- Messages
- 15,130
- Reaction score
- 2,285
and she'd be smiling on the cover, not scowling like they depicted Trump
- Thread starter Woodson Bible & Guns
- Start date
and she'd be smiling on the cover, not scowling like they depicted Trump
ThoughtExperiment
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 3
How about all the sports stars refusing to stay in his hotels, and saying they wouldn't go to the White House if they won a championship? There would be and has been much criticism for people who even suggest such things about Obama.
I mean, I get having some trepidation about him. I have some myself. But can't people wait until he's actually president and actually makes major mistakes before saying these things?
I mean, I get having some trepidation about him. I have some myself. But can't people wait until he's actually president and actually makes major mistakes before saying these things?
yimyammer
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,976
- Reaction score
- 3,774
Not one of those sorry mother fuckers bothered to help her, someone should fucking beat the shit out of that mother fucker and then drop his ass back in the desert he came from without a parachute.
Alright I got sucked, I cant find this story anywhere on major news sites, how do we know this was in Germany and the perp was a migrant?
Regardless, I hope whomever did it is caught
Last edited:
TheZoneSucks
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,278
- Reaction score
- 53
Every leftist is fucking asshole. Without exception. I have yet to meet one that was not. I have yet to see one in media that is not.
What the left really wants is the power to be the biggest assholes they can while denying anyone else the ability to feed them their own well deserved karma.
NoMoRedJ
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 56
Couldnt they have found a nicer chair for that picture? Look a that piece of garbage. The braided cord on the arm hanging off. And look at all the junk under the fabric at the top of the back. Pathetic!
- Messages
- 15,130
- Reaction score
- 2,285
"Bild" is a famous German magazine. They'd know if it's in Germany or not.
NoMoRedJ
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 56
You have to consider who these fools are. When you have a bunch of people that live in denial of reality and have been willfully brainwashed to believe that anybody some lefty nitwit labels a racist is not deserving to even live its not a surprise. These are people that have voluntarily relinquished any ability to think or process information unless its through a prism of their PC view of the world.
yimyammer
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,976
- Reaction score
- 3,774
True, here's the article link (in German) and the translation (used Google translator) makes no mention of them being migrants but it did happen in Germany. Here's the translation of the article from Google:
Title: Senseless Violence Can hit anyone
A. LIER AND K. METAG
07.12.2016 - 12:13
Berlin - They are pictures that shock: A Späti-seller, who is punished without warning by an armed offender; A woman cold-blooded down the stairs of a subway station; A robber who holds a weapon for a bank clerk!
All these scenes were taken in Berlin. Does violence in the capital increase? Sad fact is: such violent acts can hit any of us at any time.
Benjamin Jendro (27), spokesman for the Berlin Police Workers' Party (GdP), viewed the entrance from a Berlin subway station, where a young woman is stepped down a staircase. He says, "The incident shows in a brutal and shocking way how quickly everyone in every city in this city can become a victim of senseless violence. If we can not get more police off the streets and build the necessary pressure from the judiciary through tougher punishments, we run the risk that more and more people believe in our city is the law of the strongest. "
According to Jendro, strengthened measures have led to a decline in violence in recent years, but he also says: "We must also be honest that such horrible acts can never be completely ruled out, as long as there are individual people, And capriciously accept the death of others. "
The facts: 10 029 such criminal records were the criminal statistics last year. This is 83 more than in 2014. However, according to police, the total number of so-called rawness deductions (...) has steadily declined since 2012. Only the next police statistics will show whether this trend continues.
ThoughtExperiment
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 3
Not sure it's even legal to mention that there. Pretty sure it isn't in Sweden.
yimyammer
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,976
- Reaction score
- 3,774
I'm lost amigo, can you elaborate please sir?
- Messages
- 15,130
- Reaction score
- 2,285
[video=youtube;F-LhfKKgncg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-LhfKKgncg[/video]
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
Seriously. How can any western country admit people who loathe women that much?
No mention that it's also a culture of brutality against them.
Their culture is all about women being seen and not heard. Well, good luck with that in anywhere but Pakistan, you fucks.
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
Oh jeez. Black muslims. They're the worst of everything.
FanSince61
Cheerleader
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 0
NoMoRedJ
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 56
The CIA’s Absence of Conviction 229
11 Dec, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig
I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.
It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.
The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.
The CIA's Absence of Conviction - Craig Murray
11 Dec, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig
I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.
It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.
The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.
The CIA's Absence of Conviction - Craig Murray
ThoughtExperiment
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 3
Podesta fell for an incredibly weak phishing email like some 85 year old grandma would. Why are the media acting like the evil Russkies spent months hacking nonstop until they finally broke through our defenses to steal our nuclear codes?
(Yes, that was a rhetorical question.)
(Yes, that was a rhetorical question.)