Slashdot Mirror

CNN actually gave the left wing party debate questions in advance. She actually works for CNN and is chairperson of the DNC at the same time. They didn't even fire her over it, she just got temporarily suspended.

Among CNN's most grievious lies are those of omission. They actually told viewers not to go look up Wikileaks, because it's illegal to read them yourself!

The good thing is, it's very easy to prove how much these sites actually vet stories. An example of a journalist tricked into spreading a hoax because they wanted to be the first one firing off. Not even the first time that this has happened, not even the 100th time this has happened. If people really want to see fake news in action, look at the garbage written by the media against the Tea Party, or Gamergate. Why? Both didn't fit the narrative, one was against the political establishment the media has an interest in. The second because they started calling the media out on their bullshit and lack of ethics, or even basic fact-checking. Then compare it against say BLM, which the media fawns all over. Despite members of BLM actively calling for violence and attacks against whites or police.

I'd love to know how "qz.com" knows that "Shepard Stewart" is "nonexistent". A cursory Google turns up this and this.

Partisan hack, sure. But "nonexistent" is a strong claim.

Are you just putting out deliberate lies and hoping nobody knows better ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Russians hack the DNC email server AFTER Clinton moved the emails to the correct server?

So much wrong so little space .I am sorry this is beyond my ability to correct You can try and correct yourself. A good start would by trying to come up with reasoning on how the DNC problems have anything to do with Hillary's email.

I doubt even 5% of the emails were even interesting so I doubt that Hillary wanted to prevent emails being released under FOI act.

You may doubt all you like, other people find the work email of the Secretary of State immensely interesting.

I'm not sure if the emails she destroyed were personal or not -- I'm sure if it were a big deal, the FBI would have said so.

They did say so. Comey recommended against prosecution on the basis of intent, which funny enough isn't part of the law and wasn't enough to protect this sailor from doing far less http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

There's no proof that Hillary under oath -- she just gave an answer you don't like.

When you give different answers that contradict each other to the same question, that's called lying.
So when you say you had nothing to do with wiping a server and then say well I only wiped personal information that's lying.

Not a big time Hillary fan, but after 30 years of lawsuits and legal hassles, I'm fairly sure if she were in the least bit dirty, something would have stuck by now.

Sure guilty people never avoid justice, I mean just ask the bankers responsible for the 2008 meltdown.

You have to assume benevolence as a default

That certainly is a good rule — indeed, a very "Thanksgivingly" one.

And yet, there are certain signs and indicators, which give justified grounds for suspicion in the case of Climate Science.

One such is a conflict of interest. A scientist coming to a conclusion, that global warming is not a big deal, risks his very livelihood — the rest of us will politely thank him for his past work and eliminate funding for more of it. America's spending on climate research, for example, has about tripled since 1993 — is it unreasonable to suspect, that the vast body of people may be at least partially concerned about their careers and mortgages? Would they not frown on and denounce anyone breaking ranks, regardless of whether he is correct or not?

We dismiss judges and jurors because of the conflict of interest — and we are right. But a replacement juror unrelated to suspect is easy to find, whereas finding an independent group of scientists in the era of government paying for 100% of research is impossible...

The above is why we can — should! — question their collective sincerity. But what about their competence? Try as you might to find an actual scientific prediction made by these folks, that turned out to be true, and you'll fail...

Few people realize this, despite me posting this challenge on Slashdot every once in a while. Try it yourself. A valid citation would include a pair of links, one to prediction, the other — to its confirmation:

1. The prediction must be publicly made — you'll need to include a link to it.
2. A separate link should point at the confirmation of the predicted events happening or values achieved (within, say, 20% of the predicted).
3. The prediction and the confirmation publications must be a few years or more apart — predicting tomorrow's weather does not count.
4. The prediction needs to be marginally useful — claiming, it will get either colder or hotter next year is not acceptable

Could you come up with two or three such citations? Don't you think, after spending tens of billions of dollars on it, we are entitled to expect some such results from climate scientists? And, if they can not come up with anything, begin suspecting their competence and sincerity?

Add to that the growing calls by these scientists (not just their hangers-on) to criminalize skepticism, and our suspicion ought to develop into a full blown alarm!

It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity".

Economic activity does not necessarily leave society better off. Paying people to dig holes, and paying still more people to fill the holes back in, is "economic activity."

When the unsubsidized cost-per-kilowatt hour of energy source X becomes competitive, you'll find no greater supporter of X than me. But facts on the ground don't yet look good for solar. (And as a big Elon Musk fan, it pains me to post that link.)

I used to fear global warming a lot. But that was before the climate models were shown to be wrong.

If climate models, as a whole, were unbiased, you'd expect about half of them to underpredict the observed amount of warming, and the other half to overpredict the observed amount of warming.

But that's not the kind of wrong they've been shown to be. They all overpredict, as this plot of 73 different climate models, run over a 45-year timespan, shows: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

If this isn't long enough to convince you that the models are wrong, how long of a run would it take? 55 years? 70 years?

This is really the only scientific way to evaluate the validity of climate models. The models have performed with such bias, that it's fair to call anyone who still has faith in them a science denier.

[Contrast the bias of the climate models with hurricane track models which, collectively, do a good job. About half the models predict a track that's leftward of the observed track, while the other half predict a track that's rightward of the observed track: http://images.huffingtonpost.c... ]

Back in 1995 the Bill Clinton White House was already scared shitless of the net... http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers
> and access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

Before the internet, the lib-left elite controlled news. Embarressing stories were hushed up. E.g. President Kennedy was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could dream of, but the MSM kept quiet. Similarly, Newsweek refused to publish the Monica Lewinsky scandal story. But an impertinent upstart with a modem and a web site, Matt Drudge, broke the story.

Hillary Clinton was unhappy, and mused about "editing function" and "gatekeeping function"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Democrats/Lib-Left don't like free speech. Think Russia, China, Germany, etc. During the recent campaign, the Democrats were openly talking about shutting down Breitbart after the election... http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

> "We've had a conservative media in this country for a while," says the email, sent
> Thursday and signed by deputy communications director Christina Reynolds.
>"I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right
> to exist Reynolds' acknowledgment that the regular conservative media
> has a "right to exist," though, is used to contrast it with Breitbart, which
> apparently has no such right. "Breitbart is something different," she says.
> "They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. "

Funny that, because many times Breitbart has more objectivity and ethics then oh Huffpo. Or CBS, NBC or ABC. Far more then buzzfeed for sure. Remember those DNC leaked emails? You know the ones, where reporters were sending stuff directly to the DNC for approval. Or where the DNC and reporters were so chummy that they could get things removed from articles if it would look bad. Or the media and the DNC hosting fundraisers? You don't? Well that's okay. This is only a small sample. After all, with CNN telling you that looking at wikileaks is illegal, you should listen to them right? After all, dig through those leaked emails and you find that USAToday, WAPO, NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, NYTimes, Politico and several others have all had reporters so chummy that they could get things removed. Or they were openly publishing direct DNC talking points.

If you don't see this whole "fake news" thing as an attempt by those who lost the election, to turn around and create media echo-chambers where only those who toe the line is allowed. You haven't paid any attention at all to what just happened.

Sweden must be full of racist, misogynist DENIERS because they racistly claimed that snow still exists in the world of APOCALYPTIC GLOBAL WARMING and even abandoned their non-patriarchal non-removal of non-existent snow policy: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11...

DAMMIT TRUMP!

More empathetic? Probably not. The sex predator couple that occupied the White House in the 90s, and was just defeated, didn't do anything like that. Of course maybe the Clintons were holding that for the 4th term lame duck surprise. That, and a pardon of Bills pedophile friend. Rumors .. rumors

1) Bill Clinton...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

2) Hillary Clinton...

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

> "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are
> all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping
> function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

"Gatekeeping" mentioned in both articles above. And while we're at it, the Democrats claim that Breitbart dot com doesn't have a right to exist...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

What could go wrong with this idea? No political body with an agenda would ever desecrate the moral sanctity of a 'fact checking' organization, pretty far fetched to say the least - about as as likely as the NYT, WP, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, LAT, and the BG taking sides with the Democrat Party to elect a grifting granny who facilitated the sale of 20% of US uranium (the stuff they make atom bombs out of) to a Russian holding company while pocketing millions of dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

Sheesh, the next thing people will say is a news organization would stoop so low as to feed debate questions to the candidate they wanted to win.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11...

The best thing is obviously to allow the state to control the facts, for that matter these web browsers are just dangerous and we should probably have to have a license to even use one, let alone a web server.

Truth is difficult to pin down. In some cases truth is legitimately subjective.
A browser like this would inevitably just be another layer of bias and indirection, so the problem will just become one of "who watches the watchers?".
For example several sites have stated that snopes, traditionally the internet bastion of fact-checking, has a strong political bias.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...
http://www.angrypatriotmovemen...

No, it's a double standard for even investigating her for things that her predecessors did without any accusations of impropriety

Sorry, Hillbots, repeating lies doesn't make them true for you, anymore than it did for the Bushbots:

"Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said. "It's a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."

And yet, two years later she was doing the same damn thing.

let alone criminal investigation

Uh, you mean wasn't prosecuted by the Obama Administration? The same Obama that first backed telecom immunity, and then covered up the CIA's torture program?

You miss the part where Donna Brazile was the person who fed Clinton at least two questions, right down to the information on the person who was going to be asking the question? Guess so. It's only been all over the media for the last week, and only picked up steam after CNN canned her and the boss of CNN publicly came out to blast her.

I always thought American Gripen sounded like a pretty good idea.
Just get a bunch of them to fill the gap until the problems with F-35 have been done away with.
It would also put some pressure on the F-35 program, showing that it would be possible to shut down the program if they never get their shit together.

Worth mentioning that climate models are not reliable at anything less than continental scale (according to IPCC), and even then, there is some doubt about their accuracy at any scale.

Hey /., what is with the one month old repetitive "news", instead why not report of something newsworthy and recent like this: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...

Yes, that's right, huge fraud in the "global warming" research field.

This would be very valid criticism of a theoretical climate model that would predict that it would get there and stay there.

There is simply no valid climate model. Period. The entire discipline is in shambles as most of the adherents — either clueless politics-driven enthusiasts, or crooks grabbing taxpayers' money.

Try it yourself — cite successful predictions made by "Climate Science" over the last 30 years, that have come true... Rules are simple:

• Each citation is to include two links — one to the prediction being made, the other — to its confirmation within, say, 20% of the predicted value (if quantifiable).
• The prediction must be somewhat useful — predicting, that it will get "hotter or colder", for example, is not acceptable.
• The two links must be at least several years apart. Lauding a prediction after it came true does not count — otherwise I too would like to claim some government money for recording numerous predictions 5 years ago (one for each possible cm of snow on Oct 31, 2016) and publishing only the successful ones today.

Could you list even 2 or 3 such entries? I doubt it — many have tried...

> CONSPIRACY THEORIES??
>
> [insert meme of "Aliens!" here]
>
> Has anyone thought about this act being caused by a
> "government agency" that has something to prove?

Take your pick...

1) DHS setting up for another power-grab

2) US government setting up to claim that [insert country name here] has CWMD ("Cyber Weapons of Mass Destruction") as a pretext for an invasion/war.

3) Democrats/lib-left-elite who are scared shitless of the free flow of information on the internet.
A) http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
>Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed,
> President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average
> citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information
> that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

B) In the 1950's and the 1960's, JFK was f***ing women all over the place. President Bill Clinton was a saint in comparison. The lib-left elite needed only a few names/numbers in their rolodex, and any inconvenient stories were squashed. In a similar manner Newsweek killed the Lewinsky scandal story. Unfortunately for Bill Clinton, a lowly store clerk by the name of Matt Drudge didn't play lapdog to the elite... http://www.drudgereportarchive...
Hillary Clinton (yes, *THAT* Hillary Clinton) responded by whining about the lack of any "gatekeeping function" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

C) Notice that I quoted Breitbart.com? The lib-left is extremely pissed at the site. So much so that...
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

  http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

The lib-left elite would really rather have a gatekeeper-controlled internet. But that would be too obvious. So they'll settle for "random DDOS attacks. Only companies with big budgets would be able to afford the neccessary infrastructure to stay up against a DDOS attack.

Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution.

You might want to have a closer look at your source (and the actual evidence your source is using).

In Dec 2014, after delivering the first batch of emails to the FBI, Clinton decided to change the retention policy to 60-days (which would nuke all the old emails), but the sysadmin didn't actually do it.

In early March 2014 the House Committee issues a subpoena, in late March 2014 the sysadmin realized he hadn't carried out the request from back in December.

What Clinton and her team have maintained is that the sysadmin made the decision to violate the subpoena by belatedly carrying out the deletions on his own.

You may not believe it, but neither the sysadmin (who got immunity) nor the emails you're citing here, actually contradict that narrative.

This isn't even touching the pay-for-play stuff including the 12m payment to the clinton foundation while she was still sec. of state for her to come speak to the king of morocco.

Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged a $12 million donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to her family’s charity in 2014 in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international meeting in the North African Muslim nation, according to an email made public Thursday by Wikileaks."

Of course it's not entirely your fault, the Daily Caller is apparently convinced that a charity doing something for a major donor is somehow wrong.

"The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."

Gerbering, head of the CDC at that time, not surprisingly, now has a high position at Merck.

Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution. So that leaves us with: Either the FBI is incompetent, turned a blind eye, or someone was holding a sword over their head in recommending prosecution.

This isn't even touching the pay-for-play stuff including the 12m payment to the clinton foundation while she was still sec. of state for her to come speak to the king of morocco. Or the enlistment of journalists/columnists to attack political candidates using her talking points.

Actually...Brazille has been claiming that the emails were doctored. Such accusations are only going to gather steam as they slowly realize it's the only defense they have.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

But someone has already examined the DKIM hashes on many of the key emails and verified their authenticity and integrity:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...

So, they're real. And the contents of them would've destroyed any other candidate...which is why the near-uniform blackout amongst the mainstream news media over them.

Actually you CAN CHECK that they are UNALTERED. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...

Any programmer with python can EASILY VERIFY THEY ARE REAL. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10...

Secretaries of State have done that many times before, and if it were illegal to do it now, it would have been illegal for those secretaries tohave done it in the past.

No. They haven't. Most previous SOS's did not use email at all, and what few Powell sent were preserved.

Where were you complaining then???

Hillary Clinton was, which makes her a hypocrite for doing the same thing within two years of that rant, and her supporters mindless sycophants for excusing it.

And no, crimes of past president's are not irrelevant. They are very relevant since they show the hypocrisy of people who will excuse those crimes but suddenly become appalled when someone else does the exact same thing. If you didn't consider it a crime then you can't consider it a crime now.

You can't have it both ways hypocrite.

Wow - is that cognitive dissonance engine fusion powered? You were just saying how Hillary's corruption is okay because Bush did it first. Just a few problems with that:

Powell barely used email, and what emails he sent were preserved - unlike the 30,000 Hillary deleted. If she were anyone else, she'd be in prison for obstruction of justice in addition to mishandling classified evidence.

Speaking of scale, the Bush Administration tortured at least a hundred people to death, that we know of. Would you therefore be okay if Hillary has a hundred thousand people tortured to death? Because Bush did it first, and criminal Republicans set the floor of what is acceptable?

Partisan Democrats keep yelling that people are forgetting about Bush's private email servers - all the while forgetting how much they bitched at Bush at the time for doing so. Partisan Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton:

• "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said. "It's a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."

And yet two years later she did the same damn thing, only on a vastly larger scale. So, make sure to repeat that rant about hypocrisy - in the nearest mirror.

So if want to convict Hillary, you'll also have to line up Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and George W Bush.

Except Powell barely used email, and what emails he sent were preserved - unlike the 30,000 Hillary deleted. If she were anyone else, she'd be under prosecution for obstruction of justice as well as mishandling classified evidence.

But that's not the best part of partisan Democrats complaining that people have forgotten about Bush's private email servers. The best part is how those partisan Democrats have forgotten how much they bitched at Bush at the time. Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton:

• "Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," Clinton said. "It's a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent."

And within two years she did the same damn thing she castigated Bush for - only on a vastly larger scale. Roh roh.

The simple fact is everyone did it, including Trump

Trump was an official at the highest levels of government, who's day job involved information classified beyond top secret? You should get this breaking news to the press.

But you're comparing Obama's naivite

It was not just Obama's naivette — Hillary Clinton was running the State Department at the time. More to the point, it was not just the two of them either — the entire Democratic Establishment thought so, dismissing "Republican hawks" as "war-mongers". Whether they did it for personal gain, like Clinton, or out of sheer idiocy, like Biden ( the fount of foreign policy expertise, according to Democrats), they'll keep doing it.

You undercut your case when you link sources like "freebeacon", "powerlineblog", "breitbart"

No, I don't. First of all, my sources also include WSJ, NYTimes, and even Politifact. For someone, who offers no citations at all, it is rather rich to complain about mine.

Second, a fact remains a fact, no matter, who reports it.

the Clinton foundation is one of the highest rated major charities in the US

Yeah, sure. And Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

what you have against a charity that spends nearly 90% of its funds on stamping out AIDS and other diseases [...]

See? No citation again. Let me help you. Of the $91.3mln spent by the foundation in 2014, according to their own tax-filings, only $5.2 million went to charitable grants.

Your "Podesta story" is about Podesta (not Clinton) [...] he probably divested

You mentioned a number of things about Trump's advisors, including Manafort, who once help Yanukovich. It is perfectly fair for me to bring up Podesta. And I can keep doing it, too.

Versus Trump, who personally has owned and run businesses heavily backed by Russians

Citations are missing again, khmm... Let's see, if I can help. This? No... Sorry, you'll have to do it yourself.

Russians occasionally making investments in companies related to people related to Clinton

Clintons received — both directly and via their Foundation — billions of dollars. A lot of that came from Putin-controlled entities. Just in 2015, for example, when she was already actively engaged in elections, they reported as much $10 million in income. What do you suppose, they sold, other than some more cattle futures?

person who currently, actively, and strongly personally supports Putin

False. Pants on Fire.

has publicly advocated eliminating NATO

False. Pants on Fire.

wants to give Russia Crimea

False. Pants on Fire.

parades around information from Sputnik

Half true — irrelevant.

Even the Daily Mail has more credibility than Brietbart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"Andrew Breitbart has a job to do and he does it well. Breitbartâ(TM)s job is to lie and distort the truth in order to advance a right-wing agenda, embarrass liberals, and undermine the Obama administration.

Breitbart is not a journalist, researcher, or pundit. He is a propagandist. He operates several websites (BigGovernment, BigJournalism, and BigHollywood), where he and other right-wing bloggers spew their political pornography. The articles that appear on these websites are contemporary versions of what historian Richard Hofstadter called, in a famous 1964 essay, the âoeparanoid styleâ of American politics practiced by extreme conservatives. "

http://www.jimchines.com/2016/...

"This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â"

This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...

Brietbart is a racist propaganda site associated with the alt right who's "fact checking" consists of quoting stuff people say on blogs.
Brietbart makes Fox news look like liberals and socialists.

Do you have some archive links as proof? be cooler if 4channers[1] did it rather than twitter users: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...

[1] hey mook sometimes used that term!

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

https://www.bing.com/search?q=...

Hell the man built a company just to help Hillary (search for Hillary, Eric Schmidt, Groundgame)

So just who is going to be able to fact check Google's already established bias ?
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...

I think I am going to start rotating search engines. Variety is likely for the best.

If you CEO supports Clinton, they might love the FB deal.
After all, those fags had over all their "research" to the Clinton election team
plaintext link: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/leaked-emails-show-facebook-exec-shared-research-with-clinton-campaign/

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

A123 Systems ($279 million)*
AES's subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
LG Chem's subsidiary Chemical Power ($150 million)
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Navistar ($10 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Satcon ($3 million)*
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Solyndra ($535 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Vestas ($50 million)
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Xunlight ($46.5 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

ALL of these companies had Obama donors and bundlers on the boards who got nice, fat, golden parachutes before they crashed. See how that works?

And then there's Abengoa, a spanish company that we gave four time the amount of money we gave Solyndra...and we can't even find out who we loaned it to, or why, or why it failed:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12...

Remember that talking point about how "even Exxon's own scientists say that global warming is real"? It turns out the fabulous reporting from the Columbia School of Journalism that was based on, was funded by anti-fossil fuel groups, and Columbia has been accused of ethical lapses. It's not true. It's just another leftie lie, exposed as the journalistic astroturf that it is.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congr...


Federal Lab Forced To Close After 'Disturbing' Data Manipulation


"Nearly two decades and $108 million worth of "disturbing" data manipulation with "serious and far ranging" effects forced a federal lab to close, a congressman revealed Thursday.

"The inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey\92s (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo. manipulated data on a variety of topics \96 including many related to the environment \96 from 1996 to 2014. The manipulation was caught in 2008, but continued another six years."


http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...


From elusive mysterious garbage patches to failed solar plants, there's a lot of money in the green religion. A lot.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

A123 Systems ($279 million)*
AES's subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
LG Chem's subsidiary Chemical Power ($150 million)
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Navistar ($10 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Satcon ($3 million)*
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Solyndra ($535 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Vestas ($50 million)
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Xunlight ($46.5 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

ALL of these companies had Obama donors and bundlers on the boards who got nice, fat, golden parachutes before they crashed. See how that works?

And then there's Abengoa, a spanish company that we gave four time the amount of money we gave Solyndra...and we can't even find out who we loaned it to, or why, or why it failed:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12...

Remember that talking point about how "even Exxon's own scientists say that global warming is real"? It turns out the fabulous reporting from the Columbia School of Journalism that was based on, was funded by anti-fossil fuel groups, and Columbia has been accused of ethical lapses. It's not true. It's just another leftie lie, exposed as the journalistic astroturf that it is.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congr...


Federal Lab Forced To Close After 'Disturbing' Data Manipulation


"Nearly two decades and $108 million worth of "disturbing" data manipulation with "serious and far ranging" effects forced a federal lab to close, a congressman revealed Thursday.

"The inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey\92s (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo. manipulated data on a variety of topics \96 including many related to the environment \96 from 1996 to 2014. The manipulation was caught in 2008, but continued another six years."


http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...


From elusive mysterious garbage patches to failed solar plants, there's a lot of money in the green religion. A lot.

I have no particular love for the ACLU. They seem to be only interested in protecting *some* rights. Others, like the 2nd Amendment's noninfringable right for individuals to keep and bear arms for self defense and as part of the many disincentives towards tyranny built into the Constitution...not so much.

Like this?

I know that during the Republican primaries the media coverage of Trump was largely one of wonder. "How is this happening." It wasn't really that positive it was more like he was the agent of change and the non politician that was challenging the elites. This perception was largely what I saw. There was a lot of criticism of his immigration views by the media but by and large it didn't start to get nasty until they realized that he could actually win. It's almost impossible to have positive coverage about two such awful candidates. Every single time I hear someone say something good about either one I want to laugh. The only thing I actually like about Trump is that he's not Hilliary.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...

I can't believe he was stupid enough to say that in public.....or private either.

Story showing she received a briefing and signed a document she did so.

Receiving classified information on a non-classified system and NOT REPORTING it is illegal.

Sorry you can't seem to lie convincingly on this topic, or keep getting called out for it. This is what, the third time in this single thread you've been called a liar with evidence.

You have no credibility.

dailycaller's take, slightly more amusing

The whole Pepe as a racist meme was a prank by two twitter users trolling a reporter: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...

I mean... he just fucking lied about Hillary making up the Birther argument right on camera. Lied. Straight lied his ass off. Not just the usual half-baked shit he throws off.

McClatchy: Clinton Advisor Sid Blumenthal Shopped Around Birther Rumors in 2008
Clinton’s 08 Campaign Manager Acknowledges Volunteer Sent Around Birther Email
Former DC Bureau Chief: Clinton Surrogate Pitched Me ‘Birther’ Story In 2008

I mean... he just fucking lied about Hillary making up the Birther argument right on camera. Lied. Straight lied his ass off. Not just the usual half-baked shit he throws off.

McClatchy: Clinton Advisor Sid Blumenthal Shopped Around Birther Rumors in 2008
Clinton’s 08 Campaign Manager Acknowledges Volunteer Sent Around Birther Email
Former DC Bureau Chief: Clinton Surrogate Pitched Me ‘Birther’ Story In 2008

It's because Preident Obama was joking about ISIS that very same day. Can't have the President "quipping that the Islamic State was no big deal" then have a few bombs go off in NYC, can we? Gotta try to bury something there...

> Considering the fact that the head of Google is the CTO of the Clinton campaign should
> not make this surprising to anyone, but between this and Google manipulating
> search results to aid Clinton they are about as fair and balanced as Jezebel or Twitter.

This is the same Clinton campaign that says Breitbart doesn't have a right to exist. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08... And don't forget that back in 1998, Hillary was whing about lack of "Internet Gatekeepers" http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
> Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said
> that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet
> because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.
>
> Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the
> DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair
> with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal
> with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any
> kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have
> the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

Back in "the good old days before the internet", the elite controlled the MSM (Main Stream Media), and they still do. JFK was screwing every woman in sight, Bill Clinton was a saint in comparison. But the media kept quiet about it, and people didn't know. In 1998, the obedient lapdogs at Newsweek killed the Monica Lewinsky story article. But a virtually unknown store clerk, name of Matt Drudge, blew it wide open. The rest is history.

Actually, the Bill Clinton administration feared this in 1995. http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.
>
> The memo notes that the "Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic
> modes of communication" and "can link people, groups and organizations together instantly."
>
> "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be
> located in one area and available to all," the memo states.

The elite are scared of the open internet, because it bypasses the MSM, and the elite can no longer supress the truth. People coming together and sharing "unregulated data and information" means that controlling the MSM is not enough. Watch the elite try to destroy the internet in the coming years.

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

And you think that is "odd"?

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage

They aren't quite as bad as they started, but they still are trying to drive American society towards its vision, which is very different than that of the Founders.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

I'm curious, have you even investigated to see if there might be anything to it?

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican
Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
Moving Further to the Left

Lawyers are more liberal than general population, study finds; what about judges?

Do you think we need to cover unions? Civil servants?

And if you have the curiosity, you might find a surprise or two, or three.

Some places to find new perspectives:
National Review
Weekly Standard
Commentary
Reason
Instapundit
Dennis Prager / Prager U
Hugh Hewitt