 |
An FBI lawyer pled gully to fabricating evidence against the Trump campaign in a FISA warrant application. There is no bigger story today, and yet no bigger story being ignored by the compliant press . Clinesmith I believe made a deal with the Durham prosecution team and he will soon out more of the conspirators .
"No bigger story today"?????????????? Huh? You gotta be kidding, tom. This is old news that was known over a year ago. It's being revived now because the Trump-initiated investigation by flunkie Barr needs some news to be ready for just before the election. The other flunkie Durham is going along with the nonsense hook, line and sinker.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
YOU "believe" a deal has been made with Durham to out "more conspirators"?????? Please keep us advised on that one, tom.
Have you joined QANON? Have you defected from conservative to conspiracy theorists? Are you off your meds?
Put that darned bottle of snake oil down my gosh!
We knew about Clinesmith from the Horwitz report about FISA abuse by the emperor's FBI. You think he would only be pleading guilty to a single count if a deal hadn't been agreed to with the prosecution ?We will know more about the terms under which the negotiated plea is being entered when Clinesmith appears in court. Federal law requires that all material understandings attendant to a guilty plea be disclosed to the judge.And unlike the emperor's team ,the Durham team will not falsify information or leave out pertinent exculpatory evidence (like Carter Page was not working with the Russians but was in fact a CIA asset).
Unlike Comey and Mueller investigations there hasn't been a steady stream of convenient leaks fed to the press . So perhaps the press can be forgiven . However I suspect their lack of interest is pure political hypocrisy.
My lack of interest in whatever the dufus and his flunky Barr comes up with is rooted in distrust and disgust, and a profound allergy to snake oil.
NEXT!
Leaving aside the other points in your reply (time will tell, as you say), I beg to differ with your characterization of the press. By far, the greatest political hypocrisy exhibited by media has been the FOX organization. As a frequent watcher, I am astounded at the way FOX distorts or ignores the news - especially the prime time trio pf Carlson, Ingraham and Hannity. It is aptly named the Trump News Channel. OAN is worse, but nobody cares much about them, except Trump who touts them often.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
For a smart guy like you, tom, how can you dismiss what is the most accurate reporting on Trump and the Senate Republicans by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the print media of the NY Times and the Washington Post - not to mention the major media outlets overseas?
I will give you MSNBC which, sadly in my opinion, changed from main-stream to left-wing during the Trump era. Having said that, it continues to report accurately re the Trump news. Trump's attacks are a major cause of that network going leftward.
Not a day goes by (literally), when Trump is not caught in a lie or gross distortion of the truth. Only FOX ignores or minimizes his terrible mismanagement of Covid-19, now counting near 170,000 dead.
Thank God for the main-stream media - warts and all.
I only watch Fox news with Bret Baier ,and the only talk radio I listen to is John Bachelor. I have seen enough YouTube segments of CNN commentary to know they are hopelessly biased . How can anyone consider Fredo or Lemon as unbiased ? I'll leave it at that . Even in the days of Walter Cronkite the press bias was on display . Nobody knew different because there was no competing source of information . The big 3 networks were the so called gate-keepers of truth . As for the print press and their relationship with the FBI ,all one has to do is recall the real motivation for Mark Felt becoming 'Deep Throat '. That Woodward and Bernstein got the story right had nothing to do with true gumshoe investigating . They were fed a story and ran with it doing no serious vetting of what they were fed
Forget for a minute that this happened to a President you don't like ; if the FBI is brazen enough to lie, tamper with evidence, & carry out a phony treason “investigation” against a guy who 63 million Americans voted for , who can possibly think it isn’t doing the same injustices to ordinary people every day? Think Richard Jewell ;think Dr Steven Hatfill. How many innocent people have they put away or tried to ? At a minimum every case that Clinesmith and Weismann investigated should come under immediate review .
Tom - when the media reports news that is immediately backed up by a video of what they are reporting - I consider that the truth. Yes, sometimes videos can be misleading, but more often than not, they reveal actual happenings. This is especially true when even FOX has to report in a similar fashion, so obvious is the event.
As hard as I try, I will never understand how anyone seeking truth can support Trump - a known liar. As I said above, he dissembles DAILY. The best I can say about him is that I have come to believe he is mentally unstable and therefore has less culpability than I once thought. However, in no way does that eliminate the absolute need to get him out of the presidency. Nor does it stop him from being prosecuted and jail time which he richly deserves.
Does the main-stream media have a left/right bias? Yes and no. When the power resides in the right-wing, the media will expose the wrongs as it has been doing in the era of Trump. When the power resides in the left-wing, it will expose the wrongs as it did in the eras of Clinton and Obama, although those presidents were angels compared to the devil currently in office. The media thrives on exposing corruption.
It is hard not to act the way the media does since they are primarily intelligent people who are well-educated and able to judge events and people with a view to fact and truth. Those qualities are not absolute necessities but they sure help. We all know people who have come from nowhere and are naturally able to speak and understand the difference between BS and truth. But they are more likely to show up in the media when they rise from the well-informed circles.
You cited examples from Cronkite to the FBI. Yet nothing comes close to Trump blatantly trying to undermine the presidential election in his favor. Or his fatal mismanagement of the Covid crisis. Even worse has been the gross failure of the Senate Republicans when they threw their country under the bus simply to keep their positions of influence. All these have been reported accurately and they hardly indicate a left bias since they are the truth.
Any other President that negotiated a Middle East Peace deal would be on the fast track to a Nobel Peace Prize and would be lauded by the press. But not Trump . The Slimes headline was "Trump’s Middle East Plan: Starting Point or Dead End?"
The Politico's take was "Trump's Win Is a Loss for the Middle East"
The devil is in the details as this seems less like a peace plan than a let's side against Iran initiative. We'll see.
He is just lining up his ducksQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hardly Nobel Prize worthy. Exaggerate much? This was a diplomatic recognition between an Arab state and Israel. Good enough. The condition was that Israel POSTPONE its West Bank settlement. Essentially a bribe suggested by Trump et al to get a headline he can promote for the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Then there's Iran threatening, perceived as such by the UAE.
And Israel's radicals are not happy with the settlement agreement.
Totally rejected by the Palestinians.
So there's a little more to the agreement than you suggest. However, credit is granted where credit is due. It's better than nothing - temporarily.
Yes talks were held, it isn't Oslo but this is a different time
since the Palestinians launch missiles at Israel every day ,I would call Oslo a failure ;wouldn't you ?
I was just saying you cannot compare previous situations with the present progress. The UAE obviously recognise the futility of the palestinian claims and as they are supported by Iran it is politic to take an opposing view. If the palestinians stopped their offensive some progress might be made
Stopping Israeli expansion seems to be a condition of this agreement making the hardliners very unhappy especially Netty so we will have to see how this goes. The UAE is but the 3rd Arab nation to make such an agreement with Israel so a start, but a long way to go before declaring this a ME peace plan. I'm not seeing a big rush by other Arab states to get on this bandwagon.
Not bloody likely. How would you react if another country took over Australia without a nod to Aussies already living there?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If ever there were two sides to a question, this is one of those times.
I'm on the other side of that question. There were never two sides to the palestinian question, the UN decided that in 1948Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
And who decided things in the previous 2,000 years prior to 1948?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
force of arms, Romans, arabs, turks, british to name a few. Until there was interest in establishing a jewish homeland palestine was a arid backwater noone wanted. The Ottomans started moving people in to counter jewish migrationQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
No one wanted the land except for the people living on the land. Interest in establishing a homeland for a group not there is about as evil as is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
When the Arab Bedouins helped the allies defeat the Turks in WW1, the British Foreign Office promised the land as a national homeland for the Palestinian Arabs living there. A few years later in 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised the land to Jews as a homeland. Unfortunately, the Arabs weren't even allowed to have a seat at the peace conference in Versailles.
The two promises have been the source of the conflict for over 100 years now. The British have continuously admitted the the Balfour Declaration was vague as to the boundaries involved.
The Palestinians clearly have the greater moral right to the land, but the Israelis have the backing of the major powers and far superior military technology.
Athos you know as I do that the issue isn't as simple as who might have been living there centuries ago. There were only a few hundred thousand arabs living there when the idea was first floated, The jews were evicted by the Romans because they didn't accept being a conquered people. The palestinians are no different. If they would just settle to the new circumstance instead of trying to destroy the newcomers they might be better offQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
This isn't about "centuries ago". You wrote that Israel was established by the UN in 1948, hardly centuries ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If you're referring to 1948, the Arab population was about 1.25 million. Jews, primarily recent immigrants since the advent of Zionism, were a few hundred thousand. Prior to the late 19th century, the Jewish population had been a small minority and had been static since their expulsion by the Romans in 70 AD.Quote:
There were only a few hundred thousand arabs living there when the idea was first floated,
You have it very wrong. The Palestinians were not conquered. Their homeland was given to a foreign people who had not lived there for almost 2,000 years (with the above exception). This "gift" came from a supra-national agency (the UN) that had no moral or legal right to do so.Quote:
Jews were evicted by the Romans because they didn't accept being a conquered people. The palestinians are no different.
To fight an invader trying to conquer your land, resistance is the normal thing to do. Didn't Australia fight the Japanese? Or should they have stopped resisting because they "might be better off"?Quote:
If they would just settle to the new circumstance instead of trying to destroy the newcomers they might be better off
There is a difference between resisting an invader and insurrection after the invasion is over. I'm sure the americans appreciate that after their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can fight for just so long before your country is devastated. The palestinians are fortunate noone has devastated their countryQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
As I previously stated, there was NO invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The issue here is Israel-Palestinians. Not America-Iraq-Afghanistan.Quote:
I'm sure the americans appreciate that after their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chalk one up for international morality.Quote:
You can fight for just so long before your country is devastated. The palestinians are fortunate no one has devastated their country
Targeting Saddam, Bin Laden, and AL Qaeda is/was hardly an invasion, and Palestine looks devastated AND oppressed to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Really, what part of itQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I'm sure the palestinians would disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The issue is the UN, representing the nations of the world, voted to create the state of Israel. The palestinians have never accepted that decisionQuote:
The issue here is Israel-Palestinians. Not America-Iraq-Afghanistan.
You think that exists, you are more niave than I thoughtQuote:
Chalk one up for international morality.
Jeez - you managed to miss the point of everything I wrote -----
And I'm sure they know the difference between an invasion and the ruling by the UN. I'm surprised you don't.Quote:
I'm sure the palestinians would disagree
You are skipping past what the discussion was about. It's ok to change a subject but don't imply it's an answer to the subject just discussed.Quote:
The issue is the UN, representing the nations of the world, voted to create the state of Israel. The palestinians have never accepted that decision
This is a reference to my comment on international morality. You again missed the point - this time in a big way. As anybody can see (apparently some exceptions) my comment was a bit of irony, or sarcasm if you prefer. Who's being naive, now?Quote:
You think that exists, you are more niave than I thought
Guilty I'll admit it if you will, I'm totally naive, I believe in the innate goodness of mankind
So do I but you cannot ignore the loons liars and innate criminal behavior of some of mankind, or the bad behavior whether intentional or unintentional.
There was never a 'Palestine ' even when the UN recommended they establish a state during the partition . The Arabs there are Arab ,indistinguishable from Arabs from Jordan ,Syria, Sinai Bedouins ,Lebanon, Iraq .Arabs in neighboring states, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitant's part of the great "Arab nation" . Jerusalem in it's whole history has never been recognized as other that Israel's Capitol ;during the First and Second Temple periods ,and of the modern state of Israel . The land was Israel as far back as 1000 bce . If there was any conquest it was of Israel by such empires as Philistines ,Egypt ,Assyria ,Babylon ,Persia ,Greeks ,Parthenia,Rome ,Eastern Roman Empire ,Byzantines ,the Turks /Ottomans ,Germany ,England ,France , and a whole bunch of other minor empires and invaders . The Jews who returned after the UN mandate were living in diaspora after conquers threw them out of their homeland .
Of course, there was. The name is attested to in ancient Greece and in ancient Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's like saying Irish in Ireland are indistinguishable from Irish in England. So what?Quote:
The Arabs there are Arab ,indistinguishable from <other> Arabs
Again, so what?Quote:
The <Arabs> have always considered Palestine and its inhabitant's part of the great "Arab nation"
WRONG! A settlement at the site of Jerusalem goes back at least 6,000 years. By 3,000 BC, a city inhabited by Canaanites existed. This city was named after a Canaanite god (Shalem) and was later inhabited by a tribe from Canaan called Israelites. This was about 1100 BC.Quote:
Jerusalem in it's whole history has never been recognized as other that Israel's Capitol
This is all generally true, but what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?Quote:
The land was Israel as far back as 1000 bce . If there was any conquest it was of Israel by such empires as Philistines ,Egypt ,Assyria ,Babylon ,Persia ,Greeks ,Parthenia,Rome ,Eastern Roman Empire ,Byzantines ,the Turks /Ottomans ,Germany ,England ,France , and a whole bunch of other minor empires and invaders
Not true. AFTER the UN action in 1947, Jews had a hard time leaving their home countries, primarily Eastern Europe and Russia, and had, in fact, an even harder time getting into Israel due to British blockades against immigrant Jews.Quote:
The Jews who returned after the UN mandate were living in diaspora after conquers threw them out of their homeland .
In any case, what is your point about this history of the Jews?
he is trying to prove palestine is a construct of modern history and that the palestinian people never existed
He needs to read Genesis andQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine
I guess he was wrong. I wonder, then, exactly whose land it was that Israel took over in 1947?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It was British mandated PalestineQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
My question was Whose land was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Some Jews lived there, some Arabs lived there and it was occupied by the British militaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Then why did you say the Palestinian people never existed?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 AM. |