yes. yes you are.

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

Yes. Yes it is.
World's youngest billionaire and she's going to be the banner child for class warfare.

Yes, Yes, Yes.

Yes. yes they were.

Yes...yes we did... we got sooo drunk that night, I don't remember much. I was hitting the bottle and then suddenly trump is president.

@bobknight33
how the holy FUCK did you see this as a democrat fucking over blacks issue?

this is about classism,this is about racism,this is about rich vs poor.

now 50 or 60 years ago,maybe you could have made that case..ah..who am i kidding,republicans were racist as FUCK back than,and they had no shame about it!

though they do like to trot out lincoln,and the little party that could,that DID pass some legislation that any american can look back and go "yeah,remember when republicans were principled and fought for individual rights".

but come on,let's have a little bit of honesty here shall we?

trying to claim republicans are the party of lincoln NOW,is like me saying that i am part of the german nobility,because my great great great ../takes a breath..great grandfather was a baron.

70 years ago,around the time of this mans childhood,if you were a southern democrat.you were most likely a racist,and if you were a southern republican?
you were most likely a racist.

have,and ARE the democrats fucking over the black folk?
yes..yes they are.
have,and ARE the republicans fucking over the black folk?
yes..yes they are.

because you see bob,and i don't think you have fully comprehended the shift that has been going on in america for the past 40 years,but the american people are starting to understand...the reality has slowly crept into their psyche..and they are starting to "get it".took some time,but they are finally beginning to understand.

we saw the first rumblings with the tea party.
then we saw a nation become swept up in obama's 'hope and change" to only get "more of the same".
we saw it with the occupy movement.
and we saw it with the election of this countries most talented used car saleman,who can weave bullshit into gold.

you see bob,
back in the day,when we were younger,black folk were the poor and lived on the other side of town.
and while liberals would do their hand-wringing over the plight of the black folk,they sure didn't want those black folk in their neighborhood.
and conservatives would complain that the black man was lazy,and needed to get a job..but NOT here..no no no..you can get your work,you know..over there.

and now here we are in 2017,and the people of america who have been told for decades that they are the middle class.they are the heart that beats the blood of this nation,the backbone by which america attains her greatness.you know....white people.

but these very same americans,who are patriotic,and love their country.they have believed in the ideals of america all their lives.well...they started to really examine their lives and their supposed place as the "middle class",and they realized that they weren't middle class.

they were poor.
working poor,but still poor.

and they finally understood something the black folk have known for pretty much our entire history.

it was never black vs white.
nor republican vs democrat.
it wasn't even liberal vs conservative.

it was rich vs poor,and those hard working,blue collar workers,people of modest means,finally realized that they had gotten their clock cleaned by an ultra rich elite,and they never even saw it coming.

too busy watching american idol,and keeping up with the kardashians,and dazzled by their new Iphone,while playing farmville on facebook.

you want to still delude yourself that this is the land of opportunity?
have it man...doesn't make it true.
you want to still believe that the middle class in this country are the backbone of this nation?
go ahead,some still believe as you do,but the rest of us?
we finally realized the middle class is dead.they are gone.
you want to believe that rich folk respect you for your hard work,and tenacity to forge a life for yourself?

i worked for multi-millionaires,and i can tell you what they think of you.
to them you are an idiot.
you are not worth their time,nor attention and most certainly not worth giving any respect,but they will demand respect from you.

because in their mind bob,they are better than you,they will ALWAYS be better than you.

and many americans finally got that very important lesson.

the people who own,and run pretty much everything that has any actual value.do not give a FUCK about you.

but they won't actually come out and say that,and they certainly do not want americans talking about inequality,class or elitism.

which is why they pay their little shill whores handsomely to divert the conversation away from classism,and focus on things like:racism,republican vs democrat,or liberal vs conservative.

but the real issue is classism.
your basic feudalism going back to the dark ages.
at least the black folk KNEW they were slaves,peasants but people like you bob?
you thought you were part of the club didn't ya?

it really is impressive just how long america's poltical and wealthy elite were able to convince such a large portion of the population (mostly white of course,gullible fucks that we are) that somehow they mattered,they were part of the club,and when things got a little squirelly?

well,they just blamed the immigrants,of course.

but the simple,and hard truth is this bob.
you are part of the peasant class,just like the rest of us.

and the sooner you come to this very simple truth,the sooner you can stop cheerleading for rich,billionaire motherfuckers who do not give a rats ass about you,or your family bob.

welcome to the family bob.
and i am sorry for your loss.

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

YES YES YES!! Felt right at home. Wish I'd had more time there. Thank you so much. Surely it's changed some by now but I was impressed

Here's the rub....
Shep Smith on Fox does some good work, and also some awful work for his propagandist bosses either spreading their lies or remaining silent in their face.
Maddow on MSNBC also does some good work, and also is incredibly biased and slanted and gladly omits or glosses over important facts if they don't fit her narrative.
CNN-I honestly don't know, I don't watch them either, but I gather they are also quite biased and guilty of lies by omission.

Hedges had other options. He was not relegated to RT, he chose to work there. Granted, they may be his most profitable option, they are not his only option.

Is RT a Russian propaganda channel, yes, absolutely. Does that mean Hedges is a Russian propagandist...yes, yes it does. He doesn't have to spread their lies and tow their line to be one, just his presence as an attempt to give their propaganda machine validity means he's a valuable tool they are using to spread lies. Let's see him do a story that accuses Putin or Russia of malfeasance....won't happen. That makes him a tool, even if he never lies for them.

My absolute fave was Deepak. Yes, yes, yes.

*quality *promote

Go go go go go go GO! NOOOO!!! ah... damn it... wut? yes... yes... GOGOGOGOGOGO OMFG GOGOGOGO OMFG GOGOGO!!!!!

He's a Warlock, so yes, yes it is..

@bareboards2 "But what is true is -- if people, all sorts of people, don't go to the polls in November to stop him, then Trump has a good chance of being President the way it looks currently. That is just a simple fact, and all the words you type don't change that simple fact."

Why not change that shit statement to this?

"But what is true is -- IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF people who were fucked and treated like morons, all sorts of people that were treated like they didn't fucking matter, which they don't because you have to vote a certain way to stop Trump, don't go to the polls in November to stop him, then Trump will be President the way it looks currently. That is just a simple fact, and all the words you type don't change that simple fact."

Also, congratulations, you are using Republican thinking. They too will vote for the same exact reason you are but just for a different candidate. They don't want Hillary to win because they fear she is as bad as Trump. And I say yes, yes she is. Slowly our country has went to shit as her and her ilk have drained any goodness out. Trump is just a quicker cancer.