Since it won't load, I can't say, but they seem to admit it's just a single person's claim in the title, so that's NOT fake news, just news of a false claim.

EDIT: You stinking dirty lying bastard...I tried it again, and it tried to install a virus. Good thing I have Norton that caught and blocked it. ABC news is not hosted on a .co site, so it's not right from ABC news. Don't post links to virus infected sites, and claim they are well known American news sites.

Reporting that someone made a claim, even a false one, is not fake news....claiming the false claim is true (pizzagate) is fake news.

If there are others, why don't you show them? How about others that aren't just virus hosting sites...not that I'll trust ANY link you post now...you lied.

I wouldn't care if my DNA was 80% German or any other country, because I was born and raised in the USA, I'm an American and that will ALWAYS come first. Your allegiance lies with what you BELIEVE in, not with what's in your DNA. If you lie down and let your genes tell you how to act, then you'll lie down for just about anything.

@asynchronice @Engels
this is opinion that just happens to be on RT.
the opinion is coming from chris hedges,a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent for 20 years for the NYT.who has been extremely vocal in his criticism of american neoliberal policies.

he also has a show on RT called "on contact".

as always,the answer is discernment,and for that to happen there has to be a basic understanding of what propaganda actually is,and to dismiss hedges analysis simply due to the venue,is intellectually dishonest.

example:
it has been known for years that FOX news is a meme machine,a message of the day producer of misinformation and obfuscation.

does this mean that every story FOX covers is false? or manipulated?

of course not.

conversely,does this mean that every story RT posts should be taken at face value?

again,the same calculus applies.

i find that when RT deals with the russian state,and stories regarding putin,they tend to lean towards state "message of the day",but when they cover stories that are critical of american foreign policy,they tend to source and back their conclusions in a solid journalistic manner.

in regards to the washington post and their latest appeals to power and influence,is just a symptom of a much larger problem.

if you recall back in 2003.when the bush administration was pushing for an invasion of iraq,the washington posts editorial board was possibly the biggest cheerleader.they outshine even the new york times in their desire to please their masters in the white house and pentagon,and because at that time print news still had credibility and washpo was,indeed,considered a beacon of stellar journalism (remember watergate?).they almost single handedly handed the war powers to president bush to execute an illegal war,based on lies.

so in my opinion,the washington post last it's credibility over a decade ago.this is also a main,driving factor why i abandoned corporate news media.

i prefer independent news outlets.the very same outlets that washpo,and their un-sourced propornot,targeted.

lie to me once...shame on you.
lie to me twice..shame on me.

When you really think about it, this is insane. I've read all the discussion and everyone seems to agree that there is no justification possible. There's not even room for confusion or panic or any irrational emotion here.

In my opinion, anyone deciding to shoot on the basis of the conversation that took place was doing so deliberately, knowing that it was not legal or appropriate.

So did he do this in retaliation to the attack on police, or would he have done this anyway?

And was the man left bleeding on the ground for fifteen minutes in the hope that he would die? And therefore leave no mentally sound witnesses available for the hearing - they did not know of the recording at the time?

Once a person is in your custody, their life is in your care. You have a duty to protect them and provide them with appropriate assistance. It should be the number one priority of any person present, once the subject(s) have been controlled, to offer immediate medical assistance regardless of their prior behaviour.

Could you imagine being the person with blood pouring from your leg, not allowed to stand up, stood over by three people walking around and radioing around ignoring your cries of pain and/or cries for help? You have no idea if you're going to bleed out, you only know that these people are refusing to help as you lie there possibly dying.

Think of that for a minute. They didn't know the extent of the damage..... they stood impassive as a man potentially died in front of them.

Even scarier? How many times has this happened in the past?

Unless clear action is taken by authorities or government, this is a time bomb waiting to go off. You can't have state sponsored ethnic cleansing without expecting a backlash - you can't expect a people to allow themselves to be killed.

What I think newtboy is saying is that, at some point, this turns into a justified resistance to an oppressive and violent regime... and describing them as thugs or anarchists becomes state propaganda. And who is anyone to decide when that time has come but those who have most to fear? Let's hope there is still time to fix this problem without further violence.

I really don't have a problem with it, provided all parties are consenting.

It's funny, Stephen Fry was talking about this on a QI rerun I watched last night.

If you're a man and you have a wife and family, and you lie to your wife, have a mistress and maybe even some kids with her that's perfectly legal. But if you're honest and say to both women "you're both lovely, I'd like to marry you both", if they agree, you go to jail!

The key is genuine consent:
All parties must be fully aware and capable of making the decision. Therefore, all are adults, there's no coercion, all are free to back out at any time, etc.

But yeah, if that's all good, go nuts.

I understand that, but criminals are not usually acting criminal 100% of the time either, yet they are treated as if they are by police, prosecuted and imprisoned, and ostracized and 'dehumanized' after release by having most of their rights as a citizen removed. It seems that the reality is that we act like once you've committed (or are convicted of) a crime, you ARE a 'criminal' 100% of the time. If it's proper to do that to ordinary citizens because of temporary criminal activity, why not police?
OR...a murderer doesn't murder most of the time, that doesn't mean it should be ignored when they do...especially not because of their 'job'. If a cop is crooked once, he's a crooked cop. Period. (to me)
To your second point, that illustrates my original point exactly. If they (or you) believe it's proper to lie 'in the furtherance of their duties', why on earth would any reasonable person think that would stop on the stand? Since it's unreasonable to believe they would lie right up to that point, but not on the stand, one can not trust anything an officer says on the stand. That's going to be my position until it's made illegal for them to lie to a citizen, at any time. Even then, it's going to take a while for the 'culture' of lying to change.
EDIT: In your example, of finding severed heads in a trunk, you seem to imply that you think it would be the right thing to do to 'placate the judge' by committing the crime of perjury and saying it was a legal search even if it wasn't...If so, why should your testimony ever be given any weight if you think it's OK to just lie in court? If I misunderstood, forgive me.

You say you and your local force doesn't act this way, but I would ask...do/have you lied to/intentionally misled 'suspects' in order to get them to admit what they did? If so, I'm afraid I see you as part of the problem.
I fully agree with you on one thing, I feel this 'culture' trickles down from the top.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gay-waitress-who-publicized-homophobic-note-is-habitual-liar-according-to-friends/

My best friend in 9th grade was a compulsive liar -- my mom tried to warn me but it wasn't until she told a lie that was easily proven false that I confronted her. Why would you lie to me, I asked. "I just wanted to say something interesting."

This woman seems to have that same pathological problem, and found a way to profit from it, too. When I first saw this story, I thought it was false -- something about it didn't ring true. Too copycat, with the whole Wounded Warrior veneer to boot.

I suspect she is perfectly okay with being exposed -- because if she wants to be "interesting", even at the expense of interpersonal relationships, man, has she ever reached her goal.

Glad to see that there was only one dude in this whole video who laughs at the failers face and not to the fail itself. It ruins a lot of fail videos, you the type: you lie down in agony and he comes and laughs 10cm from your face, the laughter is not genuine joy but meant to hurt. I have never understood the reason why and it makes my blood boil. In this compilation you can find the douchebag at the end ~7:00 (at least it starts genuine but then.. you'll see what i mean.)

Here's Richard's facebook post for reference:

Richard Neill to Bodyform 8 October at 21:30 via Mobile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----
Hi , as a man I must ask why you have lied to us for all these years . As a child I watched your advertisements with interest as to how at this wonderful time of the month that the female gets to enjoy so many things ,I felt a little jealous. I mean bike riding , rollercoasters, dancing, parachuting, why couldn't I get to enjoy this time of joy and 'blue water' and wings !! Dam my penis!! Then I got a girlfriend, was so happy and couldn't wait for this joyous adventurous time of the month to happen .....you lied !! There was no joy , no extreme sports , no blue water spilling over wings and no rocking soundtrack oh no no no. Instead I had to fight against every male urge I had to resist screaming wooaaahhhhh bodddyyyyyyfooorrrmmm bodyformed for youuuuuuu as my lady changed from the loving , gentle, normal skin coloured lady to the little girl from the exorcist with added venom and extra 360 degree head spin. Thanks for setting me up for a fall bodyform , you crafty bugger

I didn't see anyone killed in a sadistically funny way. You lied!

This reminds me of the photo of Jan Brewer poking her finger at the President or the "You Lie" incident during the State of the Union -- and something tells me that such things wouldn't happen if the President wasn't black.

I am aware. Did you notice I responded to some of your points in it like accusing me of not watching the right wing hitjob video?

The rest I didn't bother responding to. But after second thought, I'll respond to the question of whether Obama is extreme to the left or not. And this is a really easy one...

Name a single thing Obama has done that's honestly extreme to the left. An actual policy. I'm not talking a moderate-left policy. Raising taxes on the top income earners from 35-38% wouldn't be an extreme left idea. It's moving the dial a notch or two to the left. If he proposed raising it to 50%, that would be a hard left move.

See, I don't really care if *some* of Obama's appointments are far to the left. I care about policies proposed or enacted.

Yet another thing I get irritated about - characterizing someone you don't like as a political caricature to the extreme side of that political direction. Don't like George W. Bush? Paint him as a Nazi because he's more to the right than you. Don't like Obama? Paint him as a godless communist because he's to the left of you. Of course the extremes in the parties complain their own guys aren't conservative/liberal enough. This way, nobody is happy, and everyone complains about how crappy our gov't is!

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^heropsycho:
For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.
Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...
Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.
It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.
I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!
Here's the difference:
If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.
I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!
I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.


You responded to the wrong post. You can find the one where I replied to you here:
http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Wan
t-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1458730

>> ^heropsycho:

For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.
Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...
Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.
It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.
I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!
Here's the difference:
If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.
I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!
I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.



You responded to the wrong post. You can find the one where I replied to you here:

http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Want-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1458730

For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.

Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...

Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.

It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.

I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!

Here's the difference:

If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.

I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!

I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.