>> ^bcglorf: It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!
Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.
1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.
2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.
3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.
The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.




I didn't dismiss anything. Earlier in the thread, I made a dig at mainstream media in general when ali wanted an "unbiased" source. I've posted links from Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, so you're not making any fucking sense.
And as far as "Assad's regime's media outlets", I have no idea what you're talking about.

In wars and armed conflicts you never know all the facts. You shouldn't accept any report from any news source at face value unless you can corroborate it with other sources. Even then you're likely only getting part of the truth. Al Jazerra repeatably makes disclaimers in this video that they don't know the facts.

Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin and given the fact that Qatar is openly supporting NATO in Libya, they are clearly going to be biased when reporting on Syria. There's little credibility to anything they choose to broadcast on the subject.

There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? I also remember first hearing about civilians being killed by snipers that were part of Assad's "secret police". So I guess it could be Assad's men, but why would he use covert police AND the military? Doesn't make any sense. The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. They're probably even doing it behind the backs of the activists they recruited and organized to protest.

But even if it is Assad that's gunning down civilians, it's not our fight. It's an internal conflict. Aiding one side or the other only brings about wider conflict with more fighting and more death.

Are these also Assad's forces shooting indiscriminately from inside this car?

Wait, wait, wait.

This guy is discharged. Then, after he's out of the armed forces, he does something or other to piss off the military. So they waste god knows how much government money to hold a trial to retroactively change what they call the conditions of his discharge?

You're fucking with me, right?>> ^d3n4l1:

Here is a little education about the borderless idiot running the show:
"Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.[3] In 2004, he served in Fallujah.[4] Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq.[5] He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004,[3] violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.[5] Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"[5] Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty.[6]
...
After his discharge, and during a March 19, 2007, protest he attended, Kokesh was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR);[5] a superior officer identified him in a photo caption in the Washington Post.[7] On "March 29, a Marine major sent him an e-mail to tell him he was being investigated for misconduct by appearing at a political event in uniform. Kokesh responded, telling the major what he thought" and used an expletive in his reply, resulting in an additional misconduct charge.[5] The charges were "brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members", confusing some veterans and lawyers.[5]
[edit] Hearing
In May 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation.[8][9] The panel recommended Kokesh be given a "general discharge under honorable conditions",[10] a discharge status below "honorable", and above "other than honorable".[11] Kokesh appealed the decision, and was denied."
Would the soldiers at Valley Forge appreciate your "victims" cries of "Foul" [language]?

Here is a little education about the borderless idiot running the show:

"Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.[3] In 2004, he served in Fallujah.[4] Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq.[5] He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004,[3] violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.[5] Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"[5] Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty.[6]

...

After his discharge, and during a March 19, 2007, protest he attended, Kokesh was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR);[5] a superior officer identified him in a photo caption in the Washington Post.[7] On "March 29, a Marine major sent him an e-mail to tell him he was being investigated for misconduct by appearing at a political event in uniform. Kokesh responded, telling the major what he thought" and used an expletive in his reply, resulting in an additional misconduct charge.[5] The charges were "brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members", confusing some veterans and lawyers.[5]
[edit] Hearing

In May 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation.[8][9] The panel recommended Kokesh be given a "general discharge under honorable conditions",[10] a discharge status below "honorable", and above "other than honorable".[11] Kokesh appealed the decision, and was denied."

Would the soldiers at Valley Forge appreciate your "victims" cries of "Foul" [language]?

From wikipedia:

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.[105][106] In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.[107][108] Battley told the Washington Post in 1984, "He can say that we had been talking about [a divorce] for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise ... He's a great wordsmith ... He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery ..." [109] Gingrich has disputed that account.[88] In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer), and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.[110]

Gingrich has two daughters from his first marriage. Kathy Gingrich Lubbers is president of Gingrich Communications,[111] and Jackie Gingrich Cushman is an author, whose books include 5 Principles for a Successful Life, co-authored with Newt Gingrich.[112]

Six months after the divorce from Battley was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther in 1981.[113][114][115][116]

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal, when Gingrich became a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with his alleged affairs.[117] In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther. He and Callista currently live in McLean, Virginia.[118]

In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying, "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."[115][116]

Staggering that this serial adulterer and hypocrite of the first degree is STILL doing the "Return to Family Values" schtick and equating religion with morality.

well, ant posted this: http://videosift.com/video/Osama-bin-Laden-seen-watching-himself

I can't exactly prove that the Bin Laden killing is full of crap, but I can piss people off who believe the government.

BTW, remember, the washington post came up with this news, not any conspiracy website

Appreciate the context, Guy. Can you provide a direct link to the story? Thanks!

>> ^GuyNumberOne:

I am in no way condoning what happened here, however as a resident of Orange County I was appalled enough to look into the backstory, as the protest simply seemed far too hateful given the amount of support it had.
From the Washington Post:
"In an e-mailed statement, (U.S. Rep. Ed) Royce said he was angered by the presence of two keynote speakers at the event. Imam Siraj Wahhaj was named with169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement. And Amir Abdel Malik Ali spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010 where he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group."
Again, I think this is disgusting, but the choice of keynote speakers seems odd given the purpose of the fundraiser.

I am in no way condoning what happened here, however as a resident of Orange County I was appalled enough to look into the backstory, as the protest simply seemed far too hateful given the amount of support it had.

From the Washington Post:

"In an e-mailed statement, (U.S. Rep. Ed) Royce said he was angered by the presence of two keynote speakers at the event. Imam Siraj Wahhaj was named with169 others as co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though Wahhaj was never charged and has denied involvement. And Amir Abdel Malik Ali spoke at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at UC Irvine in 2010 where he said he supports Hezbollah, which the CIA labels a terrorist group."

Again, I think this is disgusting, but the choice of keynote speakers seems odd given the purpose of the fundraiser.

Main stream media outlets like these, you mean?

The Washington Post
The New York Times
Forbes
Forbes 2
USA Today
Wired News
>> ^Xaielao:

Why is the main stream media ignoring all of this information? This is a huge news story!

Paul Krugman in the NYT:

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P. And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger… the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.” So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders

So here's Goolsbee on the original plan.

Here's the Washington Post with an updated graphic on the Obama "compromise" plan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/12/08/GR2010120807047.html

*promote

For many individuals, like Indiana Jones, snakes are crawling creatures of nightmare. What do the afraid do with flying snakes, then? Hand them over to the "Flying snakes fascinate DARPA" Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for research. You will find flying snakes in southeast Asia. The Chrysopelea ornata (ornate flying snake) might just have armed service application. The tree-dwelling serpent typically grows 2 to three feet long and can glide long distances. Based on the Washington Post, it's this gliding ability that has prompted Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to throw money at Virginia Tech so that scientists can decode this secret of nature.

@dystopianfuturetoday, I think that what's being said here is true also, but that's because it's a logical inference from the facts that no one's really disputing, not because Russia Today is so credible I need not question anything they say.

For example, we recently had this shoot up the charts, where RT had on a propagandist from Reason to basically say that Prop 19 is going to fail because Obama's DOJ is engaging in "voter intimidation" because it truthfully stated that states don't have the power to nullify federal law.

As for better sources on the campaign finance problem, here's a number of articles in mainstream press to paint the picture:

Washington Post - Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret
The Economist - Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain
The New York Times - Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign
The New York Times - John Roberts's America
NPR - 'Independent' Groups Behind Ads Not So Independent

So it's more than a gut feeling on my part that this is true, but again, that's because a) it's a reasonable deduction from the facts, and b) lots of people I respect, both inside mainstream press and outside it are saying the same thing.

But the fact that Russia Today decided to say it too doesn't mean they are some sort of unbiased source. On the contrary, I believe they're only giving it airtime because their bias drives them to promote stories like this.

There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you

Well with a rational argument like that, you’re fully qualified to be a journalist for the Washington Post. Send in your application today while it still exists.

Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.

A person such as yourself looks at the vast swathe of center/left to hard/left media and thinks, “nothing wrong here…” From this radical position, any news story that doesn’t hew to a leftist ideology offends you. So when a news outlet is actually 'fair and balanced’ your radical-left blinders force you to see it as being ‘right wing neocon'. You say the media isn’t liberal. Facts dismiss your opinion as incorrect and confirm my statements as accurate.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

using another unrepresentative quote?

Unrepresentative? No. Totally representative. And know what? IMMA DOIN' IT AGAIN!

You said “I’m sure there’ll be sufficient oversight” and then made a few unsupported opinions related to this naïve assumption. There is no need to triple down in the repetition. It was a bunch of non-factual opinions based assumptions which deny reality and precedent. Every specious opinion about “sufficient oversight” was also made regarding the tobacco settlement. The bulk of that never reached the ‘victims’. Same for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and even the vaunted 9/11 Victim's Fund can't account for hundreds of millions of lost dollars. This'll be no different.

Apparently it won't be controlled by the government either, and both BP and Obama are saying "[t]his fund does not supersede either individuals' rights or states' rights to present claims in court."

1. Putting the fund under his pay czar is putting it ‘under the government’. 2. You can’t trust anything Obama says as far as you could throw a tar-soaked dolphin. 3. !I! was the one that said people can sue anyway. That’s the point. If people can sue, then let them go to the courts. That’s where this belongs. We shouldn't get into the BAD habit of creating government slush funds for every event that comes down the pike. That will just repeat the "failed policies of the past".

Oh - and just so you know - I won't get my knickers in a knot if you just use 'pull quotes' from my massive texts. That's common practice for brevity - nothing sinister. It would be a truly silly goofball who would take umbrage to that...

Can't find a replacement. Here's the transcript in case some lonely wanderer wonders what this video was about:

Oct 14, 2008
"MADDOW: Coming up, Academy Award-winning director, Oliver Stone, joins us here in the studio to talk about his new film “W” or “double-u” if you‘re one of those east coast media elitists. Hopefully, I can persuade Mr. Stone to share his opinions about the life and career of President George W. Bush, but you know how shy Mr. Stone is. I will do what I can.

First though, it‘s time for a few underreported holy mackerel stories in today‘s news. Ready for the first one? Quote, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.” What? Huh? What I said was, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.”

Does that make any sense to you? Yes, me neither. And neither did it make sense to the judge, the military officers, or lawyers working one of the tribunals at Guantanamo recently, when an American paid Arabic translator dictated to them that nonsense sentence, as if it made sense in English.

Does the phrase “lost in translation” spring to mind? Five key defendants charged in conjunction with 9/11 are moving towards jury trials. The U.S. military lawyers assigned to defend them say that translation services have been done so on the cheap that they estimate about half of what a defendant stated in the hearing room was mistranslated and a ¼ of what was said in English in the courtroom never made it back to the defendant. There are standards for these sorts of things, you know, at, say, federal courts or the international criminal courts but at Guantanamo, apparently? Not so much.

Remember the case there about Osama bin Laden‘s alleged driver? That actual phrase, “bin Laden‘s driver” was repeatedly translated as “bin Laden‘s lawyer.” What‘s the difference?

And time is running out for American troops to be in Iraq legally. The United Nation‘s mandate that allows our troops to be there expires at the end of this year. What happens when that mandate expires? Well, the Bush administration has long expressed confidence that the Iraqi government and the White House could sign a status-of-forces agreement—a country-to-country, one-on-one plan for keeping our troops there.

But after months of a stalemate and trying to reach such an agreement, one of the Iraqi vice presidents this week finally said that he doesn‘t think it‘s going to happen in time. So, that means after December 31st, it will be illegal for American troops to be on Iraqi streets.

Karen DeYoung from “The Washington Post” reports today that American officials are looking for a plan B if the status-of-forces negotiations really don‘t work out. What is plan B? Apparently, the Bush administration might try to get that U.N. mandate extended. That would require a vote in the U.N. Security Council where Russia holds a veto and Russia, you may recall, would just love an opportunity like that to shove us our locker and steal our lunch money.

So that makes me think “B” in that plan stands for “bad,” as in if that‘s your only plan, that‘s a bad plan. Karen DeYoung suggests that a few other plan Bs might be in the works as well, though Plan B-1 - I guess we‘d call it. A plan B-1 would be, quote, “a simple handshake agreement between Bush and the Iraqi prime minister to keep troops around until the next president takes over and starts negotiating again.”

A handshake deal? You would ride 150,000 American lives on a handshake deal? Maybe I could suggest a plan C, “C” as in “see you.” If the Iraqi government doesn‘t want us to stay enough to sign a deal for to us stay, how about we leave?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

This alone should be enough to prove the farce of our current system of governance.

I would wager judging by the chart posted by ABC-Washington Post. That the SCOTUS ruling is in direct opposition to the majority of the US people.