John Kiriakou says there's a "sick irony" to the fact that he went to prison for exposing the CIA's use of waterboarding, while a woman who oversaw the practice is up for promotion.

 VV wrote: 
No you didn't. 

My post was not a direct reply to you. 

It was a comment on a chain of posts, that you were part of where racism was heavily infered at the beginning and you validated with your mention of the program in the last part of the chain.

I was just showing how the program you mentioned was not racist.

But I don't fault you for misunderstanding. 

You're still trying to grasp the meaning and usage of rhetoric, right ?

 Beaker wrote: 


You're funny.

 kurtster wrote: 
Ahh, the spin doctor is busy I see. I didn't mention the word racism in my post.
 
Many people thought the creation of such an office was unnecessary as it is still not clear what gaps this agency fills that weren't filled by the FBI and state or local law enforcement. What professional services were those victims not getting before that they are getting now? My guess is that the office is staffed by a few people who really don't know what it is that they should be doing... kinda like the EPA but on a much smaller scale. Would love to get some solid answers on this... but that is neither here nor there.

Bottom line is that Trump has a blind-spot when it comes to crimes committed by non-immigrants but he has laser-focus and a hair-trigger response when it comes to crimes committed by immigrants or children of immigrants (legal or otherwise). Why? Because it suits his agenda and anything not part of his agenda is just noise to be ignored. I think that much is clear to everyone (Trumpers and Anti-Trumpers alike).

 Lazy8 wrote: 
You have to get pretty far down into the blogosphere/tinfoil realm before you find a writer who doesn't stop to think whether or not anyone will read/watch the end result.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

You are visitor




Since July 12, 1998

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Gotta disagree on a key (implied) point: all O'Keefe was able to imply was that CNN (as an institution) had a low opinion of Trump and the electorate. He also got the guy to admit that ratings drive the topics they emphasize.

He didn't get him to admit that their biases/agenda drove the actual news, just that they picked stories based on how interested people were in them. He didn't get him to admit to fabricating stories or even accuse him of it.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
 ScottFromWyoming wrote:   
In trying to be amusing, I was simply unclear. But everything you said is {implied} in what I said.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
When you take someone's words out of context (as O'Keefe did in the ACORN sting) you are misrepresenting that person's views. That's dishonest.

If you haven't watched the video you should. Are the CNN exec's words out of context? Do they not paint an accurate picture of his views?

I'll take it a step further: are those views out of line with what you or any rational being thinks of Donald Trump?

People who work in news organizations are entitled to have opinions. No one with two neurons to rub together can look at politics and not have an opinion. They can even have an agenda to go with that opinion, they just have an obligation to be honest about it and to honestly represent the facts of the day.

CNN frequently fails at those last two points and it's fair to call them on it, even if your own reporting comes with an opinion and an agenda.

O'Keefe has been dishonest in the way he has portrayed some of his subjects. That warrants skepticism but not dismissal.

CNN has been dishonest in the way he has portrayed some of its subjects. Same caveat applies.

 Beaker wrote: 
Nice try. Your video was an Argumentum ad verecundiam. 

Perfectly appropriate to question the credibility/competence of O'Keefe's, uh, "authority" on the topic of fake news (hard to even type that sentence without splitting my sides)
See HERE

Six more women say they had sexual relationships with tRump

 Beaker wrote: 
I was trying to make a funny re: CNN.
 
But O'Keefe is known for making videos that make people look bad, whether or not they actually said/meant what it looks like they said, and here he is with another video, are we supposed to assume he's engaging in truthful journalism now? Using an irredeemably tarnished source to claim that CNN is irredeemably bad. Or vice versa. 

 Beaker wrote: 

Well, the Trump administration seems to be taking it seriously.

Cyberattacks Put Russian Fingers on the Switch at Power Plants, U.S. Says

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I'm guessing that after Trump vacates the office she will hope to be hired within the Trump organization?
 
I can't see anyone else extending an offer to her.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Yeah, we're paying her six figures a year to stand behind a podium and lie to us every day. I have no idea how she sleeps at night.

So let me get this straight... an article that misrepresented the extent of a Russian hack now means that Trump is a great president and his administration is not a train wreck? 

Thank God that got straightened out. I was beginning to think that the election of Trump was a big mistake.

 R_P wrote:
There's a person whose job I would never want, even if I believed in Trump and regardless of how much it pays.  I'm surprised she's hung around this long.

 Beaker wrote: 

A few things about Gina Haspel:

- We were wrong: She didn't oversee torture of Abu Zubaydah.

- She did oversee CIA dark prison, and torture of another detainee.

- She was involved in destroying tapes of torture.https://t.co/j0Hpl6czDr pic.twitter.com/8qMll9wx14

— Eric Umansky (@ericuman) March 16, 2018

< charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js">

O'Keefe and fake news. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

Righteous and rational defenders of The Truth™!

See, see, SEE!11!, you can only really trust Breitard and Faux News, the rest are The Enemies of The People.

 Beaker wrote: 
So, let me see if I got this straight (didn't watch the clip so I'm surmising): Known agenda-driven news fabricator is shown disparaging, um, being disparaged by, um wait, what?