|
Post by ponto on May 18, 2021 13:11:41 GMT 10
Media that puts forward news so that the reader can make a informed opinion one way or the other is balanced mainstream media....media that is all about influencing is biased media....< your media.
|
|
|
Post by bender on May 18, 2021 15:57:26 GMT 10
Another strange claim there Spork, and one unfortunately, once again, not one based on fact. You claim that Francis Boyle is a doctor. A quick check on Wikipedia reveals that he is in fact a lawyer who does not possess any academic degree in biology or virology. His expertise and career has been based in Tax and International Tax Law. He also served as an advisor to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) from 1987-1989 and 1991-1993. When you claim that he drafted the Biological Weapons Act, what that act actually does is proscribe the criminal penalties for contravention of the Biological Weapons Convention and definitions for the same. It is simply ludicrous to claim that because he drafted that piece of legislation it gives somehow gives his beliefs in COVID-19 any credence beyond any other lay person. Secondly lets look at some of the claims that Mr Boyle has made both about COVID-19 and other subjects. Mr Boyle has published legal opinions stating that the US Federal Government is the enemy of all mankind. He also believes that the US Government is illegally occupying the State of Hawaii. In relation to COVID, Mr Boyle told the Associated Press that COVID-19 came out of a Lab in Wuhan, that it was genetically engineered with both nano-technology and HIV proteins. He alleges that US scientists created it and thousands of Doctors, Health Officials and members of Governments all around the world are actively involved with covering this up. In an article published in 2010 Mr Boyle called for Israel to be renamed Jewistan…… So Spork, would you like to revisit your belief in Mr Boyle's claims? ...So what? You and Ponto have exactly the same problem. Your views have become so politically polarized it doesn't even occur to you that it is entirely possible for an individual to be right on some subjects and misinformed on others. Maybe you ought to practice judging an argument on it's content, and not on it's source. The left doesn't hold a monopoly on truth and rationality. And just because someone is wrong on some issues, doesn't make them universally wrong on every issue. (And Francis Boyle is a Professor. His profession earns him the right to his prefix.) But let's talk about China's human rights record, and discuss whether they might involve themselves in such unethical practices such as gain of function research, shall we? SARS started in China, Coronavirus also started in China. It's too much of a coincidence to be one. No Spork, we are not going to continue with your foolishness by ignoring the fact that you're full of shit and proceeding to discuss "why" China might have done something that didn't happen. That would just be encouraging you to continue with your delusional beliefs. You are wrong, you are constantly shown to be wrong. When you are asked to back up your claims you instead try and move the argument to something else and continue to make your crazy claims. Look at your behaviour here. You claimed someone to be a doctor to give your arguments credence. When it eventuated that he is not a doctor but a Lawyer, and a tax lawyer to boot, what have you done? You claim that he's a professor and he has every right to call himself professor. Except you didn't call him Professor, you called him Doctor. At least show the intellectual honesty to admit your mistakes and when you've gone a little too far Spork. Doing that would give your arguments more weight because at least people would view you as essentially honest if not misguided instead of the current situation where you are simply considered a delusional loon.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 18, 2021 21:13:24 GMT 10
Media that puts forward news so that the reader can make a informed opinion one way or the other is balanced mainstream media....media that is all about influencing is biased media....< your media. Media, like science is interpreted. It filters through our own bias and theirs. If you are only shown what they want you to see, how the hell is that an 'informed' interpretation!?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 18, 2021 21:18:24 GMT 10
Except you didn't call him Professor, you called him Doctor.. Professors use the title doctor, idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 18, 2021 21:55:47 GMT 10
At least show the intellectual honesty to admit your mistakes and when you've gone a little too far Spork. Doing that would give your arguments more weight because at least people would view you as essentially honest if not misguided instead of the current situation where you are simply considered a delusional loon. How about adjusting your opinion to fit the facts; instead of insisting that I adjust the facts to fit your opinion? Fact: Good and ethical reporting doesn't come with a director's cut!
|
|
|
Post by bender on May 19, 2021 7:00:00 GMT 10
No Spork, you are not dealing in facts. I'm not sure how many times this has to be repeated to you. He may well be a Professor of Tax Law or International Tax Law, and he may well choose to call himself Doctor, but he is not a medical Doctor, he has no degree in Biology, or Virology. Professor would be the proper term to refer to him. Utter nutbag would be the most accurate description.
Utter nutbag, and that's no doubt why he found such a receptive audience in you. Like minds and all that....
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 19, 2021 13:50:49 GMT 10
No Spork, you are not dealing in facts. I'm not sure how many times this has to be repeated to you. He may well be a Professor of Tax Law or International Tax Law, and he may well choose to call himself Doctor, but he is not a medical Doctor, he has no degree in Biology, or Virology. Professor would be the proper term to refer to him. Utter nutbag would be the most accurate description. Utter nutbag, and that's no doubt why he found such a receptive audience in you. Like minds and all that.... Again, thank you for your amateur diagnosis Sigmund Fraud. I'll hold it in the same regard as your other faulty observations. One doesn't need to be a biologist or a virologist to see a paper trail to Wuhan. You know the one... that city which by coincidence contains a biowarefare lab? In Wuhan, at least two labs study coronaviruses that originate in bats — (WIV) and (WHCDC). Stop letting the mainstream news spoon feed you and do some of your own thinking. God gave you a brain... Now back to the topic: If you call bullshit, by all means...Offer your best explanation for this "directors cut" of a significant news event.
|
|
|
Post by bender on May 19, 2021 14:53:16 GMT 10
Look Spork, I think we've well and truly established that you possess neither the intellectual honesty to admit your mistakes or the courage to do so.
I doubt anything will be able to make you understand just how woefully wrong you are. I could ask you what the hell you're banging on about with your directors cuts etc but I've learnt through experience that trying to get crazy people to explain a crazy theory isn't going to result in a sane explanation. Of course in your mind, I'm wrong, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. In your mind there really are thousands upon thousands of Doctors, Scientists, Public Health Officials and Politicians around the world who despite their political, idealogical and historical differences are all in on a massive conspiracy that they've also been able to successfully hide from the mainstream media and the public.
When people are that deep into a conspiracy theory nothing is going to bring them back to reality.
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 19, 2021 17:19:25 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by ponto on May 19, 2021 18:12:38 GMT 10
Its how the alt right operates, use a little information and manipulate that into something bigger for a audience that wants to hear that...like the holocaust denial used by the far right, distort the events and build upon that into something else that reads the holocaust did not happen.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 19, 2021 21:05:47 GMT 10
Stephan Colbert entertained me every night with his Trump impersonations but he also lied outrageously with all the other desperate journalist lefties. And the journalists admitted they lied. Stop lying lefties. It's ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 19, 2021 21:08:30 GMT 10
Ffs, if you are going to criticize, at least do the homework, Bender. I put the video on the first post. Did you even click on it? You and ponto are both intellectually lazy. You won't even consider new information unless the media spoon feeds you.
The media lied about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia in 2016. They lied about the Mueller probe and Brett Kavanaugh and former national security adviser Mike Flynn. They lied about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president and the impeachment farce that ensued. They lied about the coronavirus and the lockdowns and the White House response. And they lied about the riots.
And there have been medical authorities, including the CDC itself who disagree with Fauci, but the press will make certain that you never hear about it.
That's the nature of propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 19, 2021 22:57:37 GMT 10
Stephan Colbert entertained me every night with his Trump impersonations but he also lied outrageously with all the other desperate journalist lefties. And the journalists admitted they lied. Stop lying lefties. It's ugly. You must be lying when you post his first name as “Stephan” (sic). And he lies when he pronounces a perfectly straightforward Anglo name like “Colbert” in a phony French way as “Colbair”. But so what. You say he lies “outrageously”. Good! I always say that if you’re going to tell porkies, make them spectacular , outrageous, egregious, shocking, appalling. Don’t be a wimp about it.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on May 19, 2021 23:16:59 GMT 10
While it was in the media I know for myself and nor do I recall Bender stating Trump colluded with Russia, that was an allegation that had not been determine so didn't run with that, though its fairly solid that Russian's did interfere with the election...and Trumpo wasn't exonerated.
Mueller report From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Mueller Report) Jump to navigationJump to search
The redacted version of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election was released to the public by the Department of Justice on April 18, 2019. The Mueller report, officially titled Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice. The report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019,[1] and a redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019. It is divided into two volumes. The redactions from the report and its supporting material were placed under a temporary "protective assertion" of executive privilege by then-President Trump on May 8, 2019, preventing the material from being passed to Congress,[2] despite earlier reassurance by Barr that Trump "confirmed" he would not exert privilege.[3]
Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities".[4][5][6] Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved and due to testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9] However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]
Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.[18][19][20] This decision was based on an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution,[21][22][23] and Mueller's belief that it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime even without charging him because he would have no opportunity to clear his name in court; furthermore it would undermine Trump's ability to govern and preempt impeachment.[19][22][24][21][25] As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[26][27] with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.[28][29][30][31] The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,[32][33] noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".[34][35][36] The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,[19][37][38] referencing impeachment.[39][40]
On March 24, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter detailing the report's conclusions. On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" and that this led to "public confusion".[41] Barr declined Mueller's request to release the report's introduction and executive summaries ahead of the full report.[42] Also on March 24, Barr's letter stated that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence was "not sufficient to establish" that Trump had obstructed justice.[43][44] On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does"[45] and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report.[46] In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office.[47] In 2020, a Republican-appointed federal judge decided to personally review the report's redactions to see if they were legitimate. The judge said Barr's "misleading" statements about the report's findings led him to suspect that Barr had tried to establish a "one-sided narrative" favorable to Trump.[48][49]
On Ukraine
The most important sentence in the Trump whistleblower’s report
The whistleblower report on Donald Trump contains one particularly telling admission that will change how the investigation proceeds.
Sam Clench
SamClench
SEPTEMBER 27, 20193:50PM
A New York attorney general's probe into former President Trump's company has now been classified a 'criminal investigation'.
The whistleblower report on Donald Trump, released overnight, contains one particularly intriguing admission.
The US intelligence official who lodged a complaint about Mr Trump’s interactions with Ukraine — including his pivotal phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky — did not actually witness the conversation.
“I was not a direct witness to most of the events described,” wrote the whistleblower, a CIA officer who once worked at the White House. Their specific identity has not been revealed.
At first glance, that looks like good news for Mr Trump. His defenders have certainly pounced on it, brushing off the complaint as “hearsay without first-hand knowledge”.
They are being shortsighted. The whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge is actually the most dangerous fact in the entire report. It’s a sign that Mr Trump is in even deeper trouble than we thought.
If the whistleblower were one lone, disgruntled official, it would be reasonably easy for Mr Trump to portray them as politically biased, discredit them and move on with his life.
That isn’t the case. We are actually talking about a number of Trump administration officials here, all of whom raised concerns about his conduct with the whistleblower in question.
That makes the complaint a road map for Democrats investigating the President. It points them in the direction of additional witnesses who can shed more light on his behaviour. Therein lies the danger.
In the report released overnight, the whistleblower says “more than half a dozen” US government officials provided them with information about Mr Trump “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in next year’s presidential election.
“This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals,” the report reads.
The central allegation is that Mr Trump pressured Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who is currently the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
“The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for US officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis,” the whistleblower says.
“I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.”
It is clear, from the subsequent pages, that the whistleblower’s sources are well-placed and their information is accurate.
How do we know that? Because the whistleblower — who, I repeat, did not witness Mr Trump’s phone call with Mr Levensky — nevertheless correctly describes three key details from the conversation.
They say Mr Trump pressured the Ukrainian President to:
• “Initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former vice president Joseph Biden and his son Hunter Biden.”
• “Assist in purportedly uncovering the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election originating in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee and examined by the US cyber security firm CrowdStrike.”
• “Meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr (Rudy) Giuliani and Attorney-General (William) Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.”
We have seen the official transcript of the call. Those three things all happened, exactly as the whistleblower describes.
“The White House officials who told me this were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me there was already a ‘discussion ongoing’ with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain,” they say.
The whistleblower’s remarkably accurate description of Mr Trump’s phone call bolsters the credibility of their entire report, including the additional details contained within it.
Those details include an allegation that “senior White House officials” intervened to “lock down” all records of the call — something they would not have felt the need to do if, as the President claims, nothing improper had occurred.
“This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call,” the whistleblower says.
“White House officials told me that they were ‘directed’ by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for co-ordination, finalisation and distribution for Cabinet-level officials.
“Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”
The separate electronic system mentioned here is one managed directly by the National Security Council Directorate for Intelligence Programs. It’s usually reserved for “codeword-level” intelligence information. In plain English, that means stuff that is sensitive to national security.
The question is whether White House officials instead used it to protect politically sensitive information.
Every aspect about this is shocking.
The whistleblower also provides details of meetings US officials — notably, Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker and Mr Trump’s personal lawyer, Mr Giuliani — held with Ukrainian counterparts to follow up on the President’s requests.
All of this information is ammunition for a focused impeachment investigation. Because of the whistleblower’s report, Democrats will now know who to interview and what to ask about.
Why did White House lawyers tell subordinates to move the transcript onto a different electronic system? What did Mr Volker and Mr Giuliani discuss with Ukrainian officials? Who else was involved? How much did Mr Trump know about his subordinates’ actions?
All of these questions will now be pursued. Perhaps there are innocent answers.
If not, this scandal is just getting started.
Obvious guilt there....
Trump handled the Covid response badly, that is fact no lies, and the alt right riots on Capitol Hill happened...that was no left wing media construct.
You are proving the fact the the alt right take part of the story and then beat it into shape as something want they want to hear...isn't time you gave up supporting Trump...?...your insulting your own intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 20, 2021 0:41:52 GMT 10
Citing the media, when my trust in the media is the core issue, is a practice in redundancy.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 20, 2021 0:47:31 GMT 10
Look Spork, I think we've well and truly established that you possess neither the intellectual honesty to admit your mistakes or the courage to do so. . On the contrary, convince me I am wrong and I will confess my error. But there is the rub- I'm not yet convinced that I am wrong. It'd be more dishonest to make an insincere apology, as you would compel me to do. Btw: you seem mad, bro. I'm gonna get you a cape so you can be super mad. 😁
|
|
|
Post by bender on May 20, 2021 6:41:51 GMT 10
Yes of course "you" are not convinced you're wrong. That's obvious, crazy people generally lack the insight to recognise their own delusions are just that, delusions.
I'm not quite sure why you think I seem mad. Indeed I think Pim would confirm I've mellowed considerably over the years.
It's more exasperation that you persist upon throwing up crazy allegations and conspiracy theories and demanding that everyone accepts them as worthy of consideration.
They are not. You are wrong in fact, in thought and in deed, your arguments are the message board equivalent of a ten year old jumping up and down demanding attention. I'm certainly not suggesting that you be silenced in any way, but similarly don't be surprised when people treat you with the derision that your arguments invite.
I could suggest that you ditch the crazy theories but that would almost certainly be a bridge too far.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 20, 2021 7:08:40 GMT 10
Ffs, if you are going to criticize, at least do the homework, Bender. I put the video on the first post. Did you even click on it? You and ponto are both intellectually lazy. You won't even consider new information unless the media spoon feeds you. The media lied about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia in 2016. They lied about the Mueller probe and Brett Kavanaugh and former national security adviser Mike Flynn. They lied about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president and the impeachment farce that ensued. They lied about the coronavirus and the lockdowns and the White House response. And they lied about the riots. And there have been medical authorities, including the CDC itself who disagree with Fauci, but the press will make certain that you never hear about it. That's the nature of propaganda. We got the best, most honest (so far at least) left premier on the planet and we are thriving but unless the federal left stop lying, it is going to be very hard to vote for them. Our federal labor left should speak in terms of protecting workers and keeping citizens safe and healthy not bloody worrying about rich foreigners with their many gripes.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 20, 2021 7:17:23 GMT 10
Stephan Colbert entertained me every night with his Trump impersonations but he also lied outrageously with all the other desperate journalist lefties. And the journalists admitted they lied. Stop lying lefties. It's ugly. You must be lying when you post his first name as “Stephan” (sic). And he lies when he pronounces a perfectly straightforward Anglo name like “Colbert” in a phony French way as “Colbair”. But so what. You say he lies “outrageously”. Good! I always say that if you’re going to tell porkies, make them spectacular , outrageous, egregious, shocking, appalling. Don’t be a wimp about it. my maiden name is Catherine Foster... next sibling in line is Stephan Foster..... I couldn't care less how Colbert spells his name but thanks again for pointing out irrelevant info... Lying is Satanic... Stop lying and promote truth.
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 20, 2021 8:07:52 GMT 10
I couldn't care less how Colbert spells his name but thanks again for pointing out irrelevant info... You’re welcome. Mind you I’ve always believed that how an individual spells his/her name is highly relevant. But there you are. Satanic eh! What the devil ... !!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 20, 2021 12:57:09 GMT 10
Yes of course "you" are not convinced you're wrong. That's obvious, crazy people generally lack the insight to recognize their own delusions are just that, delusions. If you understood the nature of delusions, in the medical sense, they are not simply a case of being mistaken. They are profound and intensely held beliefs that seem barely swayed by evidence to the contrary. By that same token, you too are delusional. And in my experience your intense reactions may suggest a wee bit of cognitive dissonance. Well... you should stop talking like you've arrived--life is a journey, not a destination. For me, this doesn't seem like a rational or balanced reaction to a difference of opinion. We are on a discussion board, we aren't negotiating trade agreements. Just grasp that concept for a moment... For me, they are plausible explanations. If they turn out to be false it wouldn't ruin my day. Nor would it likely effect you much if they turned out to be truth. Suffice it to say, were they as outlandish as you'd suggest, they wouldn't stand up (as they do), in a line of questioning in a court of law. So there must be something to them. BTW: No offence intended but they aren't 'crazy theories' just because you say so, and no one should be put off their pursuit of truth just because of your acrimony. It's quite okay for you to think that. But understand that is an opinion, not fact. And it ends at the individual. The culpability of derision lies at the feet of the attacker, not the target. The need to be derisive implies vulnerability. Secure people don't need to bring others down, to build themselves up. Maybe... if you could retract the claws long enough to offer some civil discourse. As an aside, I remember you mentioning that you were a Canadian Citizen. May I inquire what part of Canada you are/were from? (Just asking because context is important.)
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 25, 2021 12:03:35 GMT 10
Spork... for you!~
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 25, 2021 12:56:06 GMT 10
Absolutely on point. But I couldn't care less about the political motives. Covid is about control. This lockdown is stripping away our freedoms, and when they lighten up and return a freedom that is supposed to be our right to begin with. We are expected to be grateful.
The Covid restrictions are just a legalized form of control and we are letting them get away with it.
"I hope our supreme overlords lift the restrictions on Canada day so we might be allowed to celebrate our freedom", lol
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 25, 2021 13:29:11 GMT 10
Absolutely on point. But I couldn't care less about the political motives. Covid is about control. This lockdown is stripping away our freedoms, and when they lighten up and return a freedom that is supposed to be our right to begin with. We are expected to be grateful. The Covid restrictions are just a legalized form of control and we are letting them get away with it. "I hope our supreme overlords lift the restrictions on Canada day so we might be allowed to celebrate our freedom", lol I am 100 X 100% for lockdowns and locked borders especially so you can't convince me other plans work. They don't. But on the topic of the media lying about Trump I agree with you 100%.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on May 25, 2021 20:12:36 GMT 10
Trumps election was stolen from him, covid is a communist plot, riots on Capitol hill is nothing but Democrat fake news as it didn't happen and so on the media is picking on poor ol' Trump as if Murdoch has been honest reporting on Biden.....don't you think its time to give up on the alt right conspiracy theories..?
|
|