So since Obama has PROPOSED "FREEDOM", he is the FREEDOM PRESIDENT! Since Obama has PROPOSED "LIBERTY", he is the LIBERTY PRESIDENT! And, since Obama has PROPOSED "PEACE", OBAMA IS THE PEACE PRESIDENT!
Thank you for that clarification!
Obama is the enemy of peace, liberty and freedom.
The only freedom he supports is the freedom to use and distribute guns, death and violence as his problem solving tools.
Do these sources work for me???? Um, no. Again... The SOURCE carried by Reuters is The German weekly Der Spiegel (Not Reuters) The text of that story: "The reports could not be independently verified".
The Guardian Text: ~ "say sources" ~ "Jordanian security sources say" ~ "According to European and Jordanian sources " ~ "A Jordanian source familiar with the training operations said:" ~ "Officials in Brussels say" ~ "Jordanian sources said" ~ "said a Jordanian source " The story may or may not turn out to be true... But your SOURCE doesn't offer anything more than conjecture.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Do these sources work for me???? Um, no. Again... The SOURCE carried by Reuters is The German weekly Der Spiegel (Not Reuters) The text of that story: "The reports could not be independently verified".
The Guardian Text: ~ "say sources" ~ "Jordanian security sources say" ~ "According to European and Jordanian sources " ~ "A Jordanian source familiar with the training operations said:" ~ "Officials in Brussels say" ~ "Jordanian sources said" ~ "said a Jordanian source " The story may or may not turn out to be true... But your SOURCE doesn't offer anything more than conjecture.
Oh, so you don't believe unnamed sources now? Good! I can agree with that. I'll be sure to discredit all articles from what most consider "reputable news outlets", when you post something using unnamed sources.
The more I think about it, you're probably right. A rag tag bunch of "terrorists", a branch of Al Qaeda(or the JV, as Obama was quoted in reference to them) were able to pretty much topple a government propped up by the US and overrun the Iraqi military that was trained and armed by the US. And now, they have MORE US weapons.
ISIS, rolling into Iraq with a convoy of Toyota trucks. Never seen them coming!
Oh, so you don't believe unnamed sources now? Good! I can agree with that. I'll be sure to discredit all articles from what most consider "reputable news outlets", when you post something using unnamed sources.
A "reputable news source, like Reuters, didn't back the story, they just reported what "OTHERS" have said about a subject. If Reuters originated the story, they would need multiple verifiable sources... not "some guy standing on a corner in Syria".
Again, the story may or may not be true. Your "SOURCE" is a guy standing on a corner in Syria.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Again, the story may or may not be true. Your "SOURCE" is a guy standing on a corner in Syria.
My source is The Guardian, Der Speigel, via Reuters. They made the decision to print the story. They were comfortable enough with their unnamed source to run the story.
My source is Reuters. They made the decision to print the story. They were comfortable enough with their unnamed source to run the story.
They can post what ever they like... but just as many "reliable" news outlets posted early stories of the Tony Stewart race accident, they only reported it as "sources on the scene said," rather than a verifiable story backed by that news outlet.
The difference between the two? One is "here is a story that we heard"... (hearsay) compared to... This story is fact as near as we can determine... (Verifiable information)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
ISIS fighters WERE NOT trained by the U.S., I don't know where the hell you got that from.
Why does this surprise you Buck, its not the 1st time we armed and funded people to overthrow governments and stage coups. We armed the Taliban, we armed Saddam, we armed Mexican cartels and south American guerilla groups, we are arming unknown militia fighter as we speak, the list is almost never ending.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
They can post what ever they like... but just as many "reliable" news outlets posted early stories of the Tony Stewart race accident, they only reported it as "sources on the scene said," rather than a verifiable story backed by that news outlet.
The difference between the two? One is "here is a story that we heard"... (hearsay) compared to... This story is fact as near as we can determine... (Verifiable information)
So when does it become "verifiable" - when the governments conducting the training admit to it? Or when the journalist is taken to the training facilities to witness it themselves?
So when does it become "verifiable" - when the governments conducting the training admit to it? Or when the journalist is taken to the training facilities to witness it themselves?
I'm often surprised at Cicero's naivety in matters of how the world works.
"JOURNALISTS" vary a great deal in their integrity, ability and skills. Bumbler for example, will take the word of a blogger to be equal to that of a NY Times or BBC reporter. He believes what he wants and discounts the rest.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I'm often surprised at Cicero's naivety in matters of how the world works.
"JOURNALISTS" vary a great deal in their integrity, ability and skills. Bumbler for example, will take the word of a blogger to be equal to that of a NY Times or BBC reporter. He believes what he wants and discounts the rest.
So, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and Reuters have journalists with no integrity, ability, or skills. OK, got it. If you have the time, could you list the other news outlets that I must not read? I notice you listed the British state run BBC as a reliable source to honestly report state secrets like a covert operation to train Islamic Militants. I'll be sure to watch state run news to report state secrets.
So, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and Reuters have journalists with no integrity, ability, or skills. OK, got it..
So it's back to your old straw man meme... Yawn.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Well, if figured it was a good response to your red herring. You went on some bizare tangent about journalistic integrity.
Just say it...those that report information that make Obama look bad MUST be discredited. If Bush was the President instead of Obama...The Guardian, Reuters, and Der Spiegel would be the most reputable news sources on the planet.
Well, if figured it was a good response to your red herring. You went on some bizare tangent about journalistic integrity.
Just say it...those that report information that make Obama look bad MUST be discredited. If Bush was the President instead of Obama...The Guardian, Reuters, and Der Spiegel would be the most reputable news sources on the planet.
Re-read my post... you got it wrong yet again.
I didn't 'discredit The Guardian or Reuters.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
