Comments by "justgivemethetruth" (@justgivemethetruth) on "The Real News Network" channel.

  1. 35
  2. 27
  3. 26
  4. 24
  5. 19
  6. 17
  7. 13
  8. 11
  9. 9
  10. 8
  11. 8
  12. 7
  13. 7
  14. 7
  15. 7
  16. 7
  17. 6
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. Russia is not really capitalist, but even if it was, what makes you think that all capitalist countries are the same or have the same agenda or can get along? Russia and the US increasingly diverge from the civilized principles of Western democratic tradition. Russia has never really been about Western society or economics, it has been about building a military structure to hold all its lands together ... that is more the same kind of thing the US has been doing, but in a different way. The US began to go off the rails after WWII when FDR had more or less the same agenda as the Western democracies. The rest of the West held the course with a partial socialist, partial capitalist democracy, while the US diverged into a military superpower, slowly corrupted by the secrecy, money and power inherent in the need for the military industrial complex. The US put all its energy into defense, offense, empire, and played a game of competition with Russia, and Russia at the same time. The US took on more than it ever could have done, and so bankrupted itself, as it claimed happened to Russia, only instead of going broken it just sold off its internal system, taking from its people, as China has done, but in a different way, while the same with Russia. All 3 systems have been on the edge of war because the military industrial complex in each system has taken over each system, but in slightly different ways, and they have all different mechanics of expansionism. This is complete idiocy, except that the US clings to its freedom to point to its superiority even as it is now the least free country in the West. The US relies now more on propaganda and coercion to keep people inline and working and paying their taxes, while it has no intention of balancing its budget by taxing the people with the money or the stake in its power.
    4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. He's right, and Thomas Frank's book Listen Liberal talks about this as well as some of his others - how totally money driven the government is, and especially the Democrats. What else could they do though, unless they were prepared to go full socialist, or whatever you would call this - because it would basically be taking money from taxes and funding government elections. I don't know if that would be good, or bad, or whether it would work or not, but it is a huge change, and how can you make a decision like that, or a change like that, against the basic American system that it is all about money? Clearly being driven by money has its "defects", in the same way that having government policy being driven by the average ignorant people would. At a time when we have a population that has some large percentage of people who support a criminal like Donald Trump, it tells us there is something not right or unworkable about pure democracy. We hear about going back the to Powell Memorandum, and that is a powerful argument, but how else can this would work? You have to prove it, and to prove it to a plurality to the people who run the country that it is a good idea - democracy and voter representation be damned. They are not going to listen, but there is also nothing to listen to. I mean, personally I find the argument that national universal health care will be much less expensive and much more effective, but how can a change like that be made? And the people we have on the side of the Left, like this gloomy looking guy with this thick propaganda and blues music with only poor black people marching? Not that I have anything against that, in fact I support it - but it is a good PR move to start all his shows like that, appealing only to poor black people, and behaving like race really is the issue with the implication that white people in general are to blame. Both Hedges and Kucinich make their livings off the backs of a certain political group that they will not alienate - same with the Republican, though the Republicans are pals with the people who really make money and the make the policies to back them up. I don't think in all Hedges life he has ever done anything to empower the "Left". They are placeholders in our political system that talk a certain way, but in the end divert the energy and discussions of the Left and Progressivism into dead ends while pretending to be Progressive. Are they incompetent or working against the Left in their own way?
    2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. What I am saying is that if you bother to listen to Hedges, and others, they are the ones that lack logic. Very similar to what happens on the Right, the icons of intellectually weak and ignorant people who don't understand the issues just follow those who have built up their trust based on "words and editorials" on non-related issues to an agenda that doesn't work. My logic would try to ask people - with the leaders we have on the so-called Left, what have they gotten done, and what do they have a prospect of getting done in the future if you listen to and follow their current rhetoric. You snap into defensive mode and start insulting me shows you are brainwashed with this reaction which is as unproductive as anything on the far Right. I would not be a bit surprised if Hedges, Chomsky and other "progressive" political icons were actually working in, for or with the far Right military industrial complex - because to me, all that matters are results. I've never seen any of these people actually working to brainstorm, discuss, plan and lobby in a reasonable way as a business organization would do to pursue its goals. They just show up to tell you pretty words, and sell their books, videos and collect speaking fees. When nothing gets done and the government moves more to the Right and these people don't do anything different, you should at least be willing to be critical and maintain an open mind. Does this sound like someone with an open mind?" >> you've decided to waste your life on peacocking, all feather & no fly. Whether I decide to invest the time to argue with you has no bearing on my critiques of Hedges or anything else. You have not demonstrated your ability to do anything but insult and task me with answering questions you will just disagree with.
    1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. One thing that comes to my mind every time I hear the term "Income Inequality" being used is the default mental framing that many people summon when they hear Income Inequality. The psychological framing is the networks that fire off that are close by in our brainspaces that affect how we then process a situation or argument. This framing is invented to spur argument and disagreement, to no useful end because it is ambiguous and emotional. Income Inequality , the term itself colors the frame of the argument in the opposite sense according to what is intended. In other words if we hear "income inequality" being mentioned by homeless guy outside of the super-market, I imagine that many Palo Altans would sigh and ignore it - which is part of the problem that has nothing to do with Income Inequality. In any case "Income Inequality" is an inexact term. The problem is not income it is justice and fairness. The problem is not inequality is it empowerment. Empowering people of their rights and realizing their Constitutional right to be free of exploitation, coercion, extortion, threats to survive and prosperity - especially which gets institutionalized into the system of government. The use of the term Income Inequality begets its own counter-argument as the opposing case always brings up the false argument of equal outcomes, which again is not what is intended. Defining a problem is more than half of the solution, but when a problem can be force-defined by repetition in the media, we even have more of a problem than Income Inequality.
    1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. There are a few things I learned growing up that strongly affected me at the time, but I got no indication that anyone else I knew or who was in my life or scope that it mattered to others in the least, or it was somehow quietly accepted. The Native American genocide ( I did not even know the word genocide as a young boy in school ).  Black slavery.  Then I heard about the Holocaust ( something that was not American finally ).  And then as a teen I began to hear about Vietnam, and not only that but that I might be forced by our government to participate in that conflict. How is that not enough to fuck up the minds and traumatize anyone in our society, whatever side of these issues you thought you were on, to know that instead of contemporary secular modernity we really lived in the past.  A past that included more war, thievery, sadism, rape, destruction ... more than is even imaginable. Then, living in CA I had the chance to meet people from Viet Nam when they emigrated to the US when their country was totally ruined. Given those milestones of monstrosity in history, if you pay attention and read you learn to fill in the blanks and come to some kind of understanding, or terms with the barbarism of the world, and the hypocrisy of the West ( because it is not just America, though we may have prevailed in power after WWII for various reasons ). Instead of the beacon of hope for the world, every evil, dictatorial or greedy actor in the world focused  on our country, came here to American, invested, grew their evil in a place that was historically just as evil or more - the new garden of the new fascism. So we have two Americas, the inchoate progressive state that Real News, Oliver Stone, Thomas Frank, and many other write about and hope for, and the hard reality of money and how it has been used as a bludgeon to make the USA the most hated and feared country, despite our leading visions and free speech for all the good stuff. I don't agree with a lot of what RNN says or editorializes on, I see the world as complex and in a pragmatic light, but RNNs videos and visions are important in terms of showing people another way to see things and facts they do not normally consider.
    1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1