patrick.net

Obama: at least he's not Romney

No wonder Obozo does not like reporters and has the NSA spy on them. The guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He ought to be tarred and feathered.

You guys are me only 6 fucking years ago.

He still makes my leg quiver :)

freak80 says

Obama: at least he's not Romney

He's 80% Romney. They only differ on spending on social safety nets, and that does not make up for these atrocities.

CaptainShuddup says

You guys are me only 6 fucking years ago.

You vote for people who are responsible for illegal kidnapping, imprisonment, torture, and murder of innocents precisely because they do those things. Every single Republican candidate in the last election, save Ron Paul, was for these crimes.

So, no, we're not like you. If we were, then we would be making excuses for how Obama does not commit these crimes or how the victims deserved it. And that's the difference between the political right and everybody else.

I don't know, I think it's the difference between political party slaves who must support their candidate no matter what he does and free thinking people. People are just now starting to wake up in numbers to the fact that our stake in America has been sold off years ago and we live in an oligarchy of dictators.

Quigley says

People are just now starting to wake up in numbers to the fact that our stake in America has been sold off years ago and we live in an oligarchy of dictators.

That's the thing. Both parties are for "free trade," which means the American standard of living must continue to fall until it reaches equilibrium with the rest of the world.

In a global economy, everyone makes Bangladesh wages.

egads101 says

if this is a true synopsis of the story, real news would be carrying it. I'm a bit busy to go searching, but if you can find the same story from reuters or bbc, let me know.

as long as you source it from teashitbrain.com, nobody who isn't a member of your cult will care.

Most of the most important news never hits the bought-and-paid-for media. It's not supposed to. Why would the wealthy elite who own the media allow their reporters/editors (who cling to their rapidly vanishing jobs with fingernails) to criticize their policies? Or their stool pigeon elected leaders like Obama? They wouldn't, they don't, and it's ducking obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head wedged firmly up their own crack.

A short search later gives a ton of results, here are A few. Neither is main stream media, but HuffPost is as liberal as is possible to be.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3640272

http://rt.com/news/yemeni-journalist-shaye-freed-500/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye

The Yemen governments story was that they did the bombing.

The Yemeni government initially took credit for the strike, saying it had targeted an al-Qaeda training camp. But it was later revealed through WikiLeaks cables that it was in fact a U.S. attack.

Just wondering. Does the wikileaks info clarify exactly to what degree the bombing was done by the US ? Not to excuse it by any stretch. But there are many possibilities. Was the US just supplying the actual Military hit, for an attack that was planned and essentially ordered by the Yemen govt ? Or was it sort of the other way around.

If it was Yemen government that supplied the intelligence and gave the order, and the US that supplied only the firepower, then it's understandable that the US would want to silence anyone that wanted to pin it on us.

Actually, in terms of preventing future terrorism it's understandable anyway, that once such a mistake was made, the US would not want to be blamed for it. That just creates new terrorists.

What if the coordinates that were given to the US were given for the purpose of intentionally making us look bad ? It doesn't make the mistake any less heinous, but it would be in a sense a type of terrorism.

I'm not defending our military, or Obama in this. Just pointing out that we don't know the whole story. OR at least I'm not satisfied that I know anything close to the whole story. We know or think we know only two things. That the cruise missiles were fired by the US (but on whose behalf ?). And for some reason the US government didn't want blame/credit for the strike, and felt so strongly about this that they were willing to ask that a journalist be unjustly jailed.

What we don't know is whether the journalists story was only a partial truth.

egads101 says

HuffPost is as liberal as is possible to be.

Liberal yes but very anti drone. There is on some issues, as has been seen in the Syria near attack, a convergence of the old anti war left with the anti anything Obama as well as the libertarian right. It produced a clear majority of potential no votes for a Syrian strike. My point being that though Huff post and many "liberal" blogs may generally favor Obama they are far from pro Obama or nuetral in his hawkish foreign policy.

egads101 says

if this is a true synopsis of the story, real news would be carrying it. I'm a bit busy to go searching, but if you can find the same story from reuters or bbc, let me know.

as long as you source it from teashitbrain.com, nobody who isn't a member of your cult will care.

Are you even remotely aware of the countless( and that's not at all hyperbole) instances of "real news" that is on the AP wire and NOT run by mainstream news?

humanity says

Actually, in terms of preventing future terrorism it's understandable anyway, that once such a mistake was made, the US would not want to be blamed for it. That just creates new terrorists.

Actually the denials are worse than the admission. There is plenty of reporting overseas that never hits the US media. People outside the us frequently see the whole story reported locally followed by denials or flat out obvious lies by the US government. The US is very frequently viewed as a hypocritical bully by a large segment of the worlds population. That's a very big turn around from pre 9/11.

The real missing piece of the puzzle is how did Obama know an insignificant yemen reporter was being pardoned and why was it so important that it rated direct intervention by the president of the US? Hard to believe but Obama is turning out to be more thin skinned, secretive, and vindictive than Bush.

rdm says

egads101 says

HuffPost is as liberal as is possible to be.

Liberal yes but very anti drone. There is on some issues, as has been seen in the Syria near attack, a convergence of the old anti war left with the anti anything Obama as well as the libertarian right. It produced a clear majority of potential no votes for a Syrian strike. My point being that though Huff post and many "liberal" blogs may generally favor Obama they are far from pro Obama or nuetral in his hawkish foreign policy.

And my point was that they are very pro-Obama, and not yet owned by the wealthy elites. Sure they get it wrong a lot, and their reporting has a sickening bias on anything social or societal, but they let real news through even when t doesn't fit their Obama fan-boi platform. It's interesting to see all the hand wringing that goes on by libs who read this and are like, "say it ain't so, Barry!"
A very left-leaning online paper can still report real news if its owners so choose. The reason I don't watch CNN, NBC, or Fox is not because of their left or right wing bias. It's because their owners won't let the truth out, and choose to air stories that are mere distractions (Britney, Miley Cyrus, dancing cats, trayvon/Zimmerman, terrorists worldwide, and too many others to count.) Sadly, if you want real news these days, you need to turn off the rube-tube and pick up your mouse.

Quigley says

Sadly, if you want real news these days, you need to turn off the rube-tube and pick up your mouse.

Agree, but remember there's all sorts of batshit-crazy on the internet: on the left, right, and everywhere else. Hard to know what's "true" anymore.

freak80 says

Quigley says

Sadly, if you want real news these days, you need to turn off the rube-tube and pick up your mouse.

Agree, but remember there's all sorts of batshit-crazy on the internet: on the left, right, and everywhere else. Hard to know what's "true" anymore.

I heard they can't put anything on the Internet that's not true. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a date with a hot French model I met online .
.
.

Quigley says

A very left-leaning online paper can still report real news if its owners so choose.

Or not or print a story that though it is anti Obama fits the owners agenda. Because an anti Obama story is published on a liberal normally pro Obama blog does not lend it any real credibility particularly when it is well known the Huff Post opposes Obama's basic foreign policy regarding his anti terrorism policy.

Quigley says

I heard they can't put anything on the Internet that's not true.

I heard the same thing. BTW have fun on your date.

People lie and distort; left, right or center, the internet has just made their lies and distortions more available to more people. Of course it has also made a response to the lies and distortions more available. But who has the time or energy to sift through the crap? If one wishes to spend their energy sifting through the dross in a search for the truth that is their right. Mostly people just try to find a story(s) that validate a general position they already have. Sometimes the internet is useful and provides accurate information but generally it is just masturbation.

Lol. You are walking talking pot kettle black.

Put another way, your a simp.

To quote a famous Roman governor of Judea, "What is Truth?"