Well lets just look at 1 of you girl Hillary at a town square meetings . -- For old time sake. Lets remissness how how her moral fiber and honesty is.

Lets see how fair and honest Hillary , the Media and the audience with questions are.



Please tell me that this Liar is a better choice.. how she represents something different politics, that she is not of the establishment that she will clean house if she got into office.

Remember the Poll: ‘Liar’ Tops List of 50 Words Americans Used to Describe Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/27/poll-liar-tops-list-of-50-words-americans-used-to-describe-hillary-clinton/





In the latest Quinnipiac poll, the pollsters asked a simple question of Americans: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Hillary Clinton?”
The survey included responses from 1,563 registered voters nationwide including 666 Republicans and 647 Democrats.

here are the top terms for our girl from this poll

liar 178
dishonest 123
untrustworthy 93
experience 82
strong 59
Bill 56
woman 47
smart 31
crook 21
untruthful 19
criminal 18
deceitful 18
Democrat 16
intelligent 15
email 14
politician 13
Benghazi 12
corrupt 12
crooked 11

And you still choose her?

@newtboy

"There is no publicly available PROOF that Trump himself colluded to steal the election....yet."

and when i see actual proof i shall adjust my opinion accordingly.

seymour hersh was the journalist who debunked and exposed the fabricated narrative of the assad regime using sarin gas against the syrian people.

that was in 2013.

and i think you need to differentiate between an institution and an individual.
there have been individual analysts who have come out and openly spoken against the current narratives being put forth by their respective intelligence institutions.

not trying to be a dick here,but i think you are painting with too broad a brush.

we actually agree FAR more than disagree.
the difference is i am demanding evidence not politically motivated speculation by agencies who have proven themselves to be extremely deceitful when it serves their interests.

and i refuse to recognize a corporate media outlet which puts profit above all else as a credible "news" source simply because it appeals to my dislike and disgust at our current sitting president.

james o'keefe is a slimeball,and breitbart a rag that appeals to the most base,and biased of us,but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

and to even attempt to give either any validity or credence is akin to accepting a big giant bowl of feces simply because it smells a tad less worse than the other.

still two bowls of shit to chose from....and i refuse both.

so when you say you disagree with me,you really don't.
you are just accepting that "less" smelly bowl of shit.

and hey,you may have chosen correctly,and it may all be true.
i will be the first to congratulate you on being right.

and then they will impeach trump,and then we all get to enjoy president mike pence.

now think on THAT little nugget for awhile.
good luck sleeping.....

Sorry, gotta disagree with you @enoch.
First, yes, America is guilty of interference in third world elections, but not so much in free elections.
Second, the level of interference in this election is unprecedented (EDIT: Including evidence the Russians tried to hack voting machines and virus many poll workers, and there's absolutely zero question which candidate they were trying to help).

Third, there is plenty of EVIDENCE his campaign colluded, they've admitted doing so after the election but before confirmation, and that at least he tried hard to hide that fact, and the fact that he has financial ties to them.
There is no publicly available PROOF that Trump himself colluded to steal the election....yet.

There is mounting proof that he has, since the election, at every turn, used the office for private financial gains from numerous foreign entities, which is totally illegal.

Does this translate to undeniable proof that he colluded to steal the election with a foreign enemy? Again, not yet, but the investigation is still in it's infancy, largely due to his interference in it and his stonewalling every legal question. It's far worse than just being a used car salesman abusing his power, it's the "leader of the free world" subverting the constitution for financial gains.

It was actually 17 agencies, and most of them were certain the evidence that Saddam had WMD's was suspect at best, and not credible....they said so, but were drowned out by the few agencies that went along with Bush's narrative...that has been shown fairly conclusively in the intervening years.

Again, I don't believe there was a joint statement about the gassing, that was again Trump's administration claiming certitude about Assad, not the intelligence community.

Not sure what you mean about Gadhafi, he did kill thousands, but again, I don't recall any joint public statement from the intelligence community.

In fact, I recall the joint statement being a first.

That doesn't mean they're right, just that your implication that they are so often wrong is a bit exaggerated and not factual as you wrote it....or at least as I read you.

Unfortunately, the evidence that would be proof is classified evidence...so we may NEVER see it without high level clearance of a bad leak. Not seeing it is no evidence at all that it doesn't exist, you should not be able to see it.

The term "deep state" is an Orwellian term meant to delegitimize ANYONE not in step with the current administration...just call them liberal holdovers and dismiss them...that's the idea...don't buy it. Most intelligence agents are non political....not all, but most.

CNN hasn't been pantsed IMO...they admitted what everyone knows, they are less about reporting important news than they are about ratings. That doesn't make their story wrong or fake, it makes it make sense that they ignore other actual news to talk incessantly about the one story that makes them money/ratings, even with no new information to share. Certainly that detracts from their value as a news source, but doesn't make them Breitbart willing to make up stories out of whole cloth and back them to the end.

Perhaps there's something there I'm missing since I won't watch a Breitbart story or give it a shred of credence, but not from what I've heard and seen elsewhere. I've not seen any evidence they made things up or lied, just that they are operating like a business rather than an independent news source.

@Fairbs

look at what i wrote.

i totally agree with you,and the mounting evidence that:

russian intelligence may have attempted to influence our elections,but name a first world country whose intelligence agencies do NOT try to influence elections,or unduly influence legislators to implement legislation favorable to their interests?

the argument isn't that russian intelligence did what every ..single..intelligence agency does on a global scale,with US intelligence agencies being the biggest offenders.

the narrative being shoved down our throats is that the trump campaign COLLUDED with russian intelligence to install trump as president,of which there is NO evidence..zero..zip..nada.

is there evidence that trump may (and let us be frank,most likely)have engaged in some suspicious and possibly illegal financial and business dealings with russia?

considering that no american financial institution will touch trump with a ten foot pole,and his global credit is in the shitter.also considering his blatant abuse of his son in law to garner financial loans from china with the promise of "presidential favoritism" (which is soooo fucking illegal).

i think it safe to say that trumps business and financial dealings with russia are,how shall i put this?
colorful and inventive?(and possibly illegal).

but does this translate to collusion to install trump as president?
nope..just a crooked car saleman abusing his status to broker deals with crooked russians.

you mentioned the 13 intelligence agencies.
do you mean the SAME agencies that were POSITIVE that saddam had WMD's?

the same agencies who were CERTAIN that assad had used sarin gas on civilians?

the very same agencies who were 100% proof positive that gadhafi had killed his own people?

THOSE agencies?

the very same agencies who are making the argument that russian intelligence colluded with the trump campaign and have not provided ONE lick of evidence besides:"trust us,we know".

sorry mate,you know i love ya,but i am gonna need some proof,because THOSE fuckers have lied to me more often than not.the term DEEP state is referring to the very agencies that have lied to us time and time again.

and i ain't buying it.

and for CNN to get pantsed in public by the likes of a slimeball such as james o'keefe and breibart..FUCKING BREITBART..they need to just walk out into traffic and end themselves.

not that i gave CNN much cred to begin with,but now they are just dead to me.a pimple on a syphillis infected rhinocerous's ballsack.

so much fail...but corporate bobbleheads do not experience shame,or guilt.

cuz they get paid to lie,obfuscate and gaslight you,and me.
despicable human beings...the lot of them.

The whole show was a lot higher quality. I was impressed by Breitbart EIC showing up. The interview went for a lot longer than normal too.

Jesus, fuck, if you are going to quote Breitbart in the first 10 seconds... at least I know where the video stands.

edit: learning to spell "first" =P

What do you think Hilary could have done that would have been so dangerous and insidious? Maybe I am lacking in imagination, but I actually can't think of anything that the Trump presidency hasn't already eclipsed. Travels bans, demonising the press, Russia, the EPA, Trumpcare... Like, I'm not 100% sure I would have voted at all if I could have, but yeah, I really struggle to see Hilary as more dangerous than a Prez who just regurgitates whatever he absorbed that morning reading Breitbart.

He missed it, Breitbart got the wire tap story from an unimpeachable source, infowars....meaning "Obama is making fish people" Alex Jones, together two of three sources Trump deems 'not fake news' the third being Fox and friends.....and random movies he mistakes for reality.

I love Vice News, it balances out the needless hours I spend reading Breitbart.

Where to start? You're provably wrong on every single point you made.

It's actually been made clear he mistook a political anti-immigrant interviewee and clips from their movie (already debunked, btw) he watched on Fox for a news report on crime in Sweden.

2016 Swedish crime surveys showed a stable crime rate over the last decade, no marked rise. This was just one of the falsehoods in the movie/interview, and a good example of why getting his "information" from Breitbart and Fox and discarding the intelligence community as political opponents is treason level incompetence.

The vast majority of voters don't, and didn't support him. He lost the election, bigly, he only won the electoral college.

There are so many reasons he's a disaster to talk about that we need every mouth available on the job. ;-)

How's this?
Milo fired/resigned from Breitbart for his pro-Pedophilia statements...specifically when he said it was not abuse when he had sex at 13 with adults, not for his defining the word. I don't believe for a second that this was his decision alone. If, as he claims, this is only about haters bringing him down, why did they wait, and why is he giving them what they want of his own accord? He's not, he was disgustingly wrong, he knows it, he apologized for the first time in his life because of HIS interpretation of his own words, and goes on to pretend it didn't happen and is just a witch hunt.



Bye Felicia

EDIT: Now disinvited from a conservative speaking engagement at CPAC....right wing censorship, they hate free speech and should have any funding they receive striped. ;-)

@radx and @enoch

radx said:
Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive.

enoch said:
i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

All of the outlets and authors listed above have been very thorough or exhaustive in documenting the evils of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). The length, depth and detail they have all given and time spent documenting any and every instance is almost breath taking. For a long time, I sort of sat closer to you both by looking at the merits of each instance and case weeding through which stories were accurate, which ones were complete, which ones were misleading or fair. Lots and lots of the coverage from those groups and individuals were very accurate.

Here's the counter balance though, how much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to any positive outcomes of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). How much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to the evils of any alternatives or opposing forces that would or did fill the voids were America isn't involved? It's crickets all around.

Chomsky's work alone could fill a library with the thorough documenting of America's evil corporate execution of class war on the workers of the world. How many books and documentaries can we count form the entire group that attempt anything similar for China, Russia, Middle Eastern nations, heck, the rest of the world combined?

I don't draw attention to this to point out that anything they have all observed is even wrong or incorrect. I draw attention to the glaring omission of similar documentation of alternatives. As it stands, a country like Russia couldn't dream of a better and more effective propaganda coup than the work of these groups and individuals. That doesn't in anyway say any of them are in allegiance with Russia, or even like anything about Russia. It still stands that even if Russia set out to discredit and smear America and leave itself looking clean, it couldn't pay people to do a better job of it. That's something worth considering and the deep, deep absence of balance and perspective that the listed sources represent is DAMAGING when taken in isolation.

Perhaps more pointedly, is the problem with Breitbart merely with it's fact checking department? They are, in as close as investigated them both, about on a Howard Zinn level for accuracy/honesty. None the less, it's the facts they willingly and knowingly leave out that makes them so damaging. The fact they fall right wing instead of left wing doesn't make their damage so much more appalling to me.

Congratulations! Your video, A Message to Breitbart from Weather.com, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 48 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on A Message to Breitbart from Weather.com has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, A Message to Breitbart from Weather.com, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.