jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Yes, yes I do. I'm glad you got it all figured out in your whole 2 months you've been here.
We are all suckers... how they must laugh at us.
- Thread starter MuyLocoNC
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
Let's just use a bit of logic here.... oh my.....you tube is NOT a source. It's a portal content holder, nothing more. The "credibility" of EACH video is independent from each other and from you tube. So saying that you tube isn't a credible source is missing the point. Each video should be judged on its own. Of course if you see one video by some guy and its trash, the rest can be tossed aside. But you tube isn't a source...it's a portal. They don't make the stuff.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
nice job break'n that down for everybody crackerjack
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
Now, that was impressive.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Oh my dear gosh. You missed the point completely. My problem is not with youtube - it's with VIDEO. As in, images. As in, NOT the written word. Anything that relies on visual images. Do you get it? Medium as a metaphor. Generally accepted theory since the 1990's. NYU was the first to publish extensively on this topic, largely due to Neil Postman. The idea that information takes the shape of the medium through which it's filtered and distributed is widely accepted in academia. Television producers and news editors know this. They manipulate this fact. They can take an intelligent individual and turn him to mush in no time. All it takes are visual images. Create a reliance on them, and the audience is yours. Puddy in the hands.
Do you understand? Medium as a metaphor.
CrackerJax
New Member
Yes, lord knows words can't be manipulated.....all of the scripts in those videos are....wait for it.... no...wait.....written down...gasp. So print is good, but the same print with visuals of someone saying the same words is bad and not credible as a source for you?
If I write an factoid on paper (the sky looks blue).... the factoid is better in print. The same factoid is then diminished if it is put into 30FPS. Same factoid.....(the sky looks blue). If I write it down without saying it....it's better?!
It's the information content....and knowing things get manipulated just means you have to counter it with general knowledge and common sense on the issue. You simply deal with it.... I usually have no idea when I click on a you tube if the piece is directed left right, or dead middle. I figure it out as I go. Then I crosscheck everything if I am interested. Of course it always comes down to numbers and money. It's a process but I assure you if employed you needn't live in fear of video information ever again....
So much for logic....
If I write an factoid on paper (the sky looks blue).... the factoid is better in print. The same factoid is then diminished if it is put into 30FPS. Same factoid.....(the sky looks blue). If I write it down without saying it....it's better?!
It's the information content....and knowing things get manipulated just means you have to counter it with general knowledge and common sense on the issue. You simply deal with it.... I usually have no idea when I click on a you tube if the piece is directed left right, or dead middle. I figure it out as I go. Then I crosscheck everything if I am interested. Of course it always comes down to numbers and money. It's a process but I assure you if employed you needn't live in fear of video information ever again....
So much for logic....
MisterMicro
Well-Known Member
Ya one of these millionairs i was working for, a friend of Albert Einstine might i add, agreed that Obama has alot of the charming skills that Hitler had. He said the Obama reminded him of Hitler basically.
UGH, if history teaches us anything its that Afghanistan cannot be taken. It has never been defeated. Alexander the great was only defeated in 1 region, care to guess which? The Soviet Union was utterly defeated even after a Decade of trying. Thats just 2 examples. I don't think we will ever be able to change that place unless we have complete and total annihilation of all life there. We need to get out IMO.
As far as the Economy goes, I will hope for the best and prepare for the worst, but I am getting more and more prepared every day. They aren't going to be selling any new cars for the next year, they carried all that production forward with the "cash for more debt I mean clunkers" program. Free money indeed, haha it amazes me that people actually think they are getting free anything. That program will save 4 hours worth of US fuel, a drop in the bucket for fuel savings. And they destroyed thousands of cars that could have still been used. Idiocy.
No stability, the trend is clear, the US dollar is losing more and more of its value every day, at some point it will tip, and then it will no longer be the reserve currency anymore and its value will be nothing. They are not going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.
How many enemies do we gather against us every day that we are killing and maiming the people in the middle east? All that will come from our presence there is revenge against us. If Iran had a Nuke it would not surprise me to see them use it against us or Israel.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
i get it
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
so what, this guy is authoritarian on the subject? why, because he's a milliionaire, or because he was Alberts's friend, or .. because you worked for 'm. you remind me of Hitler.
CrackerJax
New Member
I get it as well, it just doesn't make sense. Once you know it is happening...still helpless to figure it out?
Pictures are confusing to me.... argggh
Big P
Well-Known Member
ill break it down for you jr i cant let you stick your head in the sand on this one
air america a radio network for liberal thoughts has a liberal reporter on reporting that obama made a secret backroom deal with the drug companies for $80,000,000,000 that the drug companies would give the government in exchange for the promise that the government will not try to lower how much they charge of drugs which are way overpriced which cost you and your fellow american tax payers approx 3.6 Trillion!!!!!
then it flashes to obama at a speach during the election dissing the dude he made the above deal with!!! acting like he sucks, saying hes a crook and what not and drug prices were too hi and he would make sure they are lowered and that this overpriced drug shit needs to stop
then it flashes to another speech, and another where hes standing there lieing to the american people to thier faces
then after he gets elected he goes to that man the lobyist for the drug companies that he pretend to hate and talked bad about to the american people and gave him a sweatheart deal making it shit load more expensive for all of us to get our persciption drugs!!!!
my god man if I stole you wallet i bet you would defend me for stealing it too lol
you have lost all credibility with me, completely irrasional position and self harming, my poor grandma is gonna get hosed on her perscription drugs man, that is not cool at all, the guy is fucking us straight up the ass, but nooo thats not enough he wants to bust nuts in our face too
air america a radio network for liberal thoughts has a liberal reporter on reporting that obama made a secret backroom deal with the drug companies for $80,000,000,000 that the drug companies would give the government in exchange for the promise that the government will not try to lower how much they charge of drugs which are way overpriced which cost you and your fellow american tax payers approx 3.6 Trillion!!!!!
then it flashes to obama at a speach during the election dissing the dude he made the above deal with!!! acting like he sucks, saying hes a crook and what not and drug prices were too hi and he would make sure they are lowered and that this overpriced drug shit needs to stop
then it flashes to another speech, and another where hes standing there lieing to the american people to thier faces
then after he gets elected he goes to that man the lobyist for the drug companies that he pretend to hate and talked bad about to the american people and gave him a sweatheart deal making it shit load more expensive for all of us to get our persciption drugs!!!!
my god man if I stole you wallet i bet you would defend me for stealing it too lol
you have lost all credibility with me, completely irrasional position and self harming, my poor grandma is gonna get hosed on her perscription drugs man, that is not cool at all, the guy is fucking us straight up the ass, but nooo thats not enough he wants to bust nuts in our face too
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Ok Cracker, I'm going to give you what you've been craving for all these months. I'll feed the ego.I get it as well, it just doesn't make sense. Once you know it is happening...still helpless to figure it out?
Pictures are confusing to me.... argggh
You are right about everything. Again, you state that a commonly accepted idea among Ph.D.'s at major universities 'doesn't make sense', dismissing it completely without regard. And you must be right. You state that educated people are merely brainwashed zombies for the left, and you must be right. You claim that numbers control the whole world - every action, every consequence, and you're right. You're right about everything. Now will you please drop the arrogance. Do you really think you know it all? Do you really think you can dismiss every idea with your caustic sarcasm?
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Funny, I had to watch my grandma die a poor wretched woman because she spent over $300,000 on health care and prescription drugs in the last eight years of her life. Who was president? Whose policies forced her to overpay for every pill she took every day (and she took many)?ill break it down for you jr i cant let you stick your head in the sand on this one
air america a radio network for liberal thoughts has a liberal reporter on reporting that obama made a secret backroom deal with the drug companies for $80,000,000,000 that the drug companies would give the government in exchange for the promise that the government will not try to lower how much they charge of drugs which are way overpriced which cost you and your fellow american tax payers approx 3.6 Trillion!!!!!
then it flashes to obama at a speach during the election dissing the dude he made the above deal with!!! acting like he sucks, saying hes a crook and what not and drug prices were too hi and he would make sure they are lowered and that this overpriced drug shit needs to stop
then it flashes to another speech, and another where hes standing there lieing to the american people to thier faces
then after he gets elected he goes to that man the lobyist for the drug companies that he pretend to hate and talked bad about to the american people and gave him a sweatheart deal making it shit load more expensive for all of us to get our persciption drugs!!!!
my god man if I stole you wallet i bet you would defend me for stealing it too lol
you have lost all credibility with me, completely irrasional position and self harming, my poor grandma is gonna get hosed on her perscription drugs man, that is not cool at all, the guy is fucking us straight up the ass, but nooo thats not enough he wants to bust nuts in our face too
Every politician has fucked us in the ass. I'm used to it. When Bush fucked us in the ass, everyone lost but the rich. When Obama fucks us in the ass, more people will get basic health care.
And I couldn't care less about your perception of my credibility. If you want the honest to God truth, I'm going to a job tomorrow where I have TONS of credibility. I have tenure, write, publish, and teach. Now, I know what you're thinking. What an arrogant ass for flaunting this shit at me. Right? Well, when you bash someone's ethos day in, day out, eventually a guy will call you out for it. You challenged my ethos, but according to most people's standards, yours wouldn't stand a chance. So if you insist on playing the penis-measuring game, then you lose. But continue with the futile ego exercise. It's entertaining - and you inspire me in the classroom. I'm better at killing poisonous anti-intellectuals because of my verbal spars with you. It really does help.
Anjinsan
Well-Known Member
I for one WANT liberal minded people to stand up for their man. No flip flopping...ride him all the way to the end. Most conservatives WANT the liberal love for Obama to pour like fountains...you are all tied to a 1 term President who is sinking like a rock. And no we didn't like Bush...find a new dead horse to beat.
Fact of the matter is Grammie got fucked because she was on a government program...right? Or was Grammie THE ONE who received nothing from medicare. So the answer is MORE government healthcare intervention? Ok. What happens if you GET your government health care? What happens if you win? Have you even considered that? Victory? Consider it...you win...but the next wave of government is all hardcore pro-business. (or whomever you fear the most) Your new government takeover of healthcare is now run by people who (iyo) are distainful of the populace you love.
What will your nationalized healthcare turn into then? Complete government control...coupled with politicians with an apathetic at best (iyo) attitude towards the poor.
You have given the keys to even more people's well being to a government that can change sometimes radically every few years...
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
You're assuming that because Obama *claims* to be liberal in his politics, that it must be true. What you're forgetting is that he's a liar. He says one thing, but does another. Soooo, he says he's liberal. Big deal! I can say I'm the easter bunny, doesn't make it true.
Obama is NOT *our* guy. Just because he says he's liberal, doesn't mean we should stand behind him and support him blindly. We're not ALL idiots, you know.
CrackerJax
New Member
It has to do with logic. You can't work your way to the truth if it isn't written down? So no radio....no tv....all mediums are manipulated but print? Please be serious.....print was the very first thing to be manipulated. It may work along different lines, but the manipulation is still there.
Big P
Well-Known Member
actually my friend its not about measureing dicks, cuz you have no idea who I am and what I do.
while your sitting in your classroom yapping away I am in the real world working in 8 differnet countries and providing countless revenues for the american government through taxes all through my own blood sweat and tears. the rest of the information about this I cannot state due to confidenciality as this is a dangerous place to discuss personal accomplishments
for your info it was your hated george w bush who created the perscription drug program. it is only for the needy so if your granda qualified she could have gotten her perscrition drugs for next to nothing. if she was doing well then she had here own health insuarnce to cover most of the costs. as I do
it was bush who made it easyer on her to get her drugs.
Obama, is telling you that he is making drugs cheaper but secretly is he is making deals to make them more expensive.
but you would never want to publish that now would you
so what does that make you?
Implicent in the Obama deception.
now tell me am I lieing?
fuck look what just hit the fucking press!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
im gonna blow my head off, if sombody does not stop this shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in
Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which
permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as
I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Welcome to the Fourth Rieck I wonder if your publications will be the next on the chopping block, or wait I bet you would be cool with that too