Since nobody has the time to waste lolling about in pure imagination on my other thread, the LTE, this thread is for me to make a serious point about some arcane fact relevant to some issue of the day.... hmmm..... is it possible to "close" a thread to annoying irrelevant nonsense clearing off-topic, or baseless. Probably not. But hey, here is a short list of facts.
babe's Fact-Checking Service
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Example Number One: Benghazi.
There were repeated, urgent requests for increased security prior to the attack, and all were ignored. Why? Remember, Hillary is NOT stupid.
There were repeated, urgent requests for support during the attack, while Hillary dithered about what sort of uniform the support personnel should wear. Why? Remember, Hillary is NOT stupid.
There were orders given, essentially, to "stand down", vacate the premises, and otherwise do nothing to counter the attack. Why? Remember, Hillary is NOT stupid. Those military personnel who did jump in, against orders, to defend the personnel there, had to actually disobey Hillary's orders. Why would Hillary put Americans in that position, under her command. Remember, the facility was an outpost of the State Dept, under her direct supervision. And, no. Hillary is not just stupid.
When the news was dished out, it was characterized as a "spontaneous" riot of demonstrators against a stupid video, though Hillary KNEW is was "terrorists". And on 9/11 to boot. Some might imagine she's just covering for Pres. Obama, falling on her sword for the Chief, so to speak, to prevent right-wing nutjob media folks from pinning a failure in security on Obama. She told her daughter it was terrorists but she told the media it was a riot. And for days stood by her story, lying multiple times, and even trying to quash the coverage of it by saying "At this point, what difference does it make?" Why would an intelligent, NOT STUPID, person say something like that? Well, clearly something went wrong, something happened that shouldn't have happened, and wouldn't have happened, if her orders had been obeyed. What was the plan that her orders were based on?
Obama was setting up ISIS or ISUL at that time as a sort of help in ousting Assad in Syria. The opponents of Assad needed some weapons. Kinda touchy about how we get weapons to that outfit. Sure, we could have our military just leave them behind on the field when ordered to retreat....anywhere. Kinda handy if it's stuff not on the field to just have some folks come and get them where they're stored...... Benghazi.
So far as Hillary is concerned, no one woulda been hurt if they had just fled the post when the attack began. It just had to look like a bunch of no-accounts breaking the gates and over-running the inconsequential little outpost. And leave with some loot. Pretty nice plan. If people had just followed orders.
wouldn't be the first time a US administration couldn't just tell the truth about some arms deal in Timbuktu, or some other inconsequential outpost of American intrigue.
wouldn't be the first time some abhorrent fact of life about American methods couldn't just be openly announced to the whole damn world.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/
There were repeated, urgent requests for increased security prior to the attack, and all were ignored. Why? Remember, Hillary is NOT stupid.
There were repeated, urgent requests for support during the attack, while Hillary dithered about what sort of uniform the support personnel should wear. Why? Remember, Hillary is NOT stupid.
There were orders given, essentially, to "stand down", vacate the premises, and otherwise do nothing to counter the attack. Why? Remember, Hillary is NOT stupid. Those military personnel who did jump in, against orders, to defend the personnel there, had to actually disobey Hillary's orders. Why would Hillary put Americans in that position, under her command. Remember, the facility was an outpost of the State Dept, under her direct supervision. And, no. Hillary is not just stupid.
When the news was dished out, it was characterized as a "spontaneous" riot of demonstrators against a stupid video, though Hillary KNEW is was "terrorists". And on 9/11 to boot. Some might imagine she's just covering for Pres. Obama, falling on her sword for the Chief, so to speak, to prevent right-wing nutjob media folks from pinning a failure in security on Obama. She told her daughter it was terrorists but she told the media it was a riot. And for days stood by her story, lying multiple times, and even trying to quash the coverage of it by saying "At this point, what difference does it make?" Why would an intelligent, NOT STUPID, person say something like that? Well, clearly something went wrong, something happened that shouldn't have happened, and wouldn't have happened, if her orders had been obeyed. What was the plan that her orders were based on?
Obama was setting up ISIS or ISUL at that time as a sort of help in ousting Assad in Syria. The opponents of Assad needed some weapons. Kinda touchy about how we get weapons to that outfit. Sure, we could have our military just leave them behind on the field when ordered to retreat....anywhere. Kinda handy if it's stuff not on the field to just have some folks come and get them where they're stored...... Benghazi.
So far as Hillary is concerned, no one woulda been hurt if they had just fled the post when the attack began. It just had to look like a bunch of no-accounts breaking the gates and over-running the inconsequential little outpost. And leave with some loot. Pretty nice plan. If people had just followed orders.
wouldn't be the first time a US administration couldn't just tell the truth about some arms deal in Timbuktu, or some other inconsequential outpost of American intrigue.
wouldn't be the first time some abhorrent fact of life about American methods couldn't just be openly announced to the whole damn world.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/
DutchJazzer
Banned
facts don't matter the left has been rewriting history FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!
marxism doenst care about facts!
marxism doenst care about facts!
These Libby kids ain't no daggum marxists. They just ain't educated. I bet ya 99.9% of em think the US Constitution was written in 1976 an the Bill of Rights at the same time. hell I bet all these anti-gun posters don't even know the England history behind developing the 2nd Amendment or understand the three distinct reasons for it. It's cause all they read is radical left wing trash like New York Times OPINION pieces meant to stir the **** pot.
I am optimistic. The failure of anyone to respond to this must mean they are seeing the point I'm making, and it just takes a while to make that fateful choice, once a fact is in view, of whether the new knowledge will become part of the active or operative belief system..... you know.... whether the truth will be loved or not.
yes, as I said.... I am optimistic.
I envision a future for JFC where the converts I am going to make in here will join with me in demanding a new Bill of Rights for the UN, one which maintains the innate human right to self-defense, the key issue required to prevent some deranged fascist from assuming the helm of the UN one day and doing a hellish campaign of genocide/AI/eugenics that will make humanity over again into mere semi-living automatons programmed by a gleeful coven of witches, or worse.... a little elite circle of some rising Rockefeller, Bill Gate's and George Soro's heirs, and maybe some future Prince of Wales.
but nah, we have to dream for better things that those old fantasies of the rich or famous. It's mankind's eternal struggle to sequentially reject one empire after another, starting again with people who can live and love, laugh and learn.....
There is no questions being posed here because I dont think you possess the ability to fact check.
Here lets see how this works out
Is Breitbart News actual News?
Is Fox News actual news?
Is Alex Jones a journalist who is a reliable source for information and news?
How about Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity
What are the conservative versions of NYTimes and Washington Post?
Which president candidate did the Major news outlets support? By that I mean which candidate did they run more stories about, more positive stories about a less negative stories about?
What is the most reliable source for factual news?
This is partially in response to your post in the other thread. I was going to respond to that one but these are questions I have from that post for you. I would be happy to hear others responses as well.
Here lets see how this works out
Is Breitbart News actual News?
Is Fox News actual news?
Is Alex Jones a journalist who is a reliable source for information and news?
How about Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity
What are the conservative versions of NYTimes and Washington Post?
Which president candidate did the Major news outlets support? By that I mean which candidate did they run more stories about, more positive stories about a less negative stories about?
What is the most reliable source for factual news?
This is partially in response to your post in the other thread. I was going to respond to that one but these are questions I have from that post for you. I would be happy to hear others responses as well.
Putin vs. Soros
alright, kiddies..... here are some Bigs making their cases:
Vladimir Putin speaking on US foreign policy and actions in the Mideast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96k_8ywt22g
http://valdaiclub.com/events/posts/...on-club-transcript-of-the-final-plenary-sess/
To which Soros, who funded the overthrow of Russia's next-door pet Ukrainian government in an attempt to drag Ukraine into the EU, has this to say:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/putin-no-ally-against-isis-by-george-soros-2016-02
The START treaty, which the US and Russia relied on in decommissioning many nuclear weapons, included a promise that the EU or the US would not interfere in the Ukraine, where much of Russia's nuclear weapons are located.
Personal sources tell me that the EU sought to include the Ukraine as a stop-gap, last-gasp tactic to avoid financial meltdown, as the Ukraine was considered a rare solvent state, with the capacity to lend stability to it's allies.
Before the Soros gambit in Ukraine succeeded, Russia offer financial incentives to the Ukraine in 2013:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/ukraine-russia-leaders-talks-kremlin-loan-deal
later, in 2015, the aid was linked to a stipulation to keep IMF help out.... it was a war for influence in Ukraine with a price tag.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...help-hinges-on-imf-deal-idUSBREA240V020140305
In the above persuasion piece, Soros characterizes the conflict to be a race between Russia and the EU to see who will be the "Last Man Standing" in Europe. Soros argues that both Russia and the EU are on the verge of financial collapse. . . .
And Putin won.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/09/14/no-imf-money-for-ukraine-russia-says/#28290f4e7ea9
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/putin-s-ukraine-peace-offer-is-a-trojan-horse
If you will read all that, it will show Soro's claims to be patently false, a stupid attempt to scare us into lining up on his team. It also shows my "personal source" to be clearly wrong as well.
The Ukraine is not a financial plum essential to either the EU or Russia, but a staging ground for Soro's(and others') attempt to create a new war. Putin has called it right. If the UN through Western hegemony blatantly converts an essential element of the START treaty in a historical obsolescence, Putin says it means our world is not run by "new law" but by "no law".
As I've said before, Putin is rational, and he sees things in terms of his national interests. He argues that the US and Russia are natural allies, and he argues against a geopolitical scheme to divide the world against itself along military parameters.
At the present moment, the Ukraine is not going to join the EU, and is rebuilding its relationship with Russia, though very recently there has been some rhetoric by some Bigs that still hold out hope a bit down the road.
Only 30% of Europeans favor the idea, and only 50% of Ukranians. I suppose it's still open for more bidding, financially, as the Bigs of the world jockey for influence, but five EU nations have come out to oppose it.
talk runs every which way. With the Brexit vote, and England out, there is talk of even Russia joining the EU and NATO. Why not? The geopolitical conflict lines were engineered by the snooty Brits for the purpose of dividing the rest of the world up into Balkanized little warring countries to keep anyone from rising above the Brits.
Yes, Putin is right. The US and Russia are natural allies against that obstructionist meddling little set of snoots.
alright, kiddies..... here are some Bigs making their cases:
Vladimir Putin speaking on US foreign policy and actions in the Mideast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96k_8ywt22g
http://valdaiclub.com/events/posts/...on-club-transcript-of-the-final-plenary-sess/
To which Soros, who funded the overthrow of Russia's next-door pet Ukrainian government in an attempt to drag Ukraine into the EU, has this to say:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/putin-no-ally-against-isis-by-george-soros-2016-02
The START treaty, which the US and Russia relied on in decommissioning many nuclear weapons, included a promise that the EU or the US would not interfere in the Ukraine, where much of Russia's nuclear weapons are located.
Personal sources tell me that the EU sought to include the Ukraine as a stop-gap, last-gasp tactic to avoid financial meltdown, as the Ukraine was considered a rare solvent state, with the capacity to lend stability to it's allies.
Before the Soros gambit in Ukraine succeeded, Russia offer financial incentives to the Ukraine in 2013:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/ukraine-russia-leaders-talks-kremlin-loan-deal
later, in 2015, the aid was linked to a stipulation to keep IMF help out.... it was a war for influence in Ukraine with a price tag.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...help-hinges-on-imf-deal-idUSBREA240V020140305
In the above persuasion piece, Soros characterizes the conflict to be a race between Russia and the EU to see who will be the "Last Man Standing" in Europe. Soros argues that both Russia and the EU are on the verge of financial collapse. . . .
And Putin won.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/09/14/no-imf-money-for-ukraine-russia-says/#28290f4e7ea9
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/putin-s-ukraine-peace-offer-is-a-trojan-horse
If you will read all that, it will show Soro's claims to be patently false, a stupid attempt to scare us into lining up on his team. It also shows my "personal source" to be clearly wrong as well.
The Ukraine is not a financial plum essential to either the EU or Russia, but a staging ground for Soro's(and others') attempt to create a new war. Putin has called it right. If the UN through Western hegemony blatantly converts an essential element of the START treaty in a historical obsolescence, Putin says it means our world is not run by "new law" but by "no law".
As I've said before, Putin is rational, and he sees things in terms of his national interests. He argues that the US and Russia are natural allies, and he argues against a geopolitical scheme to divide the world against itself along military parameters.
At the present moment, the Ukraine is not going to join the EU, and is rebuilding its relationship with Russia, though very recently there has been some rhetoric by some Bigs that still hold out hope a bit down the road.
Only 30% of Europeans favor the idea, and only 50% of Ukranians. I suppose it's still open for more bidding, financially, as the Bigs of the world jockey for influence, but five EU nations have come out to oppose it.
talk runs every which way. With the Brexit vote, and England out, there is talk of even Russia joining the EU and NATO. Why not? The geopolitical conflict lines were engineered by the snooty Brits for the purpose of dividing the rest of the world up into Balkanized little warring countries to keep anyone from rising above the Brits.
Yes, Putin is right. The US and Russia are natural allies against that obstructionist meddling little set of snoots.
Last edited:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
YOU RUINED IT!! DAMMIT!!
This was going to be the babe boris and dutch only thread. Why did you have to stick your stupid nose in it?!? This would have been the most entertaining thread on JF. Mods please delete Ron's post and my post to restore balance to the force. TIA
Breitbart has a fairly large organization of local contributors over substantial stretches of the world, while our corporate, mainstream "press" not only observes a noticeable bias in reporting but has largely dismissed the notion of actual journalists out there make objective or factual reports of "news".
Yes, Andrew Breitbart did say that he wants to destroy corporate media, putting his ambition in rhetorical garb as "When the propagandists of the corporate media are exposed for the liars they are, and people can get the facts, then Democracy will happen."
I grew up watching Walter Cronkite hold nightly vigils dishing out a clearly non-objective "news" and closing with a grandiose lie "And that's the way it is...". I hated Cronkite way back then. And yes, he was a consummate liar, and he served the corporate, fascist interests obsequiously.
I do of course recognize that personal passion for any political point of view is not going to be adequately objective. I do not believe I have access to sufficient facts myself to aspire to that ideal of journalism. But the fact is, I do appreciate differing points of view, and I do look for factual basis for important assertions.
The Presidential debates, in my eyes, proved extreme bias on the parts of the supposedly even-handed orchestrators of the displays, and Hillary was never subjected to objective questions on her actions as Secretary of State.
I think there are sufficient facts known, proven, and even admitted by Hillary in regard to her private server, that she is without question guilty of attempting to evade the requirements of FOIA law and national security law.
Hillary should be in prison her those crimes, if not for her corruption of office in a thousand other ways.
I have come to my basic conclusion about the organized deception employed by politically purposed corporate organizations by personal observation, chiefly by knowing some people personally, knowing some "news" material first hand, and seeing what the media made of the facts. I don't call extrapolation "science", but I see no reason to actually believe in claimed integrity or objectivity of a politically-indoctrinated horde or reporters turned out by our schools regularly, and hired by our media institutions whose political interests are actually no secret.
Really.
We need some people who are willing to be objective and factual, and who are willing to put the time in for little initial pay.... well, like what Breitbart is doing, sorta.... but OK, more objective and more honest.
ha ha.
no, seriously. If we could get some civil commentary going in JFC, it might change the world.
I can't see any way this side of Hell our world can get by without international governance, but why can't we insist on real human rights, and really run the corporate fascists out into the boondocks. Well, I know you work for some of those, but hey, you could help convert them to the better vision for our world.
First we need to reject the sort of education John Dewey and others advocated from the beginnings of the progressive agenda way back in the mid 1800s, and get the government out of the habit of propagandizing the populace.
I know it will be a pretty ragged transitions, what with people having to actually think for themselves and all. But anyone who really hates the charlatan mesmerizes, fake medicine shows, and fake reality plays we have running across our news and entertainment industries, the simple idea of empowering individuals to think and act for themselves will go a long way towards transforming mankind from some sort of lemming-like creatures running mindlessly over the next cliff some totalitarian thinks is our salvation.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Republicans will fight tooth and nail to protect the gun rights of a mass murderer, while at the same time fight just as hard to deny medical benefits to his victims.
Check dem facts.
Check dem facts.
Yep, that is why we just wont agree on much. Frankly I question your ability to decipher facts, information and news. If you think Breitbart is a truthful remotely objective source of news or information and that very reputable good news organizations are lying and corrupt then we will rarely agree on truth and facts.
DutchJazzer
Banned
ok,, so take the miuurderes gun away!
we are ok with that.
just dont punish all other gun owners by taking their guns away!
do we take away all computers because a hacker stole trillions.
do we take away alcohol because a drunk guy raped a woman.
do we take away all other cars because some guy committed vehicle manslaughter!
stop advancing nazi germany policies!
This is actually a disappointing, and even an unworthy response. If you have nothing to say but pledge your allegiance to CNN why the hell are you even in here pretending to think or discuss actual facts.
did you read the link earlier in regard to the developments in the Judicial Watch proceeding in court against
Hillary Clinton?
You actually ignore every fact I present.
Again, I don't claim to actually know the facts, but I present available evidence, which our mainstream media is studiously ignoring. Not really a credible Press for doing that.
Recent Ruling on Benghazi/Clinton emails under Judicial Watch FOIA request
So the Trump administration's DOJ under Jeff Sessions is actually trying to defend HIllary now.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...azi-emails-hillary-clintons-closest-advisors/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...ights-to-keep-clinton-benghazi-e-mails-secret
FOIA requests require pretty specific descriptions of the material being sought. Judicial Watch is seeking to prosecute Hillary Clinton charging specific violations of US law, and Trump is defending her. . . . if he even knows what is going on..... it is clear he does not want, really to prosecute her.
The court has ruled in favor of Judicial Watch's request, and the DOJ is seeking to reclassify the material to keep it out of reach.
So the Trump administration's DOJ under Jeff Sessions is actually trying to defend HIllary now.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...azi-emails-hillary-clintons-closest-advisors/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...ights-to-keep-clinton-benghazi-e-mails-secret
FOIA requests require pretty specific descriptions of the material being sought. Judicial Watch is seeking to prosecute Hillary Clinton charging specific violations of US law, and Trump is defending her. . . . if he even knows what is going on..... it is clear he does not want, really to prosecute her.
The court has ruled in favor of Judicial Watch's request, and the DOJ is seeking to reclassify the material to keep it out of reach.
I don't watch CNN because I don't like it. But it is much much much better source of information than Breitbart or Alex Jones if we are comparing.
I'll wait until I see some sort of fact or something with any validity from you before I respond next time. Lesson learned.
You remind me of another era of official blindness, which inspired a famous little ditty.
"Yesterday as I was going down the stair,
I saw a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
oh how I wish that man would go away."
Do you realize how assiduously blind you are showing yourself to be, coming in here and ranting about information sources I'm not even discussing, ignoring the material on the Judicial Watch case? Judicial Watch's case, and the rulings are matters of court record. How much more factual do I have to be to engage the bat-blind propagandists in here in an actual discussion of the case?