i believe they try to cause civil unrest so they can impose martial law to finish us off.its more than obvious to me the leaders of this country are so controlled by the bankers and oil companies.what we need to do is start to listen to these people who claim they can generate power by other means than oil solar or wind.why is there no research money spent on using water for fuel or magnets for electric?overunity is possible and our energy should be next to free.this will free the people.
Thank you for inviting me to watch this. The facts here are garbled and unimportant to the general scope of the issues you talk about. The real lying was not form liberals. Many of your statistics are plain incorrect. Clinton was not a deficit spender. Please check up on facts. And you draw incorrect conclusions about many things. That being said the New York Times is the liberal Fox. Both are untrustworthy. Just check things up and script things out and you can make great videos.
I don't consider The New York Times particularly "liberal" where the war in Iraq is considered. In fact, with its erroneous/blaring frontpage articles on WMD in Iraq published in the run-up to the war, The NYT helped the Bush admin. mislead the nation into a stupid/immoral war. Also the NYT ignored/buried evidence which contradicted the Bushies claims about WMD. As bad, the Times almost completely ignored the Downing Street Memos that caused a sensation in the British press. blood on the NYT
Since you invited me to watch this I will give my honest opinion. You'd do a lot better if you tried scripting in advance. It'll help you stay focused on things that matter. It'll help prevent you from saying you're going to talk about the economy before going on a tangent insulting the presidential candidates and the New York Times.
The New York Times sold the Iraq war to the American people with false, unsubstantiated front-page articles about WMD in Iraq. Later the New York Times has to retract 7 major articles written about Iraq and WMD. They also were forced to fire the "star" reporter who wrote these frontpage articles.
I would agree, and I would think the malpractice of the New York Times would be well worth a rant. My point was that if you had scripted your video out in advance you could have recognized that you would spend less time talking about the economic state of the union than the New York times, and you might have started the video differently.
The general decline of journalism - mainstream electronic media and print media - in this country is part of the general decline and corruption of this nation. The corruption, incompetence and economic decline are all related and going hand in hand, in my humble opinion..
I could do a whole, complete rant on the decline of journalism in the U.S. - if I have the time...
Your video is insipid. You're over simplifying some pretty complicated issues. Don't talk down to your audience: everybody knows we have a national debt and you're not helping your case by wondering if young people are interested in following "abstractions." I assure you, we do.
Your You Tube channel is insipid. Further, you have not managed to make a single video of your own. Perhaps you are lazy, or perhaps you have no ideas... When you grow up, then you can comment on my videos.
One other recommendation: if I am over simplifying, THEN YOU make video with a detailed and complex analysis of the issues. And Everyone Can watch it!!!
Vote for a two-faced, hot-headed liar who is about as Republican as donkey wearing an elephant trunk
OR
Vote for a psychotic, emotionally unbalanced woman who is about as sincere as a rabid poodle
OR
Vote for a smooth-talking lawyer who has had less than 2 years of congressional experience, all the while hating our flag, our pledge, and even the name of our country
OR
Waste my vote on another candidate
The political groundhog predicts at least another 4 more years of bad policy!
Hum the Republicans started out with 9 (or 10?) candidates.
Hum, the Democrats started with 9 candidates.
You can bitch all you want about the candidates but they merely reflect what our society and our elites want. (The American people won't vote for less pretty candidates like Kucinich and Richardson - you have to be pretty to run for president. And they don't like voting for candidates with ideas - like Ron Paul or Kucinich; Americans don't like to think)
Obama was sworn in on Jan. 4 of 2005. I don't know this because I'm an Obama fan but because someone else made the exact same mistake on MSNBC a few nights ago. Anyway, he has 3 1/2 years of Senate experience.
But based on the over simplifications and outright falsehoods in all three of your summaries, I don't imagine accuracy is something you care too much about though.
This has been flagged as spam show
i believe they try to cause civil unrest so they can impose martial law to finish us off.its more than obvious to me the leaders of this country are so controlled by the bankers and oil companies.what we need to do is start to listen to these people who claim they can generate power by other means than oil solar or wind.why is there no research money spent on using water for fuel or magnets for electric?overunity is possible and our energy should be next to free.this will free the people.
ez3usx2 2 years ago
Thank you for inviting me to watch this. The facts here are garbled and unimportant to the general scope of the issues you talk about. The real lying was not form liberals. Many of your statistics are plain incorrect. Clinton was not a deficit spender. Please check up on facts. And you draw incorrect conclusions about many things. That being said the New York Times is the liberal Fox. Both are untrustworthy. Just check things up and script things out and you can make great videos.
gobsbsdvfas 3 years ago
I don't consider The New York Times particularly "liberal" where the war in Iraq is considered. In fact, with its erroneous/blaring frontpage articles on WMD in Iraq published in the run-up to the war, The NYT helped the Bush admin. mislead the nation into a stupid/immoral war. Also the NYT ignored/buried evidence which contradicted the Bushies claims about WMD. As bad, the Times almost completely ignored the Downing Street Memos that caused a sensation in the British press. blood on the NYT
Ralphdraw3 3 years ago
Since you invited me to watch this I will give my honest opinion. You'd do a lot better if you tried scripting in advance. It'll help you stay focused on things that matter. It'll help prevent you from saying you're going to talk about the economy before going on a tangent insulting the presidential candidates and the New York Times.
Jermbot15 3 years ago
The New York Times sold the Iraq war to the American people with false, unsubstantiated front-page articles about WMD in Iraq. Later the New York Times has to retract 7 major articles written about Iraq and WMD. They also were forced to fire the "star" reporter who wrote these frontpage articles.
I would call it journalistic malpractice...
Ralphdraw3 3 years ago
I would agree, and I would think the malpractice of the New York Times would be well worth a rant. My point was that if you had scripted your video out in advance you could have recognized that you would spend less time talking about the economic state of the union than the New York times, and you might have started the video differently.
Jermbot15 3 years ago
The general decline of journalism - mainstream electronic media and print media - in this country is part of the general decline and corruption of this nation. The corruption, incompetence and economic decline are all related and going hand in hand, in my humble opinion..
I could do a whole, complete rant on the decline of journalism in the U.S. - if I have the time...
Ralphdraw3 3 years ago
Your video is insipid. You're over simplifying some pretty complicated issues. Don't talk down to your audience: everybody knows we have a national debt and you're not helping your case by wondering if young people are interested in following "abstractions." I assure you, we do.
Do me a favor, don't send me anything again.
xaraphim 3 years ago
Your You Tube channel is insipid. Further, you have not managed to make a single video of your own. Perhaps you are lazy, or perhaps you have no ideas... When you grow up, then you can comment on my videos.
Ralphdraw3 3 years ago
One other recommendation: if I am over simplifying, THEN YOU make video with a detailed and complex analysis of the issues. And Everyone Can watch it!!!
Ralphdraw3 3 years ago
Hmmm...
Vote for a two-faced, hot-headed liar who is about as Republican as donkey wearing an elephant trunk
OR
Vote for a psychotic, emotionally unbalanced woman who is about as sincere as a rabid poodle
OR
Vote for a smooth-talking lawyer who has had less than 2 years of congressional experience, all the while hating our flag, our pledge, and even the name of our country
OR
Waste my vote on another candidate
The political groundhog predicts at least another 4 more years of bad policy!
nerdofthenight99 4 years ago
Hum the Republicans started out with 9 (or 10?) candidates.
Hum, the Democrats started with 9 candidates.
You can bitch all you want about the candidates but they merely reflect what our society and our elites want. (The American people won't vote for less pretty candidates like Kucinich and Richardson - you have to be pretty to run for president. And they don't like voting for candidates with ideas - like Ron Paul or Kucinich; Americans don't like to think)
Ralphdraw3 4 years ago
americans don't like to think...true
mangazon2000 3 years ago
Obama was sworn in on Jan. 4 of 2005. I don't know this because I'm an Obama fan but because someone else made the exact same mistake on MSNBC a few nights ago. Anyway, he has 3 1/2 years of Senate experience.
But based on the over simplifications and outright falsehoods in all three of your summaries, I don't imagine accuracy is something you care too much about though.
Jermbot15 3 years ago
Yes, you are too lazy to comment.. no vids...
got lost
Ralphdraw3 4 years ago