Finding reliable news sm
Posted By: LVMT on 2009-01-13
In Reply to: Where can I just get some good ol news - Older MT
If you want facts, the best place is the internet and alternative news sites. Those that rely on the mainstream news for information are not well-informed. The only news I watch on the TV is BBC World.
Here is a good article on the subject:
The Difficulty in Being an Uninformed American.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/010909Roberts2.shtml
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.
So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.
If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.
As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.
I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.
As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.
So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.
I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.
Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.
On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.
The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.
I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.
So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
Finding a way to GET ALONG WITH other countries would
!
tnx for clarification. I am finding myself
in a confusing new world. All these years I tried to look at others' point of view, but somewhere in there I feel like I have handed out all MY rights and might as well be rodney dangerfield getting no respect!
Finding another line of work.......... sm
That might work for a prison doctor who did not believe in capital punishment but was suddenly asked to perform lethal injections as part of the job. That physician could find employment in the private sector where lethal injection would not be a part of the job description and do just fine.
But what about the OB/GYN who specializes in women's health care? He or she would not be able to practice medicine in his/her chosen field ANYWHERE. Some may have been practicing for 20 years or more. What do you propose they do? Go back to medical school to specialize in cardiology or neurology? Or maybe they should just go flip burgers at Mickey D's.
Some people have a lot of years and many thousands of dollars invested in their professions, unlike most of us who could easily change our line of work if we were suddenly required by our job to do something we found ethically or morally wrong.
Right-wing websites are the only sources I'm finding.....
People from all over the world own property in the US....so, in that respect, it is nothing new. Whether or not they'll get "bailed out" is whole nother ball of wax.
They are continuously finding evidence through DNA testing
that an innocent person was executed.
Right, because they are so much more reliable.
Note sarcasm.
And I'm worried about Obama finding a reason to declare...sm
martial law once he's in office, and creating his own dictatorship. Works both ways.
I still say Bush will be glad to be well out of it come January 20, 2009.
But watch....Bush will get blamed for everything that goes wrong for the next four years anyway
why don't you answer my question? Not finding any 'disgraces' in O's speech?...nm
I am waiting for examples. I guess, in vain.
Drudge is as reliable as any of the MSM
He routinely/daily posts articles leaning both ways, but when someone doesn't tout the liberal mantra verbatim then you write them off. You don't want anything to do with fair and balanced reporting do you?
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
reliable source for this please. nm
.
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? n/m
As far as I know it is a reliable source, but not
totally. At least, so I guess, it is controlled for neutrality, whereas other sources just smell partisan.
Factcheck not reliable and b/c is forged
Look at it yourself and then read what the experts say.
Rick Santorum's claim of finding WMDs is just more false propaganda.
(I can't understand why they must keep lying.)
Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006; A10
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.
We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons, Santorum said.
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
-- Dafna Linzer
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Finding those Bachmann, US-style weath distribution and prayer request for O's GM
Hate-generating slurs don't blink an eye, even with Obama's last living elder relative on her death bed. Such class. And this would capture votes how?
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
Reliable link? More fear mongering I think. You...sm
republicans will believe anything!
The b/c issue - Stating factcheck as a reliable source
Since they are all one in the same. Factcheck is not an independent source.
As we can see, there is no reliable source. Twisted, misleading passages out of context
rasberries
FOX news IS the news. The only 1 that tells BOTH
nm
It's all over the news - and I mean ALL news stations.
not just the ones you don't like.
Do you get any news except at the DU? ????? NM
Believe it or not, I do keep up with the news.
I realize this is an old story, but it has a new twist to it because now Gary Bernsten is now giving the specifics surrounding it.
When the news first came out that he was..sm
hosting a fundraiser for her I thought it was weird, but now that you bring it up (and it's a good question) I did some research and it appears that old Ruppert has a history of switching his backing between parties. Some believe his main objective is monopoly in broadcasting, not party loyalty or belief in party ideals (aka Big Business 102).
Excerpt from wsws.org: 'When it comes to politics, Murdoch, known in media circles as the “dirty digger,” is equally adaptable in pursuing his personal gain. The most loyal right-wing Tory and friend of Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, as he built up his media holdings in Britain, he switched his loyalties to “New Labour” when he saw that Tony Blair could provide a fresh face for even more reactionary politics and was more than willing to further Murdoch’s interests in return for editorial backing. He made similar swings in his native Australia between the Labor and Liberal parties to further his efforts at monopolizing the print and broadcast media.'
Actually, I saw it on ABC News....
the footage of Obama not putting hand over heart for pledge. In all fairness, that is the only footage I have seen of him not doing so....never was a recipient of whatever chain email you are speaking of. Believe it...yes, saw it with my own eyes. Why he did it, have no idea. There could be a multitude of reasons why he didn't do it. Here is the big BUT...it does make one a but curious when coupled with the fact that he dispensed with wearing of the flag pin on his lapel. I heard his explanation; I am just not sure I buy it. Each thing alone not such a big deal...together, it does make one wonder, so I can see why nanna might have reservations. It is good to question things and not take everything at face value...be the candidate Dem, Repub, Inde...whatever.
Fox news
A propanganda machine for repubs. No one is obligated to appear on that network. There are plenty of other media outlets. Fox's ratings are dropping and MSNC's are climbing. Fox disguises these facts by including their entertainment ratings in with their "news" ratings. As far as ALL OTHER MEDIA being liberal, that is a transparent technique to keep viewers from getting opinions from ANY OTHER source than Fox. I certainly wouldn't fall for that bunko. I also notice that they concentrate on certain sites such as Media Matters and NY Times specifically because those sites are excellent at presenting the truth about distorted information disseminated by the propaganda machine. To each his own.
Where do you get your news?
Sorry, I'm conservative, but have to ask why you would go down that road when you can find those answers yourself.
Might I suggest worldnetdaily.com, townhall.com, drudgereport.com, breitbart.com, talk radio (and the hosts' web sites, including Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin, Michelle Malkin, Rush, etc.). There are countless news stories that never make the mainstream media.
Another thing to consider is who a person keeps for company. When questionable names keep coming up (Pflager, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc.), that would concern me if I were considering any kind of relationship with someone, but that's just me.
Those who support Obama get their news from MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and so on. Those networks alone have been proven repeatedly to be biased. All the times that McCain went abroad, where were Couric, Gibson, and Williams? Why would any American think that the Democrats, who are determined to reinstate Fairness Doctrine, think that it won't come back and bite them? Why should any American be silenced just because one group disagrees with another?
Do you know what is posted on blogs like the DailyKos and HuffingtonPost?
Lastly, a couple more stats. The #1 most liberal Senator is Obama. Kennedy is #2, Biden is #3. Even the moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from him. This info is documented and not fiction.
That's rather left of left, I would say.
I'm already looking for my fire extinguisher, but the truth hurts sometimes.
Trust your own gut.
She knows it because it was all over the news
nm
news
You have more options now than anytime in history to gather information. You can gather information from both sides of the issue and verify the facts and then make your own decision based on your personal values.
Old news....nm
xx
Fox News is the only one I DO believe.
nm
SP on ABC News
Just saw first installment of interview with SP with Charlie Gibson. In my opinion, she really messed that up! Experienced and ready to lead? No way. Danced around every question and flat out lied when asked what she said about Iraq War being a mission from God. What's the worst thing about listening to her for the first time in her own words, she says NUCULAR!!! Just like George Bush. Oh no...not again.
SP on ABC News
She was so nervous, she had big red blotches on the side of her neck. He pressed on dancing around and not answering the questions he asked. She looked like a deer in the headlights to me.
old news....ho hum.. nm
xx
NBC news...
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/17/1413605.aspx
old news
This happened years ago, not yesterday. How come you are just hearing about it? Did you check your dates in snopes?
Maybe old news, but why does no one get it? sm
do you just want to ignore all the blatant truths about Obama being linked to terrorists and cling to hope that he is not REALLY a terrorist and hope that he really will do what he says? So just blindly accept him at his word and ignore all the indications that tell us otherwise. Do you not see any huge red flags waving in front of your eyes??
Fox NEWS is not the news
Joe the plumber is a plant! All your info is wrong.
Fox News
Plenty has been said about Sarah Palin's appearance, from her designer glasses to her striking similarity to actress Tina Fey.
But lately her stylish look has come at a price -- more than $150,000 of which was paid for by the Republican National Committee -- according to a report Tuesday by Politico.
The Web site cited financial disclosure records that suggest the wardrobe makeover began in September and included bills from Sak's Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling nearly $50,000.
The documents also show a $75,000 shopping trip at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in September, as well as about $4,700 spent on hair and makeup, Politico reported. Documents don't show similar costs in August.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/report-rnc-spent-g-spruce-palin/
fox news
Good Evening,
1. On Sunday night at 9 on Fox News, Hannity's America will run "The Ten Reasons Why Barack Obama Should Not Be President." Please spread the word.
2. The article that follows is about Sarah Palin and the elites (both Democrat and Republican). It is well worth the read:
And this is news how?????
HA HA HA HA HA. I never trusted her. I just hope I see as less of Dillary than I do of Condi.
It's news because...(sm)
Israel is getting ready to invade Gaza and is already in the process of bombing raids. Meanwhile the current US administration (aka Bush/Condi/Cheney/etc) is perpetuating the lies about Gaza, such as who is the real terrorist, ignoring a legitimate democratically elected council, etc. The OP explains all this. Bottom line is that the US is giving Israel a green light, which to some of us (as well as a large portion of the world) is condoning genocide.
And Americans wonder why the rest of the world has such a bad opinion of us.
Old news.......
I posted the entire article on how Obama wants to pay for abortions in Ethiopia and abroad with MY money but instead of responses of "NOT MY MONEY", all I got was criticism for being AGAINST abortion......
Go figure..... that's what I mean when I say this country has lost its loyalty to itself and we have a president who has absoluely no loyalty to this country; his loyalties lie elsewhere
I saw it on the news. It is to try
this stimulus. Also that is why Obama had townhall meetings to show congress "We the people" want this stimulus to pass.
Boy, Obama sure loves campaigning and speeches.
Old news - nm
nm
I would think Fox News would be enough
Unless, of course, you have built up your tolerance for it by listening to Michael Savage.
The ones that have been all over the news -
x
As far as what is said on the news....(sm)
I'm not responsible for that. Having said that though I do think that as a whole people are more tolerant (I wouldn't go so far as to say accepting). However, that doesn't diminish the fact that violence against homosexuals is still a prevalent crime.
I actually do wish more people would teach their children as you described above. If that were happening, none of this would be an issue and there would be no need to take it to the schools.
Let's take Patty, for example. She has already said that yes, she does call homosexuals names in front of her kids. She does this at the same time that she's spouting out references to the Bible. So what do you think her kids think? Maybe that it's God's will that they call homosexuals names? I don't know what they're supposed to think or how they are supposed to act given her example. Do you think she's teaching tolerance? If not, who will if not the schools?
|
