original CNN lies...

[asaratis]

Please read carefully and completely. Follow the links within. You will understand more about the role of CNN in promoting lies and deception at the behest of Obama and other governments. If you are a liberal denier of truth, simply go to another thread and do not bother us with your asinine comments here.

CNN is the cesspool of selective journalism.

CNN Airs ?The Truth About Benghazi? ? But Fills The Story With Lies and Deception ? We Explain Why | The Last Refuge

In any endeavor of corruption and misleading governance, the control of, and support by, the media, is an absolute necessity. The USSR needed Pravda to keep the ruse of governance for decades. The need of/by the U.S. government has steadily grown over the course of several progressive decades; but the urgency has increased exponentially over the past five years with the extremes of The Obama Administration.

Yesterday another blatant example of this was clearly evident to those who are tuned in to the deceptive enterprise. However, for the sake of those who do not have the time or energy to actually track such things, here is what took place.

CNN broadcast a story about the Benghazi attacks on 9/11/12; a subject of much controversy. So much so, the administration cannot seem to get away from it because the deceptive narrative is so fundamentally false. Enter the need for the Pravda-esque media, CNN.

CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays CNN for content control.
Let that sink in.

Additionally CNN and CNN International are also paid by foreign governments to avoid stories that are damaging, and construct narratives that show them in a better, albeit false, light.


Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”


https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lxXzaxIu3h6nmJnit0oHb_LEVgOdfrypn_B0VDVm1cA


Watch this!...and listen to the lady!

 

[midcan5]

This thread belongs in Conspiracy Section.

...CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays CNN for content control.
Let that sink in.

Additionally CNN and CNN International are also paid by foreign governments to avoid stories that are damaging, and construct narratives that show them in a better, albeit false, light...

In order for this OP to have any credence at all, you'd have to prove the assertions above. One person's interpretation of an event does not a truth make. Imagine if we believed anyone at all?

"We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Soviet radio reporting on the Politburo’s deliberations

 

[asaratis]

This thread belongs in Conspiracy Section.

...CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays CNN for content control.
Let that sink in.

Additionally CNN and CNN International are also paid by foreign governments to avoid stories that are damaging, and construct narratives that show them in a better, albeit false, light...

In order for this OP to have any credence at all, you'd have to prove the assertions above. One person's interpretation of an event does not a truth make. Imagine if we believed anyone at all?

"We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Soviet radio reporting on the Politburo’s deliberations

Those claims are made within the links offered in the OP or in links within those links. I did not make up anything. If you had bothered to watch the 45 minute video, you would have heard the lady say so. She worked at CNN when they were being paid to play ball with deceptive governments such as Bahrain in reporting distorted versions of what was actually happening.

 

[Trajan]

I remember obama and hillary sliding off making any substantive admonishments -remarks ala Bahrain and I said so then. In effect the shiiite pop. was protesting working conditions, standards of living, lack of representation etc., and the sunni's- the king and military was repressing them, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to help the gov. put down the crowds.

Now we understand that Iran is shiite and was urging upset in that country but, that should not disguise the fact that the US turned a blind eye to Bahrain and the Sauds putting down the protests in violent clashes etc.


Bahrain: riot police fire on protest camp - Telegraph


so it appears that there is a partisan slide rule in play. As to who obama supports (Egyptian coup anyone?) or not, and under what condition.

Its not new, its Geo-politics, but hardly fair considering the beating others have received for supporting repressive oligarchies/military gov.'s

 

[FA_Q2]

This thread belongs in Conspiracy Section.

...CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays CNN for content control.
Let that sink in.

Additionally CNN and CNN International are also paid by foreign governments to avoid stories that are damaging, and construct narratives that show them in a better, albeit false, light...

In order for this OP to have any credence at all, you'd have to prove the assertions above. One person's interpretation of an event does not a truth make. Imagine if we believed anyone at all?

"We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Soviet radio reporting on the Politburo’s deliberations

Those claims are made within the links offered in the OP or in links within those links. I did not make up anything. If you had bothered to watch the 45 minute video, you would have heard the lady say so. She worked at CNN when they were being paid to play ball with deceptive governments such as Bahrain in reporting distorted versions of what was actually happening.

Can’t watch the video but if that is true then there is a much bigger problem here than even I thought.

I can’t fathom how that would be remotely legal.

 

[asaratis]

I remember obama and hillary sliding off making any substantive admonishments -remarks ala Bahrain and I said so then. In effect the shiiite pop. was protesting working conditions, standards of living, lack of representation etc., and the sunni's- the king and military was repressing them, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to help the gov. put down the crowds.

Now we understand that Iran is shiite and was urging upset in that country but, that should not disguise the fact that the US turned a blind eye to Bahrain and the Sauds putting down the protests in violent clashes etc.


Bahrain: riot police fire on protest camp - Telegraph


so it appears that there is a partisan slide rule in play. As to who obama supports (Egyptian coup anyone?) or not, and under what condition.

Its not new, its Geo-politics, but hardly fair considering the beating others have received for supporting repressive oligarchies/military gov.'s

It is not unbelievable that something like this could happen in the US. (Remember Kent State? Remember the Branch Davidians?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N8Vnpj5Z0xk]Kent State Massacre Order to Shoot May 4 1970 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asaratis]

This thread belongs in Conspiracy Section.



In order for this OP to have any credence at all, you'd have to prove the assertions above. One person's interpretation of an event does not a truth make. Imagine if we believed anyone at all?

"We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." Soviet radio reporting on the Politburo’s deliberations

Those claims are made within the links offered in the OP or in links within those links. I did not make up anything. If you had bothered to watch the 45 minute video, you would have heard the lady say so. She worked at CNN when they were being paid to play ball with deceptive governments such as Bahrain in reporting distorted versions of what was actually happening.

Can’t watch the video but if that is true then there is a much bigger problem here than even I thought.

I can’t fathom how that would be remotely legal.

I don't know that it is illegal (to be paid for selective "news" programming) except maybe for a government owned and operated network. But then, such a network would be inherently biased and present nothing but government propaganda...as did Pravda in its hay day.

Publicly owned media is certainly free to present whatever they want and I am quite sure that for MONEY they would overlook selected stories and present others that are complimentary of despotism, thus skewing the news and outright LYING to the American public.

CNN is totally off my list. I will not watch a single minute of their tripe in the future.

 

[Mad Scientist]

MSNBC is the real White House Mouthpiece. MSNBC is owned by G&E which owns Obama. Plus that big titty blond girl reads on air, the texted propaganda that the White House sends her.

 

[asaratis]

MSNBC is the real White House Mouthpiece. MSNBC is owned by G&E which owns Obama. Plus that big titty blond girl reads on air, the texted propaganda that the White House sends her.

I think most, if not all of the American media to be shills for Obama and Company. There are no unbiased news outlets. They dance to the music of the highest bidder.

The greed and cunning of America's media moguls are unsurpassed!

 

[Missourian]

CNN fakes satellite interview...a little off topic, but still interesting and humorous...

[youtube]2LTB932VKjk[/youtube][youtube]GEyz5Y6MmmY[/youtube]

​

 

[jon_berzerk]

CNN fakes satellite interview...a little off topic, but still interesting and humorous...

[youtube]2LTB932VKjk[/youtube][youtube]GEyz5Y6MmmY[/youtube]

​

i watched very humorous


but really what was up with that

--LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

MSNBC is the real White House Mouthpiece. MSNBC is owned by G&E which owns Obama. Plus that big titty blond girl reads on air, the texted propaganda that the White House sends her.

I think most, if not all of the American media to be shills for Obama and Company. There are no unbiased news outlets. They dance to the music of the highest bidder.

The greed and cunning of America's media moguls are unsurpassed!

And the accusations in this thread would lead me to cite CNN as a much more biased source. At least until it is shown that MSNBC has done anything even close to this. It is a wonder when so many claim FOX is the real shill het I am completely unaware of any RNC actions that would amount to paying for content control.

 

[OnePercenter]

The truth about Benghazi is the Republican Senate reduced the security budget for embassy's by $370M.

 

[asaratis]

MSNBC is the real White House Mouthpiece. MSNBC is owned by G&E which owns Obama. Plus that big titty blond girl reads on air, the texted propaganda that the White House sends her.

I think most, if not all of the American media to be shills for Obama and Company. There are no unbiased news outlets. They dance to the music of the highest bidder.

The greed and cunning of America's media moguls are unsurpassed!

And the accusations in this thread would lead me to cite CNN as a much more biased source. At least until it is shown that MSNBC has done anything even close to this. It is a wonder when so many claim FOX is the real shill het I am completely unaware of any RNC actions that would amount to paying for content control.

I agree. CNN appears to be worse than others. However, I think the networks follow each others lead, changing a word or two now and then...or editing video to suit their agenda. AP just recently admitted covering for Obama's gaff about Savannah, Charleston and Jacksonville being on the Gulf coast. They added words to give the appearance that he had made no mistake.

The CNN "satellite" conversation between Nancy Grace and her nearby collaborator was humorous and relatively innocuous. It is the blatant dishonesty and fraud in broadcasting (or suppressing) whatever "news" pays the most that brands CNN forever (at least for me) as a disreputable and not-to-be-trusted source.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think most, if not all of the American media to be shills for Obama and Company. There are no unbiased news outlets. They dance to the music of the highest bidder.

The greed and cunning of America's media moguls are unsurpassed!

And the accusations in this thread would lead me to cite CNN as a much more biased source. At least until it is shown that MSNBC has done anything even close to this. It is a wonder when so many claim FOX is the real shill het I am completely unaware of any RNC actions that would amount to paying for content control.

I agree. CNN appears to be worse than others. However, I think the networks follow each others lead, changing a word or two now and then...or editing video to suit their agenda. AP just recently admitted covering for Obama's gaff about Savannah, Charleston and Jacksonville being on the Gulf coast. They added words to give the appearance that he had made no mistake.

The CNN "satellite" conversation between Nancy Grace and her nearby collaborator was humorous and relatively innocuous. It is the blatant dishonesty and fraud in broadcasting (or suppressing) whatever "news" pays the most that brands CNN forever (at least for me) as a disreputable and not-to-be-trusted source.

did they really need to cover for him

after all we have seen if he says savannah charleston and jacksonville

are on the golf coast

they are and the sheeple defend that to the death

--LOL

 

[asaratis]

The truth about Benghazi is the Republican Senate reduced the security budget for embassy's by $370M.

The truth about Benghazi is that the Obama administration abandoned an American diplomat and his staff when the were under attack by sworn enemies of the United States. In situations like that, the budget does not matter. Defending them could likely have cost less than any one of Obama's recent vacations.

Never fear though. With friends in the media (like CNN), such despicable, cowardly behavior can be hidden from the public...at least long enough to get re-elected, if not forever.

 

[OnePercenter]

The truth about Benghazi is the Republican Senate reduced the security budget for embassy's by $370M.

The truth about Benghazi is that the Obama administration abandoned an American diplomat and his staff when the were under attack by sworn enemies of the United States. In situations like that, the budget does not matter. Defending them could likely have cost less than any one of Obama's recent vacations.

Never fear though. With friends in the media (like CNN), such despicable, cowardly behavior can be hidden from the public...at least long enough to get re-elected, if not forever.

The point being, if the Senate hadn't reduced security funding there would have been a stronger military force protecting the embassy, not just the CIA.

 

[asaratis]

The truth about Benghazi is the Republican Senate reduced the security budget for embassy's by $370M.

The truth about Benghazi is that the Obama administration abandoned an American diplomat and his staff when the were under attack by sworn enemies of the United States. In situations like that, the budget does not matter. Defending them could likely have cost less than any one of Obama's recent vacations.

Never fear though. With friends in the media (like CNN), such despicable, cowardly behavior can be hidden from the public...at least long enough to get re-elected, if not forever.

The point being, if the Senate hadn't reduced security funding there would have been a stronger military force protecting the embassy, not just the CIA.

Possibly. It is also possible, even likely that Obama would still have displayed cowardice when the call for help came in. After all, he had a fund raiser to attend the next day.

 

[OnePercenter]

The truth about Benghazi is that the Obama administration abandoned an American diplomat and his staff when the were under attack by sworn enemies of the United States. In situations like that, the budget does not matter. Defending them could likely have cost less than any one of Obama's recent vacations.

Never fear though. With friends in the media (like CNN), such despicable, cowardly behavior can be hidden from the public...at least long enough to get re-elected, if not forever.

The point being, if the Senate hadn't reduced security funding there would have been a stronger military force protecting the embassy, not just the CIA.

Possibly. It is also possible, even likely that Obama would still have displayed cowardice when the call for help came in. After all, he had a fund raiser to attend the next day.

The answer is what kind of security did the embassy have BEFORE the Senate reduced funds.

 

[asaratis]

The point being, if the Senate hadn't reduced security funding there would have been a stronger military force protecting the embassy, not just the CIA.

Possibly. It is also possible, even likely that Obama would still have displayed cowardice when the call for help came in. After all, he had a fund raiser to attend the next day.

The answer is what kind of security did the embassy have BEFORE the Senate reduced funds.

Regardless of security before or during the attack, it was total cowardice to deny a forceful response in defense of our Ambassador and staff. An attack on an American embassy is equivalent to an attack on American soil.

Obama is Mr. Chicken.