mlsv2f

LETS TRY IT AGAIN SOMEWHERE ELSE, ITS BOUND TO WORK THIS TIME!!

^ Omitting material facts is still misleading and against the entire philosophy of the show

I don't think is even remotely comparable to frozen. Frozen is a childrens animated musical with cute snowmen and characters This is a film that masks itself as historical when in reality its completely false and portrays a violent murderer as a hero to society. The main character in the film wrote the autobiography himself and there is a lot to be said about him as mentioned above. Further, the movie makes the war seem just, it makes his actions seem just, or at least that is the goal. I know stef breifly discussed this, but I just have no idea why these facts and circumstances surrounding this movie were omitted in his review. If we are going to do a "truth about Ghandi or MLK, why not do a truth about this guy when discussing the film and doing a "philosophical review" I'm highly disappointed and feel like the show is starting to sell out in order to grow or avoid damage.

It made me rather upset to see this show go from a beacon of truth that it is, to producing that short podcast on it where we discussed the great acting instead of the reality of the situation. I understand Stef is a film/acting buff, and perhaps he just wanted to discuss it on terms of that, but I only know hes more thoughtful and intelligent than to breeze over the harsh details and underlying truth of the story by mistake. I expected a harsh discussion and I have noticed the shift in the show as of the past few months (calling the store owners the victim of Eric Garners voluntary trade was another one) The beauty of this show has been its relentless pursuit of calling out things for what they are, is the show going to change like this for the long term? Why bypass the entire book and its claims? Kyle claimed to be placed on top of the superdome and shooting looters in Katrina, there is no evidence to back this up Kyle claimed to have been the victim of an attempted mugging, but there is no evidence of that. Kyle was found in a court of law to have slandered the name of Jessie Ventura, why are these not discussed. This book is CLEARLY written by an egomaniac who wanted to make a name for himself, how is that left out?

There just seem to be many articles that slam millennials and many articles that slam baby boomers. I really started to notice this when I would read the comments sections and see the two groups going at it and it just reminded me the of the comments you would find in a race-baiting article or gender baiting article. This is just spit balling, but it seems like these age labels (gen X, Y, Boomers, ect) seem to have risen in the past century at the same time these other racial/gender/class based movements began.

Is it just me, but why did the segment on this obvious piece of propaganda seem so much like Stef was appealing to right wing viewers? I understand he is trying to grow the show, but it was not what the show used to be. Ryan Kyle was a lunatic who relished in killing people. He was sued in court for libel from his story telling. Many of his accounts have not been verified and its pretty obvious the guys goal from this book was to make himself in a mythological character. I think that needs to be addressed as a material misconception the movie was putting out. Although it mentioned that the movie was misleading in terms how the war was explained, it still seems like he was throwing softballs at the premise and effects the war had. The war was based on the "threat" Iraq posed to us from Nuclear Weapons, we made a case to the UN for this and were shot down. We illegally invaded Iraq and found no such weapons. We then made the case that the war was for humanitarian reasons, despite using chemical weapons, the death of 100K+ civilians, decades of war in the region, and generally leaving the place a worse place than it was to begin with. Why is this show not calling Kyle out for the lying sociopath that he is? I was expected Stef to be rather Harsh on the book and the people who are lubing themselves up after watching it. Is this just me or what?

Has anyone else noticed the trend in media that seems to rile up people against an older/younger generation? I feel like this is the new way (in addition to racial or gender bickering) to divide people further than seeing the government for what it is.

About the debt, I have heard the WW2 comparison as well 1. To pay down WW2 debt, they jacked up the tax rates from 1935 (Tax revenue was 5% of GDP, it become 20% and has remained there since) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 1a: Don't let them fool you with the "THE OLD HIGHEST BRACKET USED TO BE 90%", that was when you were making the present day equivalent of $50MM per year. Rates for 90% of Americans were 4 and 6% on federal income taxes then. 2.We went off the gold standard and have had a money printing party ever since. 3.There was a massive working force compared to the elderly due to the population demographics at the time (baby boomers), Now, and it seems to be like this is all western countries, the population is top heavy and there are drastically more older people to support for every worker. Conclusion: They had to increase tax revenues by 4 fold AND go on a massive printing party to pay down that debt, during the peak years of the baby boom to pay down that debt. Those options and circumstances are really not there for this situation.