DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I know holfresh is biased. Like arkrud said, everyone is. The factions on this thread are pretty apparent. Still seems like you are trying to dodge your culpability for your own posts by criticizing his.

Pense getting the briefings instead... doesn't sound better to me because it signals my fears of his Dick Cheney puppet master intentions. But again, that's my bias there.

And you know me: he of the ForexLive/fake Clint Eastwood epic rants against Internet hoaxes. You know that I detest innuendo and third- and fourth-hand stories when the original sources are readily available. So I tried to find this no-fly zone bill and only saw the Caesar act... and said to myself I hope this isn't what he's talking about...

But it is also valid point of view if you see that Caesar bill as a step closer to a no-fly zone... if your facts are straight. I also just wonder what you plan to do about it? Are you going to write or call Senators to encourage they not vote for it?

Basically what I'm saying is for all the railing you do against the MSM, I'm wondering why you are crowdsourcing truth in a Knicks board while having no idea about the Congressional Record?

Nah, I'm not trying to dodge anything. Are you? Are you now trying to use another's argument and just apply our natural bias to defend Holfresh?
I am trying to show my side of things, but my "excuse" isn't believed, except in the case of Holfresh, right? As another said, he has clout here, so
I guess that means he is trusted and doesn't have to post links and can be as biased as he wants cause MSM said it. I have really tried posting neutral things - mostly no response.
But if I post anything with a crack in it, or that can be misconstrued, it is like I attacked a religion or something. The amount of attention seems excessive.
Like if Holfresh takes my posts as "caca" as he said, why even reply? Why should anyone, it will just go by. I'm pretty sure there is enough truth in it and cognitive dissonance is surfacing.

I've mentioned things I don't like about Trump (e.g. - Nuclear energy and some others) but that gets skipped over. There just seems to be this unreal bias of perfectionism with Hillary by many here. I can imagine that is often the root of the division here. One side will not bend and it spreads and wallah, here we are.

It seems the Hillary supporters outnumber the Trump supporters in this thread, so perhaps, there is a natural tendency to gang up on them.

My perspective on how I affect things, is to share information (as it is applied here). Trump is going to be president soon, I'll use my time better as there is no chance he is going to go starting a war with Russia, which is what the topic in question amounts to.

I do thank your for mentioning the "a step closer" part. I really had no bad intentions with that post (And as I've said before, I do take it to heart and build on it. Not because it costs me any standing here, but because I want to communicate truthfully. I've never been one to lie, just not for me. But my own bias, yeah, we all have that.). I guess many of us sometimes post funny or antagonistic things, but the "no-Fly zone" post was certainly not one of them. It was not directed at a person, rather to protect people (as I have stated again and again, war with Russia was my biggest fear and that Bill was step 1.)

To answer your question, I have been on the forum for years and feel comfy here (still). I'm not a political guy (in general) and not too much into sports either (time difference will do that). My interest really just started for this election (in any meaningful way), which I think is true of MANY Americans. Was just easier to discuss it here than with thousands on a political board.

But, I see the same thing on other forums, deeeeeep division. It is sad and at times we all partake in it. And I've openly said I will be more careful to not partake in it, but when I am attacked from 4 different angles regarding something that to me was teeny tiny, and not ill intended, something just feels off about it, almost sad, but not quite.

Peace out!
EMS

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

Ah, I see you're back to being passive aggressive. You know fine well what you posted was not a genuine question, why waste time pretending you were?

Why pretend that Internet blog is to exchange opinions? It is exactly exist to pick on people.
And Mod or not, there are no unbiased people. So there are no unbiased reporters, news organizations, and analysts.
So there are not and cannot be "True News". All news are Fake news to some extend.
True news emerged only after the sum of all opinions are merged and events play out.
No need to be irritated. Life is infinitely smarter that people and it will put everything and everyone to the place in history they deserve.

There's a possibility he learned about logic the same place he learned about socialism. Now we are doing Arkrudian algebra to solve for true news. I guess it calls for something like this..
For every part of MSM news add three parts of Fox and two parts of Breitbart, add a dash of ultra right blog post and sprinkle some Facebook "articles" for good measure. Stir for thirty seconds and BAM - you've got News!!!!!

Now pass the mixture through a sieve and filter out all the news and throw it away. Add one can of Cold War propaganda and two scoops horsesh!t, and stir for a minute. And BAM - Now you have true news!!!!!

Wheeeee

The method you described is not worth or better that any other and will produce the same result - waste of time using it.
I know you are sarcastic and this make me grow on you. I was thinking you just an "Angry young man" as BJ song goes...

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I know holfresh is biased. Like arkrud said, everyone is. The factions on this thread are pretty apparent. Still seems like you are trying to dodge your culpability for your own posts by criticizing his.

Pense getting the briefings instead... doesn't sound better to me because it signals my fears of his Dick Cheney puppet master intentions. But again, that's my bias there.

And you know me: he of the ForexLive/fake Clint Eastwood epic rants against Internet hoaxes. You know that I detest innuendo and third- and fourth-hand stories when the original sources are readily available. So I tried to find this no-fly zone bill and only saw the Caesar act... and said to myself I hope this isn't what he's talking about...

But it is also valid point of view if you see that Caesar bill as a step closer to a no-fly zone... if your facts are straight. I also just wonder what you plan to do about it? Are you going to write or call Senators to encourage they not vote for it?

Basically what I'm saying is for all the railing you do against the MSM, I'm wondering why you are crowdsourcing truth in a Knicks board while having no idea about the Congressional Record?

Nah, I'm not trying to dodge anything. Are you? Are you now trying to use another's argument and just apply our natural bias to defend Holfresh?
I am trying to show my side of things, but my "excuse" isn't believed, except in the case of Holfresh, right? As another said, he has clout here, so
I guess that means he is trusted and doesn't have to post links and can be as biased as he wants cause MSM said it. I have really tried posting neutral things - mostly no response.
But if I post anything with a crack in it, or that can be misconstrued, it is like I attacked a religion or something. The amount of attention seems excessive.
Like if Holfresh takes my posts as "caca" as he said, why even reply? Why should anyone, it will just go by. I'm pretty sure there is enough truth in it and cognitive dissonance is surfacing.

I've mentioned things I don't like about Trump (e.g. - Nuclear energy and some others) but that gets skipped over. There just seems to be this unreal bias of perfectionism with Hillary by many here. I can imagine that is often the root of the division here. One side will not bend and it spreads and wallah, here we are.

It seems the Hillary supporters outnumber the Trump supporters in this thread, so perhaps, there is a natural tendency to gang up on them.

My perspective on how I affect things, is to share information (as it is applied here). Trump is going to be president soon, I'll use my time better as there is no chance he is going to go starting a war with Russia, which is what the topic in question amounts to.

I do thank your for mentioning the "a step closer" part. I really had no bad intentions with that post (And as I've said before, I do take it to heart and build on it. Not because it costs me any standing here, but because I want to communicate truthfully. I've never been one to lie, just not for me. But my own bias, yeah, we all have that.). I guess many of us sometimes post funny or antagonistic things, but the "no-Fly zone" post was certainly not one of them. It was not directed at a person, rather to protect people (as I have stated again and again, war with Russia was my biggest fear and that Bill was step 1.)

To answer your question, I have been on the forum for years and feel comfy here (still). I'm not a political guy (in general) and not too much into sports either (time difference will do that). My interest really just started for this election (in any meaningful way), which I think is true of MANY Americans. Was just easier to discuss it here than with thousands on a political board.

But, I see the same thing on other forums, deeeeeep division. It is sad and at times we all partake in it. And I've openly said I will be more careful to not partake in it, but when I am attacked from 4 different angles regarding something that to me was teeny tiny, and not ill intended, something just feels off about it, almost sad, but not quite.

Peace out!
EMS

Re: holfresh and "clout", I'm the one who said that, don't think anyone else said it. And it's just my opinion: I recognize the intent of holfresh's posts as quick anti-Trump "wire service" updates.

I no doubt give you more attention than other posters, but I hope you take that as a compliment versus an insult. I find your angle of your posts interesting and challenging. My angle throughout this thread has been one of "correcting the record" on statements made here that don't cut the mustard for me. So it's very interesting that this "fake news" topic emerges post-election, because I feel like hyperbole, innuendo, and outright lies are things I've been railing against for at least a year on this forum before it had that moniker.

I very much respect and empathize with your anti-war stance, even when we haven't seen eye-to-eye on the details. And I share your doubts about the mainstream media. If you look back many pages, I've been a doubter of polling and its accuracy and newsworthiness for a long time. I detest the news media's devolution into entertainment and horse race politics versus it educating and enlightening.

That said, you can't just throw it all out and rely solely on aggregators and "alt-news". And I just urge you again to figure out how to get closer to the stories you are interested in — like reading the text of bills or interview transcripts yourself — versus letting headlines and tweets and image macro memes be your primary influence. You have to have a balanced diet.

So thanks for clearing it up. I'm not trying to pass out torches to the mob. But your being new-ish to this stuff does come across and I'm trying to be a good influence with my questioning. Or maybe I'm trying to give it to you the way you give it the the mainstream media so you take the same medicine you are prescribing. Because full disclosure: I am basically part (a very powerless part) of the mainstream media via employment (not a news organization though).`But before that I worked in a library in the dawn of the World Wide Web. I'm the guy that has been the wet blanket debunking email forwards for 20 years. So that's where I'm coming from.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

Don't worry EMS. You are arguing in circles with the same people who championed Hillary and thought there was absolutely no hands she could lose the election. Even after admitting she was a deeply flawed candidate.

Trump isn't even President yet. There minds were made up long ago. We are approaching 300 pages. Many even those who voted Trump didn't take him seriously at first but they changed. You are not going to
change anyone's views here don't even bother. Judge him starting January 20, 2017. Until then this is all the same fear mongering Trump supporters were being accused of. Like Arkrud said the bias is human nature. It sucks when you don't get your way. It would be the same had Trump lost but he won. And yes it's disappointing when Hillary's flaws are ignored. It's amazes me
that even with a 0.1% chance the election results are overturned(probably in some egregiously
corrupt manner) people still are perfectly fine with Hillary as commander in chief. It is what it is at this point.

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

So given the volume of lies he has told throughout his campaign (and his life) and the volume of shady business dealings he's been involved in, you still hold out hope that he's not lying? Really?

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I know holfresh is biased. Like arkrud said, everyone is. The factions on this thread are pretty apparent. Still seems like you are trying to dodge your culpability for your own posts by criticizing his.

Pense getting the briefings instead... doesn't sound better to me because it signals my fears of his Dick Cheney puppet master intentions. But again, that's my bias there.

And you know me: he of the ForexLive/fake Clint Eastwood epic rants against Internet hoaxes. You know that I detest innuendo and third- and fourth-hand stories when the original sources are readily available. So I tried to find this no-fly zone bill and only saw the Caesar act... and said to myself I hope this isn't what he's talking about...

But it is also valid point of view if you see that Caesar bill as a step closer to a no-fly zone... if your facts are straight. I also just wonder what you plan to do about it? Are you going to write or call Senators to encourage they not vote for it?

Basically what I'm saying is for all the railing you do against the MSM, I'm wondering why you are crowdsourcing truth in a Knicks board while having no idea about the Congressional Record?

Nah, I'm not trying to dodge anything. Are you? Are you now trying to use another's argument and just apply our natural bias to defend Holfresh?
I am trying to show my side of things, but my "excuse" isn't believed, except in the case of Holfresh, right? As another said, he has clout here, so
I guess that means he is trusted and doesn't have to post links and can be as biased as he wants cause MSM said it. I have really tried posting neutral things - mostly no response.
But if I post anything with a crack in it, or that can be misconstrued, it is like I attacked a religion or something. The amount of attention seems excessive.
Like if Holfresh takes my posts as "caca" as he said, why even reply? Why should anyone, it will just go by. I'm pretty sure there is enough truth in it and cognitive dissonance is surfacing.

I've mentioned things I don't like about Trump (e.g. - Nuclear energy and some others) but that gets skipped over. There just seems to be this unreal bias of perfectionism with Hillary by many here. I can imagine that is often the root of the division here. One side will not bend and it spreads and wallah, here we are.

It seems the Hillary supporters outnumber the Trump supporters in this thread, so perhaps, there is a natural tendency to gang up on them.

My perspective on how I affect things, is to share information (as it is applied here). Trump is going to be president soon, I'll use my time better as there is no chance he is going to go starting a war with Russia, which is what the topic in question amounts to.

I do thank your for mentioning the "a step closer" part. I really had no bad intentions with that post (And as I've said before, I do take it to heart and build on it. Not because it costs me any standing here, but because I want to communicate truthfully. I've never been one to lie, just not for me. But my own bias, yeah, we all have that.). I guess many of us sometimes post funny or antagonistic things, but the "no-Fly zone" post was certainly not one of them. It was not directed at a person, rather to protect people (as I have stated again and again, war with Russia was my biggest fear and that Bill was step 1.)

To answer your question, I have been on the forum for years and feel comfy here (still). I'm not a political guy (in general) and not too much into sports either (time difference will do that). My interest really just started for this election (in any meaningful way), which I think is true of MANY Americans. Was just easier to discuss it here than with thousands on a political board.

But, I see the same thing on other forums, deeeeeep division. It is sad and at times we all partake in it. And I've openly said I will be more careful to not partake in it, but when I am attacked from 4 different angles regarding something that to me was teeny tiny, and not ill intended, something just feels off about it, almost sad, but not quite.

Peace out!
EMS

Re: holfresh and "clout", I'm the one who said that, don't think anyone else said it. And it's just my opinion: I recognize the intent of holfresh's posts as quick anti-Trump "wire service" updates.

I no doubt give you more attention than other posters, but I hope you take that as a compliment versus an insult. I find your angle of your posts interesting and challenging. My angle throughout this thread has been one of "correcting the record" on statements made here that don't cut the mustard for me. So it's very interesting that this "fake news" topic emerges post-election, because I feel like hyperbole, innuendo, and outright lies are things I've been railing against for at least a year on this forum before it had that moniker.

I very much respect and empathize with your anti-war stance, even when we haven't seen eye-to-eye on the details. And I share your doubts about the mainstream media. If you look back many pages, I've been a doubter of polling and its accuracy and newsworthiness for a long time. I detest the news media's devolution into entertainment and horse race politics versus it educating and enlightening.

That said, you can't just throw it all out and rely solely on aggregators and "alt-news". And I just urge you again to figure out how to get closer to the stories you are interested in — like reading the text of bills or interview transcripts yourself — versus letting headlines and tweets and image macro memes be your primary influence. You have to have a balanced diet.

So thanks for clearing it up. I'm not trying to pass out torches to the mob. But your being new-ish to this stuff does come across and I'm trying to be a good influence with my questioning. Or maybe I'm trying to give it to you the way you give it the the mainstream media so you take the same medicine you are prescribing. Because full disclosure: I am basically part (a very powerless part) of the mainstream media via employment (not a news organization though).`But before that I worked in a library in the dawn of the World Wide Web. I'm the guy that has been the wet blanket debunking email forwards for 20 years. So that's where I'm coming from.

Thanks for your words. It's nice to not be insulted for a change. It is interesting to be "corrected" by a group of people, where there is strong division and too feel like I was being spanked for basically spilling a glass of water, that much energy and time, wow. I just take it as a challenge to be a better human being. Communication is a key area for me, yeah, my detractors here would never guess that, but it is important. I think being on a forum is not a true reflection of most people, the anonymity can make us stray a bit. As I said once before, I will be more conscious here, and will continue to be. Eventually, I'll hit the right stride and cause more cognitive dissonance here, and not sure on which side, perhaps all.

I think we get lost in the left brain "proving" of things and really miss that other half. I'm not saying to go by gut feeling but rather to not ignore it, intuition, etc.
I coincidentally came across this quote tonight, and it is apt to what I am trying to English:
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
Without looking that up, does anyone know who said it? And honestly, I'm not looking for an out, but consider where I'm coming from regarding this all and that quote. Reminds me of that scene from the Matrix: "What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad." Anyway, in that direction, not exactly that but something just isn't right with those who have been leading us, Hillary included. My anti-war stance (not even sure how to phrase that as I don't like being "against" something per se) is reflective of what just doesn't feel right. And I use "feel" only partially, it is all of my faculties.

I mentioned a few pages back that I do go to mainstream, though perhaps not enough. The honest problem here is, what are they really saying that is pro-Trump or anti-Hillary? Fox said a bit about him and when I posted something a while ago, it was attacked because it was Fox. So now, MSM is not enough, it must be, essentially, one that now supports Hillary (all the rest). She is a part of a deep rooted establishment and it is extremely difficult to use their sources to prove what is going on.

MSM is responsible for its own demise. And Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit will most like follow in their footsteps for quite a few reasons - centralization (hierarchical to the Nth degree), lack of freedom, censoring and such. For all the hate regarding Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc., MSM basically created them. They are a natural balance, as extreme as they, at times, might be. I check in on James Corbett a bit and see what he has vetted. Not many good investigative reporters left...

Interesting background. I hope you do at work what you are doing here. Appreciated.

EMS

gunsnewing wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

Don't worry EMS. You are arguing in circles with the same people who championed Hillary and thought there was absolutely no hands she could lose the election. Even after admitting she was a deeply flawed candidate.

Trump isn't even President yet. There minds were made up long ago. We are approaching 300 pages. Many even those who voted Trump didn't take him seriously at first but they changed. You are not going to
change anyone's views here don't even bother. Judge him starting January 20, 2017. Until then this is all the same fear mongering Trump supporters were being accused of. Like Arkrud said the bias is human nature. It sucks when you don't get your way. It would be the same had Trump lost but he won. And yes it's disappointing when Hillary's flaws are ignored. It's amazes me
that even with a 0.1% chance the election results are overturned(probably in some egregiously
corrupt manner) people still are perfectly fine with Hillary as commander in chief. It is what it is at this point.

Thanks Guns, nice to hear. I'm not wanting to fight, that is getting old. I will just be a bit more careful with what I post, but that doesn't mean I won't post the occasional crude joke or the like, this is a basketball forum after all.

I guess we are all guilty to an extent regarding holding our opinions. But as I stated, I listed things I was worried about with Trump. Let me do it again:
Nuclear energy
Saying Mexico is going to pay for the wall
I hope he lowers government spending to make up for the tax cuts (not fully as I think they will stimulate the economy but substantially).

I don't really see that from most. It was nice for Doc to post what he did. Because right now it feels like three groups of kids arguing in the park and that is getting old. But, you can't change the world, just yourself right? And by changing yourself you can affect those around you (which we do anyway). So, we know how to behave and where to take this (most of the time, lol.)

I really wouldn't put it past Soros and company to try to do something in those 3 States, but damn, mathematically, that just seems too unlikely. And if they want a civil war (and I'm not saying that from a supporting Trump perspective), they might just get it. Tempers are flaring everywhere. We have had the Brexit, Trump winning, That French right candidate looking like the favorite for next years election, Italy going to vote for a constitutional amendment (I think) and I believe they are considering leaving the EU. Might be wrong on that last point but it is clear, something is going on EVERYWHERE and we all got front row seats. Enjoy the show, but remember, it is just a ride.

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

But you were accusing me of posting posting fake articles and lies??.I don't understand, you agree with me that Trump isn't involved in the daily briefings, which by the way is a big deal, but yet you thought I should have said he was too busy and Pence was sitting in on the daily briefings??..So where is the lie and fake news??

How many ways can I explain this? Tell the full story. MSM often tells the truth, but they lie too. But what they are experts at is what you just did. You only told the part that fitted your narrative. Nothing personal, just give us those 3 sentences instead of the 1. Sure, we sometimes selectively edit, so to speak, but we all should be more careful of that.

Maybe an analogy - If the police arrest a man for hitting a woman and put him in jail, but didn't know that it was in self defense because the woman had a gun, well they are sort of missing things. Tell more of the story.

I already said, it isn't a big deal but I'd prefer it. He is going faster than any President-elect (last time I looked) regarding the appointments, so it isn't like he is golfing or something.

So, Fake isn't just fake, it is avoiding things. Is telling a white lie lying? I think being dishonest and having an agenda with a post is lying - I don't mean out of accident, but when it becomes the norm. When you have more data but choose to just give the part that supports your perspective (repeatedly), it is not fair, it is not full, it is biased. And that amounts to lying. Which is why MSM are a bunch of liars and why they are dying before our eyes. Well, the banking system is too, but that is another story, or is it?...

I know we have been down this road before, but in the sake of maybe getting everyone to mention some faults of "their candidate" so to speak - what problems do you have with Hillary?
Maybe if we see none of these candidates are perfect, then we can come from a more humble place. (And I'm not saying it to hold above your head, I already have listed mine, a few times.)

arkrud wrote:This thread exceeded Jessica Alba thread page count...
This the biggest sexual perversion I ever witnessed...

Ha! 70 year old politicians are the new 20-year old model/actresses!

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:This thread exceeded Jessica Alba thread page count...
This the biggest sexual perversion I ever witnessed...

Ha! 70 year old politicians are the new 20-year old model/actresses!

No doubt love or hate she is special.
She and Trump are both ultimate Reality Show stars performing in real life.
As live in America is pretty cool for majority we are getting bored and are looking for distractions.
Politics is less destructive for the health comparing to drags, alcohol, tobacco, and random sex.
Probably at the same level as pornography and conspiracy theories but less chances to get you computer infected.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

But you were accusing me of posting posting fake articles and lies??.I don't understand, you agree with me that Trump isn't involved in the daily briefings, which by the way is a big deal, but yet you thought I should have said he was too busy and Pence was sitting in on the daily briefings??..So where is the lie and fake news??

How many ways can I explain this? Tell the full story. MSM often tells the truth, but they lie too. But what they are experts at is what you just did. You only told the part that fitted your narrative. Nothing personal, just give us those 3 sentences instead of the 1. Sure, we sometimes selectively edit, so to speak, but we all should be more careful of that.

Maybe an analogy - If the police arrest a man for hitting a woman and put him in jail, but didn't know that it was in self defense because the woman had a gun, well they are sort of missing things. Tell more of the story.

I already said, it isn't a big deal but I'd prefer it. He is going faster than any President-elect (last time I looked) regarding the appointments, so it isn't like he is golfing or something.

So, Fake isn't just fake, it is avoiding things. Is telling a white lie lying? I think being dishonest and having an agenda with a post is lying - I don't mean out of accident, but when it becomes the norm. When you have more data but choose to just give the part that supports your perspective (repeatedly), it is not fair, it is not full, it is biased. And that amounts to lying. Which is why MSM are a bunch of liars and why they are dying before our eyes. Well, the banking system is too, but that is another story, or is it?...

I know we have been down this road before, but in the sake of maybe getting everyone to mention some faults of "their candidate" so to speak - what problems do you have with Hillary?
Maybe if we see none of these candidates are perfect, then we can come from a more humble place. (And I'm not saying it to hold above your head, I already have listed mine, a few times.)

Are you going to hold yourself to the same standard? Tell the full story?

You do realize since you commented on it, that my post, the one in question, is not against any candidate? I can't say more than I have.
So, without being too strong, maybe try to bring things together, instead of further divide here or taking sides?
I've made that effort. Maybe add to the discussion. What problems do you have with Hillary? I've mentioned mine with Trump.