[Zagadka]

I could go to length at how many lies Trump has spewed forth, or about the Iraq War itself, but that would be a few thousand lines. And a lot of delusions, like apparently Obama caused the Iraq War.

Here, there's 10 pages of it

https://www.politifact.com/personalitie ... ing/false/

[skinster]

Yes, Trump is a liar, they all are.

Except some people here think that one party, one side of the same coin, is without liars and warmongering scum. Sad!

It's just beyond retarded that Democrats still think opposing their lies = support for Trump.

Socialists hate both of America's parties.

[jimjam]

Yes, completely.

Sivad already called it but I thought of it immediately while reading the OP. Sivad is justified in his insults/anger because of how dangerous the Russiagate lies are, not to mention a complete distraction from actual news. 2 years later and you people are still eating up shit from the CIA and FBI; you should be ashamed and embarrassed to even speak on this topic now, but either you're too stupid to figure shit out or too manipulated to realize the shit you're eating is actual shit brought to you by the same people who sold us war and genocide.

I have explained my position to you multiple times and what I have explained does not appear to bear any resemblance to your understanding of my explanation. So please bear with me as, in addition to being extremely stupid and enjoying eating shit, I can never expect to come close to your brilliant intellect. You should forget about poor jimjam and direct your brilliance at the CIA, FBI and NSA and their thousands of employees in an effort to explain to them that Russia is really America's BFF and has been such for decades.

In the meantime I suggest that you study history and eat ice cream .

[skinster]

Your argument turned from "Russia hacked our election" to "oh something happened and there's a collusion of some sort but erm there's no evidence for it yet but oh it's coming any day now, something that's not the original lie happened but just you wait for me to prove it courtesy of the FBI and CIA who care about us and never ever lie or anything bad like that, we trust them now that they're pro-Democrats."



I do read history, like how people like the dude you have faith in lied to us about the Iraq war. Maybe you should take your own advice.

[jimjam]

Your argument turned from "Russia hacked our election" to "oh something happened and there's a collusion of some sort but erm there's no evidence for it yet but oh it's coming any day now, something that's not the original lie happened but just you wait for me to prove it courtesy of the FBI and CIA who care about us and never ever lie or anything bad like that, we trust them now that they're pro-Democrats."



I do read history, like how people like the dude you have faith in lied to us about the Iraq war. Maybe you should take your own advice.

You obviously, in addition to having acquired great wisdom, are privy to inside information as pertains to Russia's relationship to the West. Please, please do inform the CIA, FBI, NSA, Dutch intelligence, British intelligence and others that they have nothing to fear from Russia and Putin The Truthful One. While you are at it, you may want to convene a meeting of NATO to let them know that their military alliance to protect against Russia is a waste of time and money as it is obvious that Russia is a peaceful nation with no aggressive intent.

Also I must wonder why you even deign to read my moronic opinions let alone repeatedly respond with hysterical non sequiturs.

[skinster]

Strawmen, lol.

[Albert]

You obviously, in addition to having acquired great wisdom, are privy to inside information as pertains to Russia's relationship to the West. Please, please do inform the CIA, FBI, NSA, Dutch intelligence, British intelligence and others that they have nothing to fear from Russia and Putin The Truthful One. While you are at it, you may want to convene a meeting of NATO to let them know that their military alliance to protect against Russia is a waste of time and money as it is obvious that Russia is a peaceful nation with no aggressive intent.

Also I must wonder why you even deign to read my moronic opinions let alone repeatedly respond with hysterical non sequiturs.

Cold War ended a quarter century ago Jimjam.

[skinster]

jimjam and his Dem-buddies are desperate for a new one.

[jimjam]

Cold War ended a quarter century ago Jimjam.

Ironically this tends to make Russia more of a dangerous adversary 25 years later. Putin has made appealing to Russia's strong nationalistic tendencies a lynch pin of his rise to power. He will avenge Russia's "humiliation" and return her to her rightful place as a world power. Also NATO, as a counter balance to Russia's aggressive tendencies, is still very much in business …………… and Putin is working very hard to undermine the foundations of NATO.

Sadly war is possibly the most stark example of history repeating itself. War/aggression it seems has been hard wired into the human brain since, and before, history began. As much as we bemoan this, we ignore it at our own peril.

[blackjack21]

The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people.

Is that like the media telling black people that the reason they aren't getting good paying jobs is because white people are racist, when they know it is because the people who own the media also own industry and are shipping the jobs offshore so they can make fatter profits for themselves?

[Sivad]

Also NATO, as a counter balance to Russia's aggressive tendencies, is still very much in business …………… and Putin is working very hard to undermine the foundations of NATO.

Sadly war is possibly the most stark example of history repeating itself.

It keeps happening because people like you keep supporting ignorant shit like NATO expansion and pretending insignificant powers like Russia are a major threat to Europe and the world.

[Albert]

It keeps happening because people like you keep supporting ignorant shit like NATO expansion and pretending insignificant powers like Russia are a major threat to Europe and the world.

It is a threat if you want to dominate the world. Russia took on many world rulers wannabes in the past, some Americans want to try the same again, well, will see if history repeats itself. Just why does it always has to be the Russians for Pete's sake?

But then again I guess Russia had the same ambitions with Communism and for that it suffers now.

[Sivad]

It is a threat if you want to dominate the world.

Yeah, Russia's not a threat, it's just an obstacle to US hegemony over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The US establishment always pretends that any obstacle to regional dominance is a major threat to world order. It's pathetic that people still fall for such an old bullshit propaganda tactic. Everything's a bad joke in the great big stupid, people are idiots.

[Albert]

I agree.

It is interesting to note though, Jimham grew up in the time when Soviet Union was actually a threat. Who's leaders had designs to spread the communist ideology around the world for betterment of humanity. So when Russia acts defensively to people who grew up in Cold War era its is a reminder of the past Russian aggression around the world.

With that said, establishment politicians of USA do want to dominate the world. So when Russia asserts its influence in places like Ukraine or Georgia to them this is a no-no indeed. To them they do not even like the current system in Russia and wish to change it. I also suspect they further wish to dismantle Russian territory to weaken the country. So it can never pose any opposition to American "World Order" that they keep talking about.

[Sivad]

It is interesting to note though, Jimham grew up in the time when Soviet Union was actually a threat.

There's no doubt that's where a lot of this idiocy is coming from but that doesn't excuse it. Liberals are hyping some seriously dangerous bullshit and they need to stop.

[Stormsmith]

@Sivad

I repeat

@Sivad 

Whoa, partner. Answer my question first:

Look at a different issue: the Flint River and lead poisoning - fake or no?

[Sivad]

the Flint River and lead poisoning

What about it?

[Sivad]

Detroit reporter tells 'On the Media' national press was reluctant to cover Flint water crisis

"On the Media" host Brooke Gladstone asked Guyette about the the crisis during the 5-minute-plus interview, and then turned the conversation to media matters, a central topic of the radio show and podcast.

Gladstone wanted to know why it took national media so long to begin covering the monumental municipal screw-up that led to the poisoning of the city's water source with lead.

"This crisis really did take a long time to get attention," said Gladstone. "Why do you think that is?"

Sometimes the bigger the story is, the longer it takes to get traction. Accusing the government of poisoning a town is a pretty significant charge to be making, and I think that a lot of people are reluctant to report something that is really almost unimaginable. We would not be sitting here talking about this now were it not first and foremost about the relentless efforts on the part of Flint citizens who refused to believe the lie their government was telling them, that their water was safe ...

Guyette said by the time he left Metro Times, there wasn't a penny available to submit Freedom of Information Act requests, let alone the time necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation of the nature he is amid with the ACLU.

He said generous grants provided solely for FOIA requests have allowed him to uncover documents he never otherwise would have.

____________________________________________________

Unjust Coverage of the Flint Water Crisis

Boston Globe essayist, and a climate and energy writer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, examines the failure of national media outlets to respond to the Flint water crisis in an urgent manner, as well as biases in coverage.

In June 2017, five Michigan officials were charged with involuntary manslaughter for their role in the Flint water crisis—more than three years after residents had first noticed that something was wrong with their water. The crisis began in April 2014, and was covered diligently by local press from the outset; Jackson details local reports of resident complaints, community meetings and protests. Yet it was not until March 2015—nearly a year after complaints began—that national media began to pay some attention.

Sustained and widespread media attention was not given until late 2015 and early 2016, when the state of Michigan and President Obama declared an emergency over high levels of lead in the water and in the blood of thousands of children. Additionally, the nature of some of the coverage was problematic: Complaints of citizens were discounted when compared to the comments of officials, residents were portrayed as hopeless and downtrodden despite months of action, and narratives of “heroes” excluded African American activists in a city that is 57 percent black.

Jackson asks what catastrophes might have been averted had national media outlets stepped in sooner—and why it took so long for the Flint water crisis to become a story worthy of national attention. He points to a lack of newsroom diversity, a history of national media paying little attention to environmental justice in communities of color, and the tendency to act only after harm has been verified by doctors and scientists—rather than in response to widespread citizen concern.

[Stormsmith]

This is simple: is it fake or not. One word will do

[Sivad]

New York Times Public Editor: "There Could Have Been, And Should Have Been, Much More" Reporting On Flint Water Crisis. New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan said there "could have been, and should have been, much more" coverage in The Times of Flint's water crisis. She noted that the newspaper published a "frightening article" about the water in March 2015, but then "more than six months went by" before the paper published two more articles in October, and then The Times wrote "nothing of substance until [January 2016], when a state of emergency was declared in Flint." She said The Times "got off to a strong start with its initial Flint story" but that the paper missed an opportunity to follow up "with some serious digging," which might have "shamed" public officials "into taking action long before they did." She continued:

Imagine if The Times really had taken on the Flint outrage with energy and persistence many months ago. With its powerful pulpit and reach, The Times could have held public officials accountable and prevented human suffering. That's what journalistic watchdogs are supposed to do. As traditional local investigative reporting withers, The Times's role becomes ever more important.

Yes, that takes journalistic resources. Investigative reporting is notoriously time-consuming. But are such resources really unavailable?

After all, enough Times firepower somehow has been found to document Hillary Clinton's every sneeze, Donald Trump's latest bombast, and Marco Rubio's shiny boots. There seem to be plenty of Times resources for such hit-seeking missives as "breadfacing" or the Magazine's thorough exploration of buffalo plaid and "lumbersexuals." And staff was available to produce this week's dare-you-not-to-click video on the rising social movement known as "Free the Nipple."

[...]

If The Times had kept the pressure on the Flint story, the resulting journalism might not have made the "trending" list -- but it would have made a real difference to the people of Flint, who were in serious need of a powerful ally. [The New York Times, 1/27/16]

National Journal's Ron Fournier Admitted He "Blew It." In a January 20 National Journal column headlined "How Government--and This Columnist--Failed Flint," Fournier acknowledged that he "blew it" by failing to bring up Flint's water crisis in a December 2015 column about Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's "refreshing approach to politics." [National Journal, 1/20/16]

CNN's Jake Tapper Apologized For Taking "So Long To Get On This Story." During an interview with Flint Mayor Karen Weaver on the January 20 edition of CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper, Tapper apologized for failing to cover the Flint crisis over the many months that it was becoming worse and worse. After promising to "shame" Snyder or President Obama if they don't provide Weaver with "the response you need," Tapper admitted, "I'm sorry that it took us so long to get on this story." [CNN, The Lead with Jake Tapper, 1/20/16 via Media Matters]

Fox News' Media Critic: Flint Crisis "Hardly The Media's Finest Hour." On the January 31 edition of Fox News' Media Buzz, host Howard Kurtz said the Flint water crisis "is a national disgrace and hardly the media' finest hour." Kurtz said that "local journalist Curt Guyette did the most to cover this outrage, but he was working for the ACLU, not a news organization." He added that the New York Times "deserves credit" for its initial story on Flint's water and MSNBC also "touched on the problem," before pointing to Margaret Sullivan's critique of the Times' overall coverage. Kurtz concluded: "Good for Margaret Sullivan for challenging her paper and really, all of us, to do better."

Poynter Institute Noted Criticism Of National Media Coverage, Praise For Local Coverage. In a column headlined "How the media blew Flint," James Warren, chief media writer for the Poynter Institute, said that national media coverage of Flint's water crisis "seem[s] a little belated." He quoted David Poulson of Michigan State University's Knight Center for Environmental Journalism, who said that "perhaps aggressive coverage of local government under the state-appointed financial manager would have caught the issue earlier, or even prevented it from happening." He also cited Tom Henry, a reporter for Toledo's The Blade, who argued that "a lot" of the media failure "comes down to the decay of American journalism as well as decay of local government as costs for roads, sewers, police and everything else crippled budgets." However, Warren reported that Poulson gave "good marks" to local reporters "including Ron Fonger at The Flint Journal and Michigan Public Radio," and Henry gave "kudos" to "Chad Livengood and Jim Lynch of the Detroit News and also to the Detroit Free Press."

Syndicated Columnist Leonard Pitts: News Media "Failed" Its "Mission" And "Left The Poor Under Cover Of Darkness." Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts wrote on January 19:

It was in April of 2014 that the water turned bad. Residents of Flint reported that the stuff smelled. It was yellowish brown. You drank it and your hair fell out. Or you developed a rash. Or you were nauseous.

Again, this was in April.

According to a computer search, it was not until the following January that the Detroit Free Press, just an hour down the road, took note. It wasn't until March that The New York Times began reporting the story. It wasn't until Jan. 5th of this year -- almost two years later -- that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder saw fit to declare a state of emergency and nine days afterward that he asked President Obama to declare the city a disaster area.

And it is not until today that yours truly is writing about it.

[...]

[N]ews media have left the poor under cover of darkness. Our light shines on politics, the middle class, technological gimmickry and celebrity gossip, yes. But on those the Bible calls "the least of these"? Not so much. Our inattention frees politicians to ignore them as well. And all of a sudden you look up and it's been almost two years since 100,000 people had safe water to drink and we're just beginning to notice.

That's unconscionable. News media's mission, it is often said, is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Where the plight of the nation's poor is concerned, we seem to have failed on both counts. [Miami Herald, 1/19/16]
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2 ... diacovered