced into debt to pay for these thefts.
Rep, Senator Gramm; "subprime is the American dream in action"
Conservatives bought elections with trickle-down lies.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed if you think "Trickle Down" doesn't work when it is tax Cuts for the "wealthy" ending up in more hiring & therefore more wealth for the rest of the economy, then apply this theory -
Increase taxes on the "wealthy"
see if they just bend over and take it up the ass
OR
see if they end up letting those tax increases "Trickle Down" to 'the little people' by hiring less, paying less, not giving raises, buying less, not expanding their business...
bet you love THAT trickle down
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008 For decades Denmark & Norway, highest tax in the world on top 5%.
They've become the most Equal & Wealthy populations on Earth, best standards of living, low crime, superb healthcare & education, high-tech, green, skilled innovative economies.
Robot engineers & designers, informed, very democratic.
-
TAX the top sensibly hard.
Invest in infrastructure, become an intelligent balanced economy.
It's good for everybody.
+ dump the iniquity & rat-race drivel.
Gross inequality defines fail
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed No... thinking you or anyone else CAN be the arbiter of "equality" or "fairness" is the true FAIL
Denmark & Norway supply the world with nothing. OK, maybe herring. other than that, nothing. they have no military, they rely on us for defense. and their populations are pathetically small compared to the US. you cannot blanket apply methods of a small country to a huge one. thats why our founders had states, and states rights. if 1 state wants to be a US version of Denmark, fine
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008 LOL, Supply USA with defence more like, remember Iraq? Afghanistan?
It's a spectrum right across Europe.
-
It was free-market nuts crashed; Greece up to 30% GDP undeclared in tax evasion scams! That is why Greece is broke. conservatives let free-market profiteers syphon off GDP for yachts in Dubai.
Inequality and rip off is all conservatives did.
Reagan gave banks self regulation. myopic profiteering, Ponzi schemes inequality & trickle-down, transfer pricing. it trashed economies.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Yes, we all hail the Dane & Norwegian SUPERforces in Iraq & Afghanistan! LOL
Greece is broke because of Unions and "tax evasion scams"(tho thats more Greece govt fault)
Reagan did NOT give banks "self regulation." That is flat-out false. I'll just chalk up to u not knowing any better, or for being a foreigner with no knowledge of Reagan beyond the press.
i agree with u on Ponzi schemes & transfer pricing. not on "trickle down" (which works) tho
free markets enrich both sides
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008
In USA 1% now have 42% of $.
80% have just 7%.between them left.
Highest incarceration. worsening inequality, no-vacations. borrowing & paying interest to the 1% for shelter, education & even meds. bleeds you dry.
Donald Regan, former CEO Merrill Lynch, was Reagan's de-regulator.
Free-market self-regulation. USA banks sold junk as AAA.
Whole of welfare N Europe had regulated banks. didn't crash.
Rich got richer than ever in USA.
If trickle-down works, where's the boom?
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed No, Regan was Reagans Treasury Secretary. since you are a foreigner and maybe dont understand, only Congress can change regulatory rules, not Tres. Sec.
N. Europe most certainly did crash. where have u been? they all bought bad bundled loans & securities. we bailed out ur banks as well as our own.
trickle down boom was the 80's & 90's.
for the last time when u cry "inequality" logical reply - Nobody is qualified to determine "fair"
freemarket means "equal" for everyone
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@marsCubed as JFK said re- "trickledown" / tax cuts - "A rising tide lifts all boats"
and if you dont think trickle down works as far as tax cuts, then you must also believe trickle down doesnt work for tax increases. to which i would say you are being foolish
to think the "wealthy" will just take a tax hike in the ass, and not pass that cost along to consumers (higher prices, less hiring, lower wages) then you have your head in the sand
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed okay, last time here...
not you, or ANYBODY, is qualified to determine what is FAIR or what is EQUAL
the only way to provide EQUALITY is the Free Market. in free markets, i dont HAVE TO trade with you unless it benefits me, and vice versa
what you propose is Equality of OUTCOME, that is an unjust socialist viewpoint which history has shown to be a failure
Free Markets give Equality of OPPORTUNITY. That is ALL anyone can & should ask for
that is your final lesson
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@Zaxxon2008 LOL That is how you think; Glorious leaders. pathetic.
N Europe has the most Equal & wealthy populations on Earth, is a fact.
Someone else deciding is what right-wing iniquity gets you.
N Europe also has the most informed, educated & democratic places in the world.
Very free, next to no crime. high skill. they invested, power is reasonable debate & voting, sensible policy & invest in each other.
Not ranting far-right inequality & conspiracy that's little more than the KKK with gloss.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed N Europe has the most informed, educated, and democratic places in the world? Well the U.S. is not a democracy, because its the ultimate tyranny. And have you ever been there? They assume the way people are portrayed (sp) on T.V. is true...
JJJohnson32 11 months ago
@JJJohnson32
Some people live like soap operas.
Maybe because soap operas usually base themselves on how people live.
Some people dress like Elvis.. It's part of how people project personality & aesthetics. 'Friends' says friends & fun discussions.
Some people have boring home lives because they have fun jobs.
Conservatism is the rigid dogmas; 'moral' laws, religious intolerance, police in bedrooms, dress codes, Boss authority, inequality & harsh punishments.
Your argument seems utterly absurd.
marsCubed 11 months ago
@marsCubed And most of their population seems to think its real....check that....the people I have met, seemed shocked an American is educated.
JJJohnson32 11 months ago
@marsCubed and i have no idea what the hell u are babbling with - "Transfer pricing meant richest declared zero taxable income under Bush"
if you had income, you paid tax. thats why we have the AMT, Cap Gains Tax, Income Tax, Payroll Tax
GM hasnt even paid back their bailout money
Europe is such a great business climate
Toyota has @ 14,000 employees in EU. thats about the total of 3 states in the US for Toyota
you'll be lucky to build robots... for Toyota. we'll design 'em for ya!
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo
Globescan a 'liberal' organization?
You are sticking your head in the sand Glen.
Allow me to elucidate
Globescan describe themselves thus on their web site;
"GlobeScan is an independent, management-owned company, with offices in Toronto, Canada, London, England, and San Francisco, USA"
They are one of the most reputable polling organizations in the world.
So Glen which is it? Are you swayed by objective information, or an ostrich?
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed For 1 thing the places you mentioned are hubs for socialism, #2 I don't simply listen to claims. You can claim anything on the net, especially yt. BTW, I never said anything about GlobeScan & neither did you until now. I'm done with you.
GlennRoxWyo 1 year ago
@GlennRoxWyo
Sooo... For you in the USA, all other countries in the world are 'hubs for socialism' except Turkey? riiight.
The world is fed up with magic-market hype.
It has led to obscene inequality, waste, debt & sheer theft.
Wake up, Rich are richer than they have ever been !
Successful economies taxed the top 5% hard & reinvested in the population. it works, re-skill, re-invest; economics 101.
Conservatism stole your health, education, skills base, all for yachts in Dubai for corp bosses.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed you clueless nitwit
the US has been the most successful economy in the history of the world, and it hasnt been because it "taxed the top 5% hard & reinvested in the population"
and your theory that tax incentives or even tax cuts for the wealthy (OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER) end up in "That was health, schools, housing, low crime all given away as bonuses to the richest 1 %" is pure idiocy in action
you assume it is the Govts money to start with... ITS OUR MONEY, not the govts
Zaxxon2008 1 year ago
Including George W Bush's 'Abstinence Czar'
jlgrounds 2 years ago
Van Jones is not a marxist nor is he a 9-11 truther at all. This was another thing that got legs and he unfortunately decided not to stay at the White House. This is a big loss to the work on the environment. The whole 'czar' flap is another ridiculous hot button for the right. Reagan started these advisory positions and every President since has had them.
jlgrounds 2 years ago
an 'open marxist' would be someone who 'openly' is willing to state that they are a 'marxist'. Please link me to this quote from van jones please. :)
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Again your making assumptions to prove liberal viewer was wrong. your drawing conclusions from your own points that are based off these assumptions.
I would make this comment about all your videos but why waste my time watch garbage.
Oh and make you don't lose your "Jump to conclusions Mat" or how will you be able to make your points?
stewarp11 2 years ago
> "Again your making assumptions to prove liberal viewer was wrong"
Wrong? Lee's not saying that LiberalViewer is merely arriving at "wrong" conclusions. Did you even watch the video or read the title?
BullToTheShit 2 years ago 2
Dude you are so awesome! Keep up the good work. As the pastor in my brother's church in Orlando says, "When you know the truth, you'll know the lies."
nef2442 2 years ago
LV is indeed a pathetic clown
TheLegalImmigrant05 2 years ago
howard dean totally clowns himself at 3:06, ...awesome.
stefminus 2 years ago
Why is 9/11 truther a slur? Dont you want to know what happened?
doddsoreric 2 years ago
It's a slur because they're idiots.
P.S. - I do NOT want to get into a 9/11 argument. This is my only comment on this issue.
allamericandude15 2 years ago
It just bugs me. Its always slipped into news that "AND HE IS A 9/11 TRUTHER" as if that should discredit anyone. Also just FYI they are still investigating the Lockerbie bombing, do you call these people Lockerbie truthers?
doddsoreric 2 years ago
good point.
stefminus 2 years ago
I think "truther" refers to someone who is willing to ignore actual facts in order to support some crazy star-wars/james bond conspiracy theory and call it "reality". In other words, they're short-minded idiots. So saying that a leading politician is one of these people shows the mental capacity (or lack thereof) of that politician. That's why it's a slur.
And I'm pretty certain the Lockerbie investigation is over. They already know who did it, and that person was locked up.
allamericandude15 2 years ago
I would love to know what really happened. Please enlighten me.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago
I dunno. Wish I did. Like who was behind it, how it was planned and did they catch the right guy.
doddsoreric 2 years ago
#1.) Osama
#2.) He confessed multiple times and said how it was planned.
#3.) They caught a few of the right people, but not everyone.
See...its not as hard as you think.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago
Then why has he not been charged with it? (lack of evidence I find that funny) Also I was talking about the Lockerbie bombing.
doddsoreric 2 years ago
You can admit to something and there not be hard evidence to back it up. I can walk confess to the killing at Fort Polk but they would have a hard time finding concrete evidence to back it up. He is listed on FBI website for terrorist acts.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago
For bombing embassy's. You would think something as massive as 9/11 would be mentioned dont ya think? Anyways the original point is why is it a slur? Plane crashes and disasters are re investigated all the time. SO people calling for a new investigation into 9/11 should not be a slur. Just my opinion.
doddsoreric 2 years ago
★
ekans 2 years ago
What I got out of this video is that the guy
1) mistakenly signed the 911 petition
2) stated clearly he didn't agree with the statement on the petition.
3) Fox News did not portray these facts accurately
4) LV pointed out Fox News' bias.
Nowhere in this video do you demonstrate that any of this is incorrect. You simply assert it as being incorrect.
Your "bait and switch" accusation focuses on a minor side point, not the crux of LV's argument, and is a straw man.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Do you actually believe what you just said, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I hope it's the latter, because if not, you're the most gullible person on Earth. Only an idiot would believe that crap. By "idiot," I actually meant smart.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
I agree with HTWW on some issues, and even complimented in on another video in this series. I have also criticized LV.
The argument in this video is a stretch at best, and partisan hackery at worst. Just because people see thought the BS on YOUR side doesn't mean they are idiots from the OTHER side.
LV's point on this one is completely valid, and HTWW's "rebuttal" to it is ridiculous. The fact that you didn't address any POINTS clearly demonstrates that you're just being reactionary.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
What points did I not address? Clearly, LiberalViewer was distorting the facts like he does in almost all of his videos. Show me what facts I managed to skip over, please.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
You didn't address ANY points. You simply asserted that I was wrong, without explaining why. YOU are the one claiming I'm wrong. The onus is on YOU to show why that is the case.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I didn't directly address them to you, but my previous comments did address point three specifically. Read what I said below.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
Point number three in your comment is a lie. You don't even get it. Liberal Viewer debunked his own argument in the same video. His argument was that Fox did not present the facts about Van Jones correctly, and to prove what the facts really were, he used footage from another Fox News broadcast. Do I even have to explain to you how ridiculous that is?
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
That clip was NOT shown in the context of the ORIGINAL STATEMENT that LV is addressing, and even when the clip was shown, it was set up with the the bias that the information in the clip was inaccurate ("Still defending this guy").
Yes, please explain how "ridiculous" it is IN THE CONTEXT of the point he was making - that the original clip misled viewers by not showing it, and that Fox News is biased.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
What are you even talking about?
It is ridiculous. Will you use your brain for one second, please? You can't accuse Fox News in its entirety of being biased and then use a clip from another Fox News show as your reference for the truth. It's a contradiction. If he has any beef at all, it would've been with the anchor Megyn Kelly, not Fox News. Calling Fox biased, then showing video of Fox giving someone the air time to tell what LiberalViewer feels is the truth, is stupid and inaccurate.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
Megyn Kelly was the FOCUS of LV's video. THAT IS THE CONTEXT HERE.
Does bias have to do with WHAT is shown? OF COURSE IT DOES. Bias can ALSO be shown by HOW that information is presented.
If Fox News was NOT biased, they would have set up the clip with journalistic objectivity, and NOT by stating the CONCLUSIONS the audience should draw ("still defending this guy") prior to showing it rather than living by THEIR OWN MOTTO "We report, YOU decide".
How can you NOT see this?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Now you're distorting the facts. The purpose of the video was to demonstrate that Fox News (NOT Megyn Kelly) was "biased." If you read the last comment in the sidebar of LV's video, he even makes that clear. The entire premise of the video is debunked by the other Fox News clip that includes in the video.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
Megyn Kelly works for Fox News, and is a completely adequate example to use when attempting to show bias on a broader scale. This is ONE EXAMPLE in a broader argument. How would you propose that somebody demonstrate bias in a news organization without citing examples from specific commentators?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Here's one way you don't prove that bias of an individual news network. You don't point to somebody to prove that the network itself is biased and then use footage from the very SAME network in order to debunk claims from the first. What's so hard to understand? His assertion was that Fox News failed to present the facts. So he showed a second clip of Fox allowing the "facts" to be presented? What a joke.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
I understand what you're saying. I really do. You think that the original claim that Fox news didn't give the whole story is false because the information not shown in the first story was shown later. I get it.
However, I've explained this to you three times already. Why can't you understand the concept that CONTEXT is important? The clip was shown in a DIFFERENT CONTEXT. A context, which, by the way, ALSO demonstrates the bias.
LV did NOT try to hide this. You're grasping at straws.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Not in Fox News, though. If the network gives the facts, which they did, then that is not an example of Fox News leaving out the other sides argument. That would be an example of Megyn Kelly leaving out the other sides argument. Whether you want to accept it or not, there is a big difference between the two.
And what do you have to say about what Liberal Viewer did with Van Jones in claiming to know what Van Jones actually believes?
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
"Of course, I don't believe saying 9/11 was deliberately allowed to happen is justified, but of course, neither does Van Jones." - Liberal Viewer
Will you admit that this is a distortion or not? He did not say Van Jones claimed "blank" here. He was telling his audience what Van Jones "really" believes.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
She incorporated her own commentary into it. So what? As Liberal Viewer inadvertently proved, Fox News did present both sides of the argument, which is that Van Jones denied these things. I did not see her segment in its entirety, and I don't trust anything that Liberal Viewer puts forth, but even if she didn't mention Van Jones' denial, Liberal Viewers assertion about Fox News would still be wrong.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
Unlike you, I've actually took a couple classes and read a couple books on media studies.
You analyze media institutions based on many factors, the primary ones being what stories are shown and in what context.
In BOTH instances, bias is CLEARLY demonstrated, in one case by omitting critical information to understanding the story, and in the other by setting up a perceptual bias.
The only possible way you can not see this is if you already have the preconception that the claim is incorrect.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
And what does all of this have to do with anything? You asked me to demonstrate how Liberal Viewer has lied in this video. I've given you an example which you can not refute. He DID claim to know what Van Jones believes. Fact.
As for the video itself, his goal was to show that the network was biased. If anything, he showed Megyn's bias. The second clip demonstrates that Fox News did allow the other sides argument to be presented.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
"He DID claim to know what Van Jones believes. Fact. "
NO HE DIDN'T. He STATED what Van Jones SIGNED and what he later STATED, and CONTRASTED that with what Kelly CLAIMED his position was. Yes, it was one piece of evidence suggesting Kelly's bias, and is one example of many suggesting an overall bias of Fox news.
This is not about showing the "other side" of the argument. It is about the CONTEXT and FRAMING of the facts presented.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I posted what Liberal Viewer said verbatim. You can stop saying "he didn't" over and over. Read the quote. He did claim to know what Van Jones believes. You're in denial.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
I don't know what is worse, malicious intent to misrepresent facts, or willful blindness.
TheLegalImmigrant05 2 years ago
"Malicious" intent? I don't think LV is being any more "malicious" than HTWW. Yes, HTWW has demonstrated LV's bias in other videos, but HTWW has just as much bias as LV does, and the absurd stretch that he uses in this video shows that clearly.
Anyone who ISN'T a partisan reactionary can see this pretty clearly.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
No. HTWW wasn't trying to demonstrate his bias. He demonstrated the fact that he gives misinformation and distorts information in his videos. Everyone is biased. That isn't even the argument here.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
LV did NOT give anyone "misinformation" here. What piece of information was incorrect, let alone DELIBERATELY incorrect.
I have already stated that the "bait and switch" accusation was a stretch at best, as LV was speculating (and ADMITTED it was speculation, as he said "perhaps") about the MOTIVATIONS for not giving viewers a vital piece of information to understand the issue.
Name a SINGLE FACT LV got wrong.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
He claimed that Van Jones does not believe the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. That statement can't be proven; it's a lie. Like what Liberal Viewer did with Van Jones' statement, Van Jones CLAIMED that he mistakenly signed a petition that talked about the Bush officials deliberately allowing it to happen.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
"He claimed that Van Jones does not believe the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen."
No, he didn't. He correctly stated that WHAT HE SIGNED and WHAT HE SAID were BOTH different from what Fox News CLAIMED his position was.
He SIGNED a statement and CLAIMED he was mistaken, while Kelly CLAIMED that "he believed Bush...was BEHIND the attacks", which is unsubstantiated. You can't read minds. You can claim he's lying, but what you IMAGINE he believes is not a fact.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Wow, you're clueless. Watch the video. He states "I don't believe that saying Bush admin allowed 9/11 to happen is fair, and neither does Van Jones." So, yes, he did say that. What he did was claim to know what Van Jones does and does not believe. First off, you really can't do that in any situation, especially not when you have conflicting evidence (the signing of the petition).
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
OK, you got me. He is claiming to read Van Jone's mind to, which is a presumption that is JUST AS BAD as the one YOU are making ("it's a lie"), namely, that Van Jones does believe it.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Well, when I said that, I was referring to the statement that I just quoted (Liberal Viewer's). I personally believe Van Jones is lying, yes. But I'm not presenting my assumption to an audience as fact as Liberal Viewer did.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
* suspicion is probably a better word.
We're just going to keep going back and forth on this Kelly thing, so I'll let you have the last word on that. But I've proven my main point, which is that Liberal Viewer's video did contain distortions.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
...or as Kelly did, or the anchors who showed the clip of Howard Dean did.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
You can't read minds, correct, which is why Liberal Viewer was WRONG. He flat out claimed to know what Van Jones believes. He did NOT mention the word claim in that statement.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
Did you even watch the videos?
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Yes, I watched the videos, and argued for a little bit with OTHER people who have watched the videos. Only a partisan hack wouldn't understand my problem with HTWW's interpretation.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
So you're saying liberal viewer didn't distort facts and provide half truths?
zetsway5000 2 years ago
I keep asking what facts he distorted, and nobody seems to be able to answer. Kelly said that Jone's believed Bush was behind 911, which is not what he signed, nor what he said he believed.
LV simply pointed that out. His presentation was far more objective than HTWW's.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
No that is what he signed and that is what he believed since he signed it, stop making things up.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
So you're claiming that he is lying? Are you claiming that what he signed takes precedence over what he said, or are you claiming to read minds? I think a far more likely explanations was that Jones really was too lazy to read the petition he signed, but I don't read minds, so I can't attribute anything. All I can say is that signed one thing and said it was a mistake. This isn't about taking him at his world, it's about a news organization that nonobjectively asserted that he was lying.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Yes I'm claiming hes lying, the only reason hes trying to back out of his position is because the medias eye is on him.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
OK, so you're speculating, like Fox News did. That's fine. He might be lying, but I can't read his mind, neither can you, and neither can Fox News. We have two facts - what he said and what he signed. There is no "fact" here about what his actual position is. The closest thing we have is his stated position, which is clear.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
No' I'm not speculating lol, the guy isnt the average joe, he probably reads everything he signs. I dont believe for one second he wouldn't read something like a 911 truther movement petition before he signed it. Actions speak louder then words. If you believe an admitted communist czar I have a house in New Orleans I wish to sell you.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
So you're saying that he's too smart to have signed something he didn't completely agree with, but not smart enough to know Bush wasn't behind 911?
I think it's entirely plausible that his stupidity simply lied in signing something he didn't completely understand, but I'm not stating that. I'm stating facts, facts which simply do not point to your conclusion.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Well actually between you and me I'm the only one using facts to support my stance. He signed a 911 truther petition, that's fact. Saying he didn't read it or understand it is speculation.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
"He signed a 911 truther petition, that's fact."
Sure, but how can you trust him? If he would lie about being confused and not understanding the petition, he could lie about supporting it. What makes his signature any more more accurate or honest than his own words?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
Because he believes the government created AIDS to kill black people among other conspiracy theories. plus there are pictures of him wearing a 911 truther shirt showing the twin towers being destroyed and in yellow text on the shit "bush knew" as well as a well known 911 truther website on the shirt.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
A quick search didn't reveal anything. Care to post links?
somecomputergeek 2 years ago
I sent you link before you even posted your new comment. Check your inbox.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
He says allow right after you say he doesn't.
Keep these video's coming they hurt more than they help. Good job.
RobMailloux 2 years ago
Moron - He knows he said allow. Hence why he went in to detail to describe what "allow" would entail in this case. 1:18
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
Lee,
Despite the title, nowhere in this video do you show me distorting any facts, deliberately or otherwise. You can see a detailed description of your mistakes in this video on a webpage I created for that purpose at
tinyurl(.)com/HTWWMR3
Don't forget to remove the parentheses when pasting that address into your browser
I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding and
thanks for the video :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago 2
You meant "videos"....
Hey LibViewer is that a Doren hanging from your ballsack? You might need to get that looked at, I hear those spew puss when agitated.
EmpathyWorks 2 years ago
You basically debunked your previous argument with that link. According to you, if someone doesn't listen to you, that makes your beliefs fringe. Therefore, since (according to you) the Bush administration didn't act after being warned about Osama, the person that warned them could be classified as fringe.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
"Therefore, since (according to you) the Bush administration didn't act after being warned about Osama, the person that warned them could be classified as fringe."
So... whats wrong with what? If there was indeed someone warning he Bush administration about an imminent attack, and Bush thought he was a wacko idiot could we indeed call this person fringe?
evildude220 2 years ago
It wouldn't be an accurate statement, nor would calling Malkin "fringe" based simply on the fact that Republican leadership wasn't listening. As I pointed out to him, I could easily call LiberalViewer fringe for not seeing the facts as we do. This is not an appropriate way to determine whether or not someone is "fringe."
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
And another thing: After showing a clip of Megyn Kelly and claiming that this was a clear example of Fox News bias, you preceded to show another clip that "filled in the facts" you thought were missing from the first. And if I'm not mistaken, that second clip was from - yep - Fox News. You used statements made on one Fox show (which you accepted) to prove that Fox is biased based on another shows commentary. How stupid. A more accurate statement would be that Megyn is biased.
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
@realnarutoboy. "How stupid. A more accurate statement would be that Megyn is biased."
Indeed, but she is representing Fox news. Since she is just an anchor she probably gets a script from the producers.
If Fox news leaves out important facts for its viewers in one clip, it is not a redeeming factor if we find some correct statements on another potion of fox. LV could obviously tell the difference between the correct information and the incorrect information.
evildude220 2 years ago
1. It's stupid to try and make a point about someone's bias by accepting information from another show on the same network. 2. He statement was that Fox was bias, when in fact his beef was with Megyn Kelly and not Fox itself (they very network he later pointed to that allowed the "facts" to be presented).
realnarutoboy 2 years ago
LiberalViewer is cutting and pasting this very same comment into every "liberalViewer distortion". This is a pure propaganda tactic and very weak.
bush1tman 2 years ago
The Aug. 6th PBD?
LV really brought that up?.......What a joke!!!
AJAX556 2 years ago
come on lee, this video is a toss-up too, you make some good points, but liberalviewer does as well, i think he comes out on top. if van jones was a truther, he would make actions while in office to suggest that, as in reccomend more investigations. he never mentioned it.
willr91 2 years ago
Still, he signed something that suggested the government was behind 9/11 as a pretext to war. No politician in their right mind, even if they believed the government was behind it, would sign something like that. It's political suicide. Van Jones should look before he leaps.
CDubSD 2 years ago
HowWorldWorks, yah the 9/11 Conspiracy Queers do the bait and switch LibViewer does here often, it's usually the squishier conspiracy freaks that do it though, first they say Bush was involved in 9/11 or knew it beforehand, then when pressed they switch it to claiming he was just negligent in stopping the attacks. Lib Viewer switches from fantasy (Bush knew about 9/11) to reality (He got a memo detailing Alqaeda threats from the 90's, the title of which has given uninformeds orgasms for years)
RuflessRecords 2 years ago
laughing my ass off at "What would Allen, the ACLU lawyer want? Would have have supported the Patriot act?"
Keep your anti-liberalviewer videos coming!!
h2opolodan11 2 years ago 3
I am glad Van Jones is out. Good riddance. Now if we could just keep going and weed out those that need to go.
MissMaria10 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If Howtheworldworks had any relevancy in the grand scheme of things, the healthcare bill WOULD NOT have passed over this weekend.
Youre wasting your time Doren.
EmpathyWorks 2 years ago
you really think that bill will pass the senate then back through the house as it sits?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Passing a bill in the House of Representives ONLY, where you only need a simple majority, does not make a law. The Senate is the real test.
Read the constitution some time , dumb fuck.
bucjason 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I already have, unlike your buddy John Boehner who doesnt know his Constitution from his Denny's menu.
You republicans are in way over your heads...you wont have another presidency for at least another 12 years.
EmpathyWorks 2 years ago
I don't know how anyone can sit through LV's videos, merely the sound of his voice triggers my yawning reflex.
InterestingBoredom 2 years ago 5
....and they started the KKK as a means to control free blacks and enforce the democreat "Jim Crow Laws". Abolitionism was a republical ideal, and the civil rights bill that asserted full rights for all citizens was another republican bit of legislation, largely rejected by democrats, like Al Gore Sr. Monolithic black support for democrats is as disturbing as "Stockholm Syndrome"
Federalist306 2 years ago 3