Slashdot Mirror

Bruce Schneier: China and Russia Almost Definitely Have the Snowden Docs

For the next link, here is the banner greeting. Read it then read the view below.

Help support Little Green Footballs!

The unthinkable is now reality. Donald Trump is the President of the United States. And Little Green Footballs is a determined part of the resistance to his bigoted and destructive policies. But more than ever, we're going to need your help to continue providing quality independent journalism and commentary, friends — so please consider making a donation to the Little Green Footballs fund today.

Edward Snowden’s a Hero, All Right - to China and Russia

Sympathy meter now at absolute zero
By Charles Johnson
6/16/13 4:42:24 pm

Well now. I’m at a loss to understand how Edward Snowden’s latest disclosures could possibly have been inspired by his much-vaunted concerns about civil liberties, since he’s now revealing details about US espionage against Russia.

American spies based in the UK intercepted the top-secret communications of the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, during his visit to Britain for the G20 summit in London, leaked documents reveal.

The details of the intercept were set out in a briefing prepared by the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s biggest surveillance and eavesdropping organisation, and shared with high-ranking officials from Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

The document, leaked by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian, shows the agency believed it might have discovered “a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted”.

The most salient point: this is not news in any sense. You would have to be one of the most naïve people on Earth to not realize that the US spies on Russia, Russia spies on the US, and in general, heads of state from any freaking country spy on each other, friendly or not, all the time, forever and ever, amen.

But that doesn’t mean it’s insignificant when a US citizen reveals this kind of information to Russia, either. I had already lost any shred of sympathy for Mr. Snowden when he dumped secret documents to a pro-Beijing newspaper, but this demonstrates beyond a doubt that his sole purpose in leaking these secrets is to embarrass the US government.

It is entirely reasonable to have grave concerns about what Edward Snowden did. He not only released US documents, but had ones from Canada, UK, Australia, and probably many others too, including France, Germany, and Sweden.

I think this plays a part in why Snowden is so regarded:

Gangster, Al Capone Started One of the First Soup Kitchens During the Great Depression

Crime boss, gangster, and lawbreaker are the most common words used to describe Al Capone, one of the most notorious men of the 20th century. . . .

However, most people haven’t heard of the charitable support that Capone offered during a hard period for many Americans. In the 1930s, the Great Depression left a lot of citizens hungry and unemployed. Although he was a criminal to many, Capone was also respected community leader for a lot of people due to his charity. Some say that he did more for the citizens of Chicago, Illinois than the state itself did.

Al Capone’s Soup Kitchen . . . served over 120,000 meals to hungry people. The free soup kitchen kept regular working hours, serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner and fed thousands every day despi

Here is what that Planned Parenthood doctor actually said:

nobody should be “selling” tissue. That’s just not the goal here.

Now, about your claim that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts: You're full of shit. Just like most conservatives.

You either didn't see the videos, or you've actually gone a bit psychotic, breaking from reality.

They haggled over price. They use a "less crunchy technique" to preserve more salable parts. The one woman wants a Lamborghini.

it is hard to face; it's one of those decision points where you either have to realize you've been backing monsters, or else you have to double down, and insist that you don't know what you know.

Here is what that Planned Parenthood doctor actually said:

nobody should be “selling” tissue. That’s just not the goal here.

Now, about your claim that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts: You're full of shit. Just like most conservatives.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Uh, anybody who believes "planned parenthood is selling baby parts" has simply been paying attention. All LGF implies above is that they don't do it "for profit", but there's no doubt that they're dismembering corpses and selling the parts with the intent of covering costs.

The articles that you linked are mostly smears against the group that made the videos, which implies that you likely know that PP sells baby parts and you're trying (along with LGF) to shift attention elsewhere.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Uh, anybody who believes "planned parenthood is selling baby parts" has simply been paying attention. All LGF implies above is that they don't do it "for profit", but there's no doubt that they're dismembering corpses and selling the parts with the intent of covering costs.

The articles that you linked are mostly smears against the group that made the videos, which implies that you likely know that PP sells baby parts and you're trying (along with LGF) to shift attention elsewhere.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Uh, anybody who believes "planned parenthood is selling baby parts" has simply been paying attention. All LGF implies above is that they don't do it "for profit", but there's no doubt that they're dismembering corpses and selling the parts with the intent of covering costs.

The articles that you linked are mostly smears against the group that made the videos, which implies that you likely know that PP sells baby parts and you're trying (along with LGF) to shift attention elsewhere.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Uh, anybody who believes "planned parenthood is selling baby parts" has simply been paying attention. All LGF implies above is that they don't do it "for profit", but there's no doubt that they're dismembering corpses and selling the parts with the intent of covering costs.

The articles that you linked are mostly smears against the group that made the videos, which implies that you likely know that PP sells baby parts and you're trying (along with LGF) to shift attention elsewhere.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Herald the guy who saved babies from being killed as a hero, while simultaneously saying its no big deal that planned parenthood is trafficking baby parts after they rip them out of its mother's womb.

You're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else stupid enough to believe that hoax.

http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...
http://littlegreenfootballs.co...

And no, I can't say that any nicer. Anyone who believes planned parenthood is selling baby parts or that they're "ripping them out" is a fucking idiot who needs to have their brain taken away by social services.

Oddly though, the Medical Examiner, who normally takes photos of the deceased, did not take photos of Brown. His/her reason? The battery was flat on his/her camera.

Sometimes these things happen, but it strikes me as a little strange that he/she didn't have a spare battery, spare camera, or even a camera phone... and presumably didn't ask if anyone else at the scene had one either. Thus leaving a _slight_ evidence gap... which someone far more suspicious than myself might suggest is the kind of gap you need if you want to [ahem] massage the facts after the event.

Someone did manage to find a working camera to get photos of Darren Wilson's injuries though. Wilson has said that he had been hit twice by Brown and was of the opinion that a third punch "could be fatal if he hit me right". IMHO his injuries don't look... well, they're practically invisible, let's be honest! That's not to say he wasn't in a compromised position and felt in fear of his life, but I'm not completely convinced he was in any danger of being punched to death.

Interestingly, immediately after the Browns death, a photo was circulating on the intertubes purporting to be of Wilson's injured face, apparently worded to discredit the idea that Brown was a "Gentle Giant". This picture has itself since been discredited... but I only just found out today, so I thought it was worth mentioning!

For what it's worth, I am really really not taking sides here. I'm perfectly happy to believe that Brown wasn't exactly a pillar of society... his apparent intimidation of a local shop owner and, I believe taking of goods without paying, immediately prior to his encounter with Wilson, do kind of suggest that. But I am very firmly of the opinion that officers of the law must be held to higher standards than the general public.

However, all Ferguson sources that are not friends of the victim backup the police's story

And some of those sources have since come forward and admitted that they were, in fact, not at the scene. They just "heard it from a reliable source."
And some of that evidence to support what the police say happened, such as the x-ray of "his" injuries? Faked.
It's not like we would even really know what their official stance on what happened was since they never filed a police report on the incident. You know, that thing they are required to do.

So... now that we've established that these things are at least partly based on lies, do you have anything that even slightly suggests he wasn't being negligent and is now lying to cover himself?

> First off, lets begin with this: The Freedom of Information Act is NOT a fishing lure.

Hey, congrats on reading littlegreenfootballs!

It’s supposed to be a targeted request for specific information, not a fishing expedition.

Looks like you've got the blend of self-righteous nit-picking down

Can I get a dudebro!?

Assuming we even believe it's just metadata being gathered - what informed citizen actually believes it's a non-concern?

While I don't align with the politics, I occasionally dip into Charles Johnson's blog Little Green Footballs because in its 12-year history it has had an interesting dramatic arc (highly influential right-wing site in the wake of 9/11, then massively dropping in importance after Johnson turned his back on the right and presumably most of his readers as well). One thing that surprised me is how quick Johnson has been to excuse the NSA's activity, saying it is just "metadata", and collecting just "metadata" harms no one; in fact, revealing the collection of "metadata" has harmed our national security. Johnson processes news all day long and posts his own thoughts on the issues of the day as a profession, and here he is being adamant that it is a non-issue. There must be more news junkies out there who don't feel it's something to protest.

Michelle Bachmann recently admitted this, with deranged wingnut spin of course.

Crazy Eyes Bachmann: Obama Peddling Crack Cocaine of Dependency

Easiest thing is to see what comes up under the "Glenn Greenwald" tag in LGF's archives. (You have to scroll to the bottom repeatedly for the page to load older posts, but there's stuff there going back to 2006.) Johnson has spoken contemptuously of Greenwald as dishonest for years, well before Johnson's falling out with the right. A past incident where Greenwald was supposedly caught "sockpuppeting" as commenters defending him on other blogs certainly didn't help matters. Anyway, I get the feeling that once Johnson makes up his mind like that about someone, there's not much that will change it, regardless of ideology.

I'm betting you could run a pretty good election campaign just on that alone, because the demonizing isn't going to well except among the circle jerks in DC.

Get of the slashdot technerd bubble and I think you will be amazed at just how well the demonization is going. Yesterday I dropped by Little green footballs a blog famous for doing a 180 on islamaphobia a few years back and calling the bigots out for what they are.

Turns out those guys fucking hate Snowden. This surveillance shit is ridiculous bordering on evil to anyone like us, but the people who aren't like us make up a majority of the country and they just can't grasp the implications.

"Zopfli is a compression-only library, meaning that existing software can decompress the data." (source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/294495_Google_Compression_Algorithm_Z). As long as the compression can be done on cached pages, hey- that's another 3-8% more people served with the same amount of bandwidth, without any additional requirements on the client side.

Second quote about Israel and Switzerland and allowable guns. What year is that from? Here's some info less than a week old about these supposed gun-toting utopias:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/291278_Mythbusting-_Israel_and_Switze [littlegreenfootballs.com]
In both countries you NOW actually need a reason for a gun, and they are often kept stashed with a quartermaster (or equivalent) depot. Not exactly like the US where, for example, you can be mentally ill and on the goddamned terrorist watch list and still purchase firearms.

The article you've linked to is completely inconsequential. It's true that owning a gun is not all that common in Israel (it is much more common in Switzerland, because every reservist gets an option to have his full-auto service rifle converted to semi-auto for his own private use).

However, no-one is talking about that. What we're talking about is that those countries give their citizens access to a large number of guns, to the extent that often dwarfs US practice. Swiss, for example, issue a fully automatic assault rifle to every person who's undergoing service, to be stored at home (not at some depot!), for the duration of that service (which is many years - they get called up for a few weeks every year). Until about 5 years ago, they were also issuing ammo to go with that. True, those rifles aren't owned by the people who store them, but why would it matter? A Swiss guy who'd want to shoot up a school full of kids would still have an assault rifle and ammo at his disposal. But, for some reason, they still don't do that.

We aren't talking about controlling rifles and/or handguns, even semi automatics. I for one don't see why 30+ clip magazines and automatic-fire assault rifles are as freely available as they are.

Actually, yes, "we" (if you mean the gun control crowd) are talking about semi-automatics. Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated, extremely expensive ($10K+) due to limited supply, and there was exactly one case of such a weapon being used in a spree, which was decades ago. Pretty much all the widely publicized sprees, including this most recent one, were made with semi-automatic weapons, such as AR-15. The media refers to them as "assault weapons" (a meaningless term) or even "assault rifles" (a meaningful term which is incorrect in this case) out of ignorance.

Looks a little cherry picked there.

Your first quote concerns 1992, back then? WTF that was 20 years ago.
Second quote about Israel and Switzerland and allowable guns. What year is that from? Here's some info less than a week old about these supposed gun-toting utopias:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/291278_Mythbusting-_Israel_and_Switze
In both countries you NOW actually need a reason for a gun, and they are often kept stashed with a quartermaster (or equivalent) depot. Not exactly like the US where, for example, you can be mentally ill and on the goddamned terrorist watch list and still purchase firearms.

Third quote, published "last year" - how about some context? Last year from when, 1980?

I get that gun nuts can spin lots of stories. The bottom line is many gun control advocates, including NRA members, would approve of SOME (not fascist crackdowns like gun fans would have you believe) tighter restrictions on various classes of weapons. We aren't talking about controlling rifles and/or handguns, even semi automatics. I for one don't see why 30+ clip magazines and automatic-fire assault rifles are as freely available as they are.

You mean like this http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/11/29/141231/the-secret-to-iranian-drone-technology-just-add-photoshop/ or this http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30597_Irans_Photoshopped_Missile_Launch/?

You should also read what Gleick has to say about the leaked memos.

Well... if you go listen to what Gleick has to say about that, you may come to a different conclusion.

Also see this post on Yfrog's insecure "random" email address generation that likely played a role in the hack:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/248630_yfrog_secret_email_addresses_a

Yeah, it was hacked.

Which must be why Weiner is so adamant about getting the FBI involved.

Oh, wait. He's not, now is he?

Yeah, I know. He doesn't want to "waste taxpayer money" on a "prank". Or maybe he just doesn't want to caught making false statements to police, because he had no qualms about wasting taxpayer money on getting police to toss a reporter out:

Weiner’s Office Calls The Police After CBS 2s Marcia Kramer Asks For An Interview

Congressman Anthony Weiner said Thursday he’s finished talking about the lewd photo sent from his Twitter account.

But he still wouldn’t say whether he’s the one in the picture.

So CBS 2 political reporter Marcia Kramer decided to go to his office on Capitol Hill to try to get you some answers.

You’ll never believe what happened.

Kramer tried to get an interview with the six-term New York Democrat and as a result had the cops called on her.

Yeah, but his account was HACKED!!!!

Which MUST be why Weiner won't deny that's his weiner in the photo, right?

Which MUST be why Weiner won't get the FBI involved in tracking down the hacker, right?

And Weiner has a history of being a, umm, dick to women. Here's what the ranting founding member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Jonathan Chait wrote today for Rush Limbaugh's favorite online site, The New Republic (oh, that's "sarcasm", by the way. Chait and TNR are hardly members of any VRWC or favorite of Rush Limbaugh):

Anthony Weiner's Skeeziness

The best starting point for understanding the bizarre controversy surrounding Anthony Weiner is this great 2001 Vanity Fair story about the culture of interns and exploitative sex on Capitol Hill:

        The women are heckled as they enter. “Tell us your name and where you are from,” says one of the men. As if on a game show the women comply, one by one. When Caroline says she is an intern, the largest of the group, a white-haired man with a big belly and big laugh, roars, “We’re afraid of interns.” He throws his knife at a lean man named Mike, at the other end of the table. Mike is unamused. He threatens to throw it back. Another guy, rotund and jolly-faced, stands up and does an impression of Marlon Brando doing Don Corleone. The others think it’s hysterical.

        Diana whispers that there is no way they can be congressmen. She figures they are businessmen. She wonders how she is going to get out.

        They are congressmen—although at first they pretend not to be. One, the youngest, with a tiny goatee, introduces himself as Anthony, an auto-parts salesman. The others call him “the Jewish kid” and make fun of his beard. Their real names and states are as follows: the auto-parts salesman is Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.); the lean Mike is Michael Capuano (D-Mass.); the jolly guy who imitated Brando is John Larson (D-Conn.); the man who was worried about interns is Robert Brady (D-Pa.).

Nice guy.

I won't insult your intelligence by asking you if you REALLY believe Weiner's account was hacked.

Also see this post on Yfrog's insecure "random" email address generation that likely played a role in the hack:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/248630_yfrog_secret_email_addresses_a

FYI, Rachel Corrie + some googling : http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/5864 and just for the record, i do value all human lives unconditionally.

The Link

FFS.

If you spent 5 seconds with Google you'd find dozens of examples. I don't see why I have to do it for you.

Here: It took me literally seconds to find *dozens* of examples:
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-delegates-vote-to-repudiate-racist-elements-within-the-tea-pary/ (6 or 7 pictures at this one)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2008/10/custom_1223838327176_racistbf5.png
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20090916TeaParty01.jpg

Man, here's an idea, just go to images.google.com and type in tea party and look through the signs. There's quite a few examples of blatant racism. Now my question to you is, where are the tea party leaders condemning this? If you can't find that, then that seems pretty much like de-facto proof that it is tolerated.

I know a little pop psych too. It's called "projection". How many of these alleged psychological problems are really with the tea party people and how many are your own flaws which you attempt to "project" onto a group you don't like?

There was nothing even vaguely resembling pop psychology what I posted.

And seriously, I realize this is an internet-argument and therefore blah blah blah, but seriously, could you get any less classy?

Funny that this story gets on Slashdot now that it's "left-leaning" stories getting the treatment. Where was it when it was the right-leaning blog stories getting buried a few years ago?

There's tons of documentation at Little Green Footballs, a site that hasn't even been friendly with the right owing of late. Digbats Enforcing the Groupthink. You can find plenty more evidence just by googling "diggbats".

After all, the right is "reactionary" by definition... if they are doing something, it's because someone else started it.

Funny that this story gets on Slashdot now that it's "left-leaning" stories getting the treatment. Where was it when it was the right-leaning blog stories getting buried a few years ago?

There's tons of documentation at Little Green Footballs, a site that hasn't even been friendly with the right owing of late. Digbats Enforcing the Groupthink. You can find plenty more evidence just by googling "diggbats".

After all, the right is "reactionary" by definition... if they are doing something, it's because someone else started it.

Funny that this story gets on Slashdot now that it's "left-leaning" stories getting the treatment. Where was it when it was the right-leaning blog stories getting buried a few years ago?

There's tons of documentation at Little Green Footballs, a site that hasn't even been friendly with the right owing of late. Digbats Enforcing the Groupthink. You can find plenty more evidence just by googling "diggbats".

After all, the right is "reactionary" by definition... if they are doing something, it's because someone else started it.

If you don't even want to google it, why feel the need to ...

I mean, I didn't know about that, but it took me about two minutes to find out.

sounds pretty anti-authoritarian-mob justice to me...

or authoritarian mob justice

totalitarian states usually want the monopoly on exacting punishments.

Clearly you've never heard of the Basij, or any of the many other "patriotic" volunteer groups. When you have groups brought up in your ideology, whatever that ideology is, you're going to have large segments of that society (the conservative segments that is) to support that ideology because their natural tendency to support the status quo, support the hierarchy, support the nation, (i.e. patriotism and the fear of the other)

Actually this sounds quite a bit like, Texas's own,Repent Amarillo (A self described, "Army of God," or in Arabic "Hezbollah.")

You seem to be ignorant of how Arab Palestinians are treated in Israel.

You mean, better than a Jew in a Muslim state? Or even Palestinians in other Arab States?

Oh, wait, Jews aren't often allowed into say Saudi Arabia, are they. And Palestinian problem would simply go away if we pushed the Israelis into ... the ocean.

The myopic view of people like yourself seems to indicate that the problem is squarely upon the shoulders of Israel, who have tried, repeatedly, for a peace solution, and whenever it has gotten to close, Palestinians back out.

Of course, you're better than them stinking Jews, who hate and kill indiscriminately, and those poor Palistinians who blow up busses, marketplaces, launch rockets into civilian spaces randomly are only doing it because they are treated so badly by the Israelis. If those poor Palestinians only were treated better, they'd stop bombing civilians.

Here is a good view of what Palestinians do with productive land turned over to them by Israel

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/23045_A_Tunnel_in_a_Greenhouse

"I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand."

Really? You mean something like this? or maybe this?

Or for Bush-as-Hitler:

this or this?

The fact is, this stuff was dirt common over the last eight years, and no neocons were freaking out, with or without pitchforks. This sort of thing is dumb now, but it was dumb then too, and nobody cared. What's the difference now? Just that you like Obama and didn't like Bush?

If the general public is different from scientists, I hope they'll resist the new Sciece Czar. He's a eugenist in favor of a planetary government

Daily Kos' Elusive "Screw Them" Comment

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only

This case was widely circulated in the mainstream media and, IIRC, the photographer who cloned in the additional smoke was subsequently fired.

Hitler, the right ? Excuse me ?

Hitler was for old values, personal responsability and letting the market sort out everything ?

I must be misinformed, have very very bad history books and knowledge then. They say he tried to eradicate religion, destroyed personal responsability and let the state interfere in everyone's lives and forced every company's management to do thing his way ... which included not firing anyone, well except those evil jews.

Yes Hitler was "to the right" of Stalin. He was also far to the left of Castro.

BTW: I'm no fool. There are evil right-leaning dictators in this world. There are even quite a few of them. Hitler, however, was not one of them. The national socialists were, you guessed it, socialists. And let's face it, liberal politics meshes a whole lot less well with totalitarianism than lefty utopias.

But of course, Hitler was racist. As we all know, no-one on the left is racist (this cartoon "graced" the covers of half the lefty newpapers of America).

And of course, describing any difference at all between ideologies is so very, very wrong. After all, lefty blogs say the pope teaches his children the same things. Oh wait Jew-hatred ! Her parents must be right-wing fascists ... In New York that must mean they vote ... democrat ? Overwhelmingly democrat ? Surely you're wrong. Jew haters don't vote to the left ...

--
-1000 Uncomfortable truth

healthy drinks

First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias.

Ha. Try http://newsbusters.org/ and either start reading or search for "media bias".

Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans.

The press was only reporting a few things; how could Americans judge when the media wasn't giving them information?

McCain/Palin, on the other hand, basically accused him of being a terrorist.

Obama wasn't accused of being a terrorist. It was pointed out by many others than McCain that Obama lied and hid his long relationship with at least two terrorists. But the media didn't report on it; the media often merely called Ayers and his wife former radicals or that Ayers was now a professor. How do you think the liberal media would have reported if McCain had any relationship with extremists? Actually, you don't have to wonder, just look up how much the rumors of a Palin involvement with a secessionist group was covered (these were false, while Ayers was fact).

If there's more positive going on with Obama, there will be more positive stories. That's not bias, that's just basic common sense. What I thought was stupid were the ridiculous "false equivalence" stories where they'd critize both candidates for "going negative" when Obama was talking about the fact that McCain would tax healthcare (ie, telling the truth) and McCain was accusing him of palling around with terrorists (ie, a lie).

McCain would tax some health care, the employer-offered plans but would support other plans, causing reduced taxes for most. There is no question Obama was palling around with terrorists and covered it up; why didn't media report this? Obama also claims ignorance of the Weather Underground; he must have been ignoring the media when Weathermen robbed an armored truck in NY while Obama was at college in NYC.

that is nothing but democrat FUD. Palin is NOT a creationist. she's been specifically asked in interviews and categorically said so. her father was a science teacher. here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism this issue has been blown out of proportion and distorted. anyone from the obama camp who accuses the mc cain camp of sleaziness (hey they're both guilty and you know it.) is a fucking hypocrite.

It's another conspiracy theory ... and frankly ... it's getting boring.

Sure it was Bush, not muslims, who massacred (and re-celebrated it 2 weeks ago) on 9/11, planes' vapor trails are responsible for global warming, and oh yes, Jews are eating babies in Gaza, it's the muslims of gaza that are constantly trying to kill Jews, not because islam demands it, but it's self defense to protect their babies from hungry Jews. Any other questions ?

>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.

Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:

Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.

The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/

Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos

Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964

Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch

And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only

which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations

That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.

>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.

Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:

Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.

The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/

Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos

Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964

Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch

And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only

which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations

That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.

>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.

Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:

Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.

The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/

Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos

Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964

Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch

And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only

which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations

That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.

>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.

Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:

Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.

The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/

Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos

Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964

Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch

And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only

which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations

That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.

>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.

Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:

Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.

The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/

Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos

Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964

Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch

And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only

which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations

That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.

Just to name a few off the top of my search results:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020445.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22835_Jawa_Report_Video_Censored_by_YouTube&only
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/06/youtube-goes-dhimmi-part-two/