Nowadays, it's written by the historians. Which is why we have new narratives of how Native Americans were treated, and people who no longer want to honor "Columbus Day".
Hillary is saying Tulsi is being groomed by the Russians
- Thread starter BrunoMars420
- Start date
Nowadays, it's written by the historians. Which is why we have new narratives of how Native Americans were treated, and people who no longer want to honor "Columbus Day".
That's not disinformation. It's factual information. Lew Rockwell is a completely unreliable source for any news. And I have specific examples I've debunked, when Lew had posted "information" on how measles in the US "allegedly" dropped before the vaccine was made available. Only he and his buds had snagged graphs from the UK, which had the vaccine years before, and posted those interposed with the US data, to fulfill their false narrative.
I found the actual sources.
I found the actual data.
I thoroughly debunked and exposed that nonsense here on HROT.
So, I'm well aware of how badly they mix up "facts", which truly explains why you have such upside down narratives. Lew is probably getting fed by Russian trolls, himself.
I could argue that, but, on another thread. What does your little fact checker say about Bezos' WaPo being beholden to CIA contracts and all the cloud work he does for the fedgov? Does it mention how Judith Miller and the New York Slimes presstitutes KNOWINGLY LIED to push the Iraq WMD's? CNN had 1 reporter saying Syria was using sarin gas and then proceeded to touch the stuff without gloves and sniff it. It was all fake. In fact, I point out the lies every day on here. But, you believe them.
Seriously? Amazon does a ton of business with them. Thanks for playing, Bill Casey!
https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...tails-about-the-cias-deal-with-amazon/374632/
CIA long relied exclusively on Amazon for its cloud computing. Now it is seeking multiple providers for a massive new contract.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...king-multiple-providers-massive-new-contract/
Then again, it's WaPo.
@Joes Place , I respect you as being intelligent and not some extremist who offers-up vapid comments and you seem to be informed... by the sources that YOU trust. That's perfectly fine.
But, how objective do you really believe yourself to be? I personally don't believe in the left vs. right/liberal vs. conservative paradigm. Those are merely polarities and people are a little if each. Depending on who else is in a discussion, that's how you determine where you are in between those two polarities. I wish more people would refrain from calling themselves one or the other, but wishing is a waste of time.
Anyway, I'm curious. On a scale of 1-10, in general, how much do you trust the CIA? By "The CIA", I mean anything that any source credits as "according to the CIA."
But, how objective do you really believe yourself to be? I personally don't believe in the left vs. right/liberal vs. conservative paradigm. Those are merely polarities and people are a little if each. Depending on who else is in a discussion, that's how you determine where you are in between those two polarities. I wish more people would refrain from calling themselves one or the other, but wishing is a waste of time.
Anyway, I'm curious. On a scale of 1-10, in general, how much do you trust the CIA? By "The CIA", I mean anything that any source credits as "according to the CIA."
What does this have to do with her parroting Kremlin talking points?
She has ignored the info in the Mueller Report and claimed it "exonerated" Trump, and that there was "no collusion". That report is littered with "collusion". The only way her statement make any sense are: A) She didn't read it and/or B) She is parroting the Kremlin's line on this.
Many many other examples. They have nothing to do with "the CIA". They have everything to do with "the FBI, the NSA" and other, not US entities that are not "the CIA".
I have no idea where "the CIA" fits into this. Tulsi parrots non-facts. If "the CIA" is correctly reporting facts, consistent with the FBI, NSA, Dutch intel, MI6, etc, etc etc, are we to disregard all of those other (independent) sources, simply because the CIA agrees with them? Is that where you're going here?
I was just asking you, in general, how much do you trust the institution? It has nothing to do really with Tulsi Gabbard, or anyone else.
Never mind...
How many times have you been debunked?
Far far fewer than Lew Rockwell.
I think Mark Twain was talking directly at the likes of you when he said, "If you don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed. If you read the newspapers, you are misinformed." 27 year former CIA veteran, Ray McGovern, was recently quoted as saying something similar. "All of my neighbors in NYC think they are informed because they read the NYT and WSJ."
You erect Lew Rockwell's site as a straw man. When not blaming him, you incorrectly cite RT. When I want to learn about Russian affairs, I read East-West Accord, which often links to The Nation, a lefty site with a who's who in foreign experience. Look at the board members for yourself. I didn't know all these distinguished elites were Russian. Bill Bradley, Stephen Cohen, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, Ambassadors Jack Matlock and Wm vanden Heuvel. Link:
https://eastwestaccord.com
You get great reports from former Democracy Now reporter Aaron Mate, that destroy the lies of the Mueller Report. Check out this one:
These Questions for Mueller Show Why Russiagate Was Never the Answer
The former special counsel still has a lot he can clarify.
By Aaron Maté
https://www.thenation.com/article/questions-mueller-russiagate/
Or great reporting from Consortium News. Started up by the now deceased reporter, Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories. Now run by liberal, Joe Lauria. They have many non-political lifers from the CIA and NSA contributing from VIPS. Tell me...which member from this august body of contributors is a Kremlin stooge:
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren,U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/
The very phrase "parroting Kremlin talking points" just shows what a parrot you are. Your usage of it is the very definition of parrot. You are fully behind that warmongering C, Hillary Clinton, the one who won't allow democracy to run its course. She is cut right from Saul Alinsky's cloth. The public be damned. She lusts for 1600 Penn Ave. She wants to go down in history as the 1st female prez. She is right now destroying the Democratic Party because Tulsi wants peace. She is doing what the Kremlin could only dream of accomplishing. F her and all that follow.
And before spouting off about collusion and election hacking, read what Judge Dabney Friedrich had to say about that fraud of a cover-up.
Moreover, how do you put trust in our media when 5.5 years after the Maidan Square revolution, they, to this date, have still refused to report the full phone call of Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt deciding who was going to lead Kiev after the overthrow. All they reported was her "F the EU" message. What a disgrace our CIA controlled media has become. You're supposed to dislike oligarchs as a true liberal. But, you swallow hook, line and sinker everything the 6 corporations throw at you. You're slick by 1 half.
Well, he has almost 74,000 posts. I'd say 75K times.How many times have you been debunked?
These days, if a person takes a position similar to someone else's position, the left automatically says the the person is a supporter.
If I think the US should be out of Syria, I get accused of being an Assad supporter and Russian plant. If I call out law enforcement for an abuse incident, I must hate law enforcement. If I support personal responsibility, I must hate all poor people. Everything is extreme.
If I think the US should be out of Syria, I get accused of being an Assad supporter and Russian plant. If I call out law enforcement for an abuse incident, I must hate law enforcement. If I support personal responsibility, I must hate all poor people. Everything is extreme.
You've basically admitted this is one of your main sources for "news".
How am I bringing that up as a Straw Man?
List them.
I don't want to go down the rabbit holes, or give conspiracy theorists more internet "hits".
This is what I read daily:
Mintpress news: https://www.mintpressnews.com
Target Liberty: https://www.targetliberty.com
Moon of Alabama: https://www.moonofalabama.org
And about 5 others, in addition to the 3 mentioned are my MAIN sources.
You respond to just 1 sentence to save face and exclude all the other facts statements. So like you.
Last edited:
Gabbard doesn't have a remote chance in getting the Democratic nomination now. She's trying to use Clinton's slam as momentum, and that may work, on some level. But, she should know that the Democrats, like the Republicans, are really just two crime syndicates that will crush anything, or anyone, that threatens the corrupt system that they've invested in and created. If Gabbard were a multi-billionaire, it might be different. But, if she were a multi-billionaire, she'd probably lack most, if not all, of the principles she claims to stand for at the moment.
American politics will grind-out morality and principles in the most resolved person... with very few exceptions. We need more like her in Congress and the Senate, and not so much in the oval office. If you have a governing body comprised of people like her, then the executive is pretty much a token office. Truth be told, that's what the office is right now... just a figurehead.
American politics will grind-out morality and principles in the most resolved person... with very few exceptions. We need more like her in Congress and the Senate, and not so much in the oval office. If you have a governing body comprised of people like her, then the executive is pretty much a token office. Truth be told, that's what the office is right now... just a figurehead.
I'm surprised that Van Jones did that! Knock me over with a feather!
We see what happened to Jimmy Carter once he made it inside the beltway. Even in 1976 there was no room for honesty.
....and looking those up, factual reporting is listed as "Mixed".
Not "High", as it is for most other sites. I.E. the ones I frequent.
Probably yet another indicator as to why you're so confused all the time.
Lew Rockwell is complete crap. The others you've listed do not rank well.
Or because your keyboard won't allow you to open a link. If I threw them out there with no link, you would have demanded one. Remain ignorant at your own peril.
So... if people don't choose your preferred sources for information, then they're being misinformed? You have all the correct, honest, above-the-board sources.
Or, rather; You have the ones YOU trust. Everyone has their own sources that THEY trust.
Uh, no. When they use demonstrably UNRELIABLE sources of information, they're being misinformed.
Go look up the reliability levels of his "news sources". At least one is wacko out there. The rest are listed as "mixed". I saw NONE that were rated as "highly factual" or "reliable".
No. I cherry pick the ones rated as reliable. And use reliable sources to verify the ones I don't know about.
And yet, with that information I draw from there, I spank your ass in every discussion.
And who the F are they that they have earned the right to be our news guardians? Who banks them? Who are your ahem, trusted sources (wink, wink)? You have moved the goalposts so far in this thread about Tulsi. I can understand why. With the information I have drawn from my sites, I have beat you like rented mule.
I’m not reading this entire thread, just confirming again that I’ll be caucusing for Tulsi come February. You should all think about doing it as well.
Reports are that Gabbard's political standing in her home district in Hawaii is starting to erode as well. It is being reported that she will likely have challengers in the Dem primary next spring.
Not sticking up for Clinton AT ALL, but Tulsi needs to be realistic about what she's currently doing.
Similar threads
