Fake news

[PaulS]

I've only discussed a fraction of his statements. In fact, a fraction of his lies.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I've only discussed a fraction of his statements. In fact, a fraction of his lies.

So what? What's the big deal about what you've discussed? What's so important about it?

THE WAY ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN WON HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF OUR HISTORY.

Hillary didn't win, did she?

[detbuch]

Trump uses language similarly to Biden, whom the left adores. If Biden runs in 2020 against Trump, it should be a verbal Barnum and Bailey.

But I think Trump is even better than Biden at it--as PaulS said, he takes it to another level.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump uses language similarly to Biden, whom the left adores. If Biden runs in 2020 against Trump, it should be a verbal Barnum and Bailey.

But I think Trump is even better than Biden at it--as PaulS said, he takes it to another level.

if Biden was smart enough to figure out how to Tweet, he be right up there...

[detbuch]

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Stefan Basil Molyneux is an Irish-born Canadian blogger/vlogger

Supports a Stateless society

Supports the Voice of men a strongly antifeminist and frequently accuses feminists of being misandrist in their mindset. another 1st

But again thanks for posting a Canadian blogger's opinion As real new's and TRUTH

[scottw]

the left invented fake news...and deemed(s) it perfectly acceptable as long as it furthered(s) their cause....if it hampers their cause...it's the worst thing to be foisted on mankind.....silly leftists

leftist definition of "fake news" = "anything news that disagrees with our world view"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Stefan Basil Molyneux is an Irish-born Canadian blogger/vlogger (this is definitely the worst kind)

Supports a Stateless society (you should have read the rest of the paragraph in WIKI)

Supports the Voice of men a strongly antifeminist and frequently accuses feminists of being misandrist in their mindset. another 1st (definitely not the 1st)


But again thanks for posting a Canadian blogger's opinion As real new's and TRUTH

what ever happened to open minds, tolerance and diversity????

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

the left invented fake news...and deemed(s) it perfectly acceptable as long as it furthered(s) their cause....if it hampers their cause...it's the worst thing to be foisted on mankind.....silly leftists

leftist definition of "fake news" = "anything news that disagrees with our world view"

Fake news is probably the third oldest profession.

But with the concoction of real news, fake news, opinion, entertainment, marketing, and bias we are now down the rabbit hole. News gets frequently whitewashed, ignored, twisted, and mix in the current bias in news reporting it is difficult to decipher the real from the fake, when it confirms your inherent bias.

The Press, the fourth but independent leg of a free government, is required to be both a conveyor of what is good within a government and to be a watchdog when government is bad. I do not know what is worse, a press that is paid for and managed by the Government (RT in Russia for example) or a press that chooses not to be the watchdog, but instead be a sycophant.

[FishermanTim]

Isn't "fake news" just a hipster rewording of what we used to call "misinformation"???

Now, instead of being used to mislead an enemy it's being used to mislead a nation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Stefan Basil Molyneux is an Irish-born Canadian blogger/vlogger

Which is relevant . . . how?

Supports a Stateless society

What he means by the State may well be different than what you mean by it. He is by no means anti-society. He doesn't support the power of the State as it has evolved in its present form of massive top-down power over individuals. Most libertarians do not support Statism.

Supports the Voice of men a strongly antifeminist and frequently accuses feminists of being misandrist in their mindset. another 1st

What do you mean by "feminist"? Most women don't consider themselves feminists. The number that actually do has dwindled. He is not anti-women. He is married. Claims to love women. And doesn't consider them as unequal. He actually believes women have the power to make society more peaceful and productive by their choices in whom they marry and have children by.

But again thanks for posting a Canadian blogger's opinion As real new's and TRUTH

I posted an articulate, intelligent, insightful person's opinion. It didn't occur to me to check out his credentials before I heard what he has to say. I think what he said was correct. I didn't hear anything that I considered lies. He was pointing out the bigger picture (I know you like to refer to the big picture) of what is actually fake in the "news."

Your Wikipedia bio of him was limited and not totally unbiased. There are, however, more scathing bios of him on the net. And also more positive and inclusive ones. None of them add to or detract from the video I posted. For me, in respect to the video, they are irrelevant. I don't agree with everything Molyneux says (and I have watched several videos), and don't have strong opinions about him as a person. But I find his opinions and interviews interesting and informative. And, even more, an alternative to the warmed over intellectually limited version of the main stream news, which, to me, has a lot of fakeness.

His credentials as a "mere" blogger are far more impressive than you imply. But, if a narrow, slanted description of the messenger is the important message for you, rather than the message itself, I understand how that works.

I like this little item by him:

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I posted an articulate, intelligent, insightful person's opinion. It didn't occur to me to check out his credentials before I heard what he has to say. I think what he said was correct. I didn't hear anything that I considered lies. He was pointing out the bigger picture (I know you like to refer to the big picture) of what is actually fake in the "news."

Your Wikipedia bio of him was limited and not totally unbiased. There are, however, more scathing bios of him on the net. And also more positive and inclusive ones. None of them add to or detract from the video I posted. For me, in respect to the video, they are irrelevant. I don't agree with everything Molyneux says (and I have watched several videos), and don't have strong opinions about him as a person. But I find his opinions and interviews interesting and informative. And, even more, an alternative to the warmed over intellectually limited version of the main stream news, which, to me, has a lot of fakeness.

His credentials as a "mere" blogger are far more impressive than you imply. But, if a narrow, slanted description of the messenger is the important message for you, rather than the message itself, I understand how that works.

I like this little item by him:

It didn't occur to me to check out his credentials before I heard what he has to say.

Nor did I. I checked them( credentials ) before I heard what he said I checked them after ... And it was insightful to why he said what he said... I am curious did you come across him on the web or thru an email ? I call these feeder clips sent out by like minded people who's
bigger picture tend to include T foil hats

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It didn't occur to me to check out his credentials before I heard what he has to say.

Nor did I. I checked them( credentials ) before I heard what he said I checked them after ... And it was insightful to why he said what he said... I am curious did you come across him on the web or thru an email ? I call these feeder clips sent out by like minded people who's
bigger picture tend to include T foil hats

I like to judge what is said by the words that are actually spoken or written. Checking the background of who spoke the words can be insightful. Or it can be misleading. Checking the background can lead to varying and contradictory conclusions. And those conclusions can more easily be concocted to fit the checker's version depending on the T foil hats he wears than if the actual spoken or written words in question are honestly examined.

In a court of law, it is the guilt or innocence that is to be determined. Motivation can enlighten as to why a crime is committed. But the existence of an actual crime, and the who is responsible for it, is foremost what is to be established. Ending an investigation and discussion at possible motivations leaves the jury with nothing substantial to come to a meaningful verdict about anything. Without the prosecution claiming or proving that any crime was committed leaves the jury wondering for what purpose they have been assembled.

I checked Molyneux's background available on the net, found your Wikipedia entry, and found another which made him out to be a horrible person and another which made him look good. None of them had any impact on my opinion of his video.

The source of information, for me, is far less relevant than the actual information. I notice, from your other discussions, as in the WikiLeaks and the "interpretation" of the Constitution, that you value peripheral things more than actual text. It didn't seem to matter to you if the leaks were true or not as much as who the source of the leaks was. It doesn't matter to you what the actual words and their actual meanings as written in the Constitution are, rather it is more important for you what "interpretations" of those words can be concocted by five people. And here you are even implying that the source for my finding the video is more important than what is in the video.

And, here, as in other instances where I have provided a video or an article, you totally ignore a discussion of what is presented and dismiss it with extraneous, peripheral insinuation.

Casting aspersions of T foil hattery can rebound back to you. You seem to think that because something is presented by other than some mainstream media outlet (that is if it isn't a "right wing" mainstream media), it is part of a "like minded" conspiracy of Tinfoilers--fake news. Well, the sources on which you depend are also loaded with fake news. Ironically, you imply that coming across something on the web can tend to include T foil hats. Yet you checked Molyneux out on the web.

You might try to actually discuss the actual words on the video.

[PaulS]

so they didn't get millions or your accusing people of being communists?

[Slipknot]

I didn't read the paper
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Where did you get your news?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Where did you get your news?

not from CNN that is for sure

I did not see Fox news firing people and retracting stories that were made up just for ratings. Now I see the NYT retracting Russia stories as well.

I have concluded even if this witch hunt ends, the but hurt left will continue to disrupt and antagonize the president. I would like to see him do his job.

[detbuch]

The Benghazi incident was a fact. It actually, indisputably happened. What was being investigated was who was responsible. Hillary alleged that an obscure video was responsible. That was not proven to be true. In fact, it seemed likely that the video was no more responsible than all the other mantras concocted to explain terrorism. What was substantiated was that an attack of that sort was very likely given the conditions in Libya and the threats that were broadcast by Al Qaeda linked cells. What was also concluded by the investigations was that the incident could have been avoided. Proper precautions were not taken. Nor was it even prudent to keep the Benghazi compound functioning. Other embassies had already pulled out. And Hillary was the head of the department responsible for the Benghazi outpost and its security.

On the other hand, there is no known actual incidence of Trump colluding with Russia to interfere or tamper with the election. There is a prolonged and constant investigation attempting to prove accusations that something happened. There is a presumption of Trump's guilt for something that has not been verified to exist. There is no evidence that the thing he is accused of being guilty of even happened. There is an investigation that is not founded on, nor informed by, evidence. It is, instead, a search for evidence. A search for unknown evidence to confirm an unsubstantiated event.

Free Dictionary definition of "witch hunt": "An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views."

[Fishpart]

Show me the man and I'll find you the crime.... Lavrentiy Beria
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

CNN, excluding Tapper, is generally acting like a poorly wrapped Rachel Maddow network. I usually watch CNN, probably 80% of my cable news. The errors and bias are frequent and glaring.

Yesterday they had John Podesta on going over some of the Russia stuff, well you can say he was expertly trolled by Russia so I guess that makes him an expert. Then of course he was to offer his opinions on all things Trump - not that there would be any bias given there...

Originally Posted by Fishpart

Show me the man and I'll find you the crime.... Lavrentiy Beria
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hahaha - too deep

[PaulS]

Bruce, So they didn't lie about the meeting with Soviets, where acting as agents w/o registering? - Isn't not registering a crime?

Butt hurt - seems like Benghazi was purely butt hurt. Pls. remind me again of who got fined, indicted or arrested?

And again - who are the communists? Sounds like McCarthy. I thought we were done with that type or politics but sadly, I guess not.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And again - who are the communists? Sounds like McCarthy.

The Communists are the ones that forcefully redistribute by Gun

The Socialists are the ones that forcefully redistribute by Law and Decree

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Bruce, So they didn't lie about the meeting with Soviets, where acting as agents w/o registering? - Isn't not registering a crime?

Butt hurt - seems like Benghazi was purely butt hurt. Pls. remind me again of who got fined, indicted or arrested?

And again - who are the communists? Sounds like McCarthy. I thought we were done with that type or politics but sadly, I guess not.

I don't know who "they" is but if you are referring to a politician, then you can call it a lie if you want to, everyone knows politicians lie. I am not sure what question or context they were asked to be given a proven lie for an answer. Not sure what this has to do with evidence of collusion either. The Russians did what they wanted and put doubt about the election, so they got accomplished their goal and attention is being wasted on the subject looking for a guilty party to punish. There is no evidence Trump had anything to do with russian hacking.


Benghazi was about Americans lost their lives needlessly, the anointed one was negligent in her duties. I don't think those families of the dead are butt hurt, more like looking for justice after the fact.

I did not mention communists in this thread anywhere, you brought that up and John graciously answered that.

Enjoy the weekend

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I don't know who "they" I told you earlier - flynn and Manafort - you know those 2 guys in the Trump inner circle.is but if you are referring to a politician, then you can call it a lie if you want to, everyone knows politicians lieI don't think every politician lies - Trump constantly does, Pence (like others) hardly at all.. I am not sure what question or context they were asked to be given a proven lie for an answer. Not sure what this has to do with evidence of collusion either. The Russians did what they wanted and put doubt about the election, so they got accomplished their goal and attention is being wasted on the subject looking for a guilty party to punish. There is no evidence Trump had anything to do with russian hacking.I never said he did but everyone who has talked to him states he has never asked about it either which for the Pres. of the US certainly is unusual.


Benghazi was about Americans lost their lives needlessly, the anointed one was negligent in her duties. I don't think those families of the dead are butt hurt, more like looking for justice after the fact.So many, many investigations just to pin some blame on some is ok but an investigation into whether the Russians interfered w/our elections is "witch hunt". - got it.

I did not mention communists in this thread anywhere, you brought that up and John graciously answered that.No, you did in another thread.

Enjoy the weekend

I should have said Bengahzi was a "witch hunt" in post 100, not "butt hurt".

Have a great weekend - slay some fish on the MS!

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Benghazi was about Americans lost their lives needlessly, the anointed one was negligent in her duties. I don't think those families of the dead are butt hurt, more like looking for justice after the fact.

I did not mention communists in this thread anywhere, you brought that up and John graciously answered that.

Enjoy the weekend

Benghazi was about Americans who lost their lives doing their Job!! then being used by republicans at political pawns . its that simple but again fact dont matter


June 10, 2017 U.S. Soldiers Killed In 'Insider Attack' In Afghanistan why are we not blaming Rex Tillerson ????? i know hes not running for POTUS

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Benghazi was about Americans who lost their lives doing their Job!! then being used by republicans at political pawns . its that simple but again fact dont matter

There "job" was not to be abandoned, defenseless, under chaotic conditions rife with terrorism, lawlessness, and signal warnings of imminent danger. It should not be that simple. Your comment is simple minded (or simplistic to use a word you've liked before) and it certainly isn't fact.

June 10, 2017 U.S. Soldiers Killed In 'Insider Attack' In Afghanistan why are we not blaming Rex Tillerson ????? i know hes not running for POTUS

Is the State Department responsible for the military?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is the State Department responsible for the military?

point taken then why not go after Maddox they wont .... and we know why ( and for the record thoses Troops were killed doing their job as well and shouldn't be used as pawns as the 3 in Benghazi were ...


There "job" was not to be abandoned, defenseless, under chaotic conditions rife with terrorism, lawlessness, and signal warnings of imminent danger. It should not be that simple. Your comment is simple minded (or simplistic to use a word you've liked before) and it certainly isn't fact.

not even close to what happened but i understand your need to repeat the rights version of events ..

can you tell me how many people theses men saved by their actions ?? of course you cant because thats not part of the narrative... the right wanted people to think they were the only ones on the ground

US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US nationals are killed in the attack. More than 30 Americans are evacuated.

I find it amazing how you discount the Russian investigation from the start ... but still cling to the Benghazi issue after how many investigations and hearings provided no evidence of the rights claims of what happened

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Benghazi was about Americans who lost their lives doing their Job!!

think of it as a factory where many workplace safety issues existed and the potential dangerous consequences were pointed out to the CEO and upper level management but were ignored because they were more concerned about appearance and a bunch of people died unnecessarily as a result........

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

think of it as a factory where many workplace safety issues existed and the potential dangerous consequences were pointed out to the CEO and upper level management but were ignored because they were more concerned about appearance and a bunch of people died unnecessarily as a result........

Donald Trump quote that there were “600 requests” for security upgrades from U.S. officials based in Benghazi, Libya.

But the shorthand description of “600 requests” has left a misleading impression — so much so that many reporters and lawmakers appear to believe that all of these requests were ignored. As Trump indicated, some people may believe these were all requests from Ambassador Stevens, even though few if any are likely from Stevens.Ambassador Stevens was the senior

Funny Trump pushing Fake information / and no he is against it

Man in Charge in Libya and he felt safe enough to be Away from the main Libyan embassy and stay in Benghazi 11 h 57 min 645 away by car

[detbuch]

The witch hunt is not the looking into Russian hacking for which there is ample evidence. The witch hunt is the investigation of Trump supposedly colluding with the Russians to interfere with the election, for which there is no evidence.