Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumSpokesperson ;''the US has a "Long-standing policy" against backing coups.
All the journalist crack up on that
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)from an alternative universe.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)And she said that with a straight face?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)deafskeptic
(463 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)she knew the real history
11 Signs Someone Is Lying To You
http://uk.businessinsider.com/11-signs-someone-is-lying-2014-4?op=1?r=US
Baitball Blogger
(46,744 posts)What does an innocent person look like when they are answering questionings under a difficult situation.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)There are good liars and bad liars. Nervous liars and calm liars. Liars who make eye-contact; and liars who are unable to do so.
In other words, what we have here is a subset of the general population of EVERYONE answering difficult and/or uncomfortable questions.
Baitball Blogger
(46,744 posts)In Latin American cultures, it was a sign of respect when a person did not look directly in the eye of an individual with authority, like an employer, teacher or police.
This led to many wrong conclusions when they immigrated into the U.S.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and you know it
Baitball Blogger
(46,744 posts)Of course she lied. She has a history of facts that proved she lied. A blind person could have figured it out.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)you begin to see and notice a lot more little non verbal communication data that the subject does subconsciously revealing honest nervousness vs dishonest nervousness........ which that I've had some professional and academic training in, that article was just an novice introduction to that subject which I just threw in as a starter.
I think she will do great as the new white house spokes person which she starts in april............lol
Baitball Blogger
(46,744 posts)If you read the works of Mark Twain, what you find is a man who outs liars with a remarkable ease and confidence. For some reason, we began to refuse to believe that people could be so heinously dishonest. And even when we became convinced of their dishonesty, we still couldn't find the courage to say it out loud.
And now we're in the Mark Twain stage with a Jon Stewart twist: Fuck the liars and their fucking lies!
deafskeptic
(463 posts)I'd like to ask you to do me a favor. When you click on the video, turn off the sound and turn on the captions and see how much of the video you understand.
I didn't bother. PBS and public TV generally have the best captions. Youtube on the other hand...
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)in order to comprehend the your reality around you on how to read someone and the truth
Your other senses must be heighten to that.
We don't have captions when we talk to each other in the real world except on TV after the fact.
thank you so much for your response, I found it intellectually stimulating on what my point was
deafskeptic
(463 posts)Since the captions likely don't match the spoken words, I would be able to spot the body language but the context will be missing for me. Also, many deaf can not lipread on tv - including myself - because everything is so flat.
Youtube is infamous for awful captions and the video that I just watched is actually one of the better captioning examples, I usually don't bother watching youtube vid unless the video is from PBS or other tv/cable stations known for excellent captions.
Not many know this, but even the very best lipreader can only lipread 30% to 40% of a spoken conservation and lipreading all day is exhausting.
Where did the bit about captions in rl come from? As far as I'm concerned, captions are for TV/movies/cable only.
Since I can not communicate like the hearing, I have to find alternatives when dealing with the hearing. Some hearing are good about it but others well.. the less I say about this - the better!
I think in the future, I will not comment on videos unless I watch them first.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)It would be funny except for the fact that the Venezualan people are suffering so much right now.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Ubetcha!
HatTrick
(129 posts)She was reading from a script, but omg.
She just stands there and tells a bold face lie. I think she has a future with Faux News.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)... as Communications Director.
Fittingly, her return is slated for April 1.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Following long-standing policies is only for suckers apparently.
Venezuela clearly has nothing to worry about.
We haven't supported a coup there since, um, like, Jen Psaki, was only 24.
That's pretty darn long-standing.
Of course, we supported a coup in Honduras in 2009, but true Americans can't even find Honduras on a map.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)This is an excellent book for those who are in the dark about the country's sad history of engineering undemocratic "regime changes."
As is the author's earlier book, which focuses entirely on Iran
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Thanks for posting
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I haven't yet read "The Brothers," but I know people who have. It comes at our checkered past from a slightly different angle.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,304 posts)We lead them.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Mossadegh, like many fledgling leaders, believed in many American ideals more passionately than Americans did. He knew the CIA was supporting his opposition but was hesitant to crack down because he honored their right to free speech. That proved to be a fatal mistake.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The US does not back coups. Simple direct statement.
Forget about
Ukraine,
Venezuela,
Haiti,
Cuba,
Iran,
South Vietnam,
Greece,
Chile,
and many others. And sadly, most voters are unaware of the US long history of backing and instigating violent regime change. History for most voters is what they know.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)What was the last coup that the USA backed? It's been a while (and please don't start with the Nuland Cookies Ukraine lies or unproven CT about Venezuela in 2002). I don't think we're including publicly announced actions here (like the war in Iraq, which I organized protest rallies against BTW) or our public policy on Syria now. So the "long standing" in this statement could be accurate.
About the support for coups in the distant past, which were disgraceful (Chile etc.)--it doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a policy against backing coups, it could just mean there was an exception to policy in those cases. And if not, again, we're going well back into the last century.
For the record, I despise much of US foreign policy history in the past, especially in Central/South America in the 70s and 80s and as mentioned the entire Bush admin debacle (though I support the assistance to Poland's Solidarity movement of Lech Walesa). But we have to acknowledge that since the collapse of the USSR, the US has been a bit more above-ground in its foreign policy (for better or for worse).
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-honduras-state_b_789282.html
And yes Mr. so called devil's advocate calling things CT to get a negative reaction doesn't mean it wasn't CT
uhnope
(6,419 posts)It does not say the US planned, sponsored or backed the coup. It just says that US did not cancel all aid to Honduras after the coup. It even says the US opposed the coup and implemented sanctions against the coup regime.
Nope. I'd say my premise still stands.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)The US and the Honduran coup
Washingtons criticisms of the June 28 military coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras lack any element of sincerity or historical truth. The Obama administration is uneasy at the ouster of Zelaya, a conservative-turned-populist allied to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, because it reveals all too clearly the character of US foreign policy.
President Barack Obamas condemnation of Zelayas overthrow as a terrible precedent is belied by Secretary of State Hillary Clintons refusal to characterize it as a coup. Under US laws, such a designation would force the government to cut off tens of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras and its armed forces. Clinton also declined to call for Zelayas reinstatement, saying, We havent laid out any demands that were insisting on, because were working with others on behalf of our ultimate objectives.
Zelaya was overthrown because his populism was seen as a threat both to conservative sections of the bourgeoisie in Honduras and to US strategic interests in Latin America and the Caribbean.
In October 2008, Zelaya joined the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA in Spanish), a regional alliance organized by Chávez that includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda. Member states receive subsidies coming largely from Venezuelan oil earnings. One provision, which Zelaya chose not to ratify, calls for common defense in case one of the member states is attacked by the US.
Zelayas efforts to hold a constitutional referendum that would allow him to run for a second term provoked an escalating conflict with the Honduran military, the Congress and the courts, which culminated in his ouster.
US diplomats worked closely with the Honduran opposition to Zelaya. A US official speaking anonymously confirmed to the New York Times that US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas A. Shannon, Jr. and US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens spoke to military officials and opposition leaders in the days before the coup. He explained: There was talk of how they might remove the president from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they could do that.
The identities of the Obama administrations point men on Honduras demolish claims that it is formulating a new US foreign policy. Shannon was special advisor to President Bush in 2003-2005, when he was also senior director for western hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council. From 2001 to 2002 he served at the State Department as director of Andean affairscovering Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.
Llorens was the National Security Councils director of Andean affairs in 2002-2003, holding the post when the Bush administration backed a military coup in Venezuela that nearly toppled Chávez.
The official speaking to the Times complained, however, that the administration did not expect that the Honduran army would go so far as to carry out an overt military coup. The Obama administration was evidently seeking to engineer a de facto coup, but with a gloss of constitutional legality. Thus Washingtons main complaint about the Honduran coup is not that the army intervened in politics. Rather, it is that the Honduran armys open intervention has exploded the democratic veneer that the bourgeois media tries to give to US foreign policy.
The Washington Post editorialized on Tuesday: The militarys intervention may have the unintended effect of saving Mr. Zelaya. The Congress voted him out of office on Sunday by a large margin; had the generals merely allowed events to proceed according to the rule of law, the president could have been legitimately deposed or isolated. It called on Obama to speak out more clearly about the abuses that prompted [Zelayas] removal.
Revelations of US complicity with Honduran coup leaders comes at an inopportune time for Washington. It is waging a campaign to weaken or topple Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrapping itself in invocations of democracy and alleging that Ahmadinejad stole the June 12 election in Iran.
The administration is relying on the US media to limit the political damage resulting from its role in the Honduran coup and the exposure of its hypocrisy in relation to the Iranian elections. In contrast to the medias coverage of Iran, there have been few breathless reports, amateur videos or Twitter feeds coming from Tegucigalpa.
The US role in Honduras must be appraised in the historical context of Washingtons violent and oppressive relations with Central America and its longstanding ties to the most reactionary forces in the region. As political and economic tensions mount, the big landowning and corporate interests and the US-trained officer corps in Americas traditional back yard fear the effects of populist appeals against US imperialism by left-nationalist figures like Chávez and Zelaya.
During the debate over Honduras joining ALBA, anti-Zelaya Honduran deputy Marta Lorena Alvarado attacked Chávez and warned, We are allowing a man with a strange ideology to make his way into our population and into our manner of seeing Honduras history.
Considering just the post-World War II period, the US and Honduran ruling elites have collaborated in huge crimes against the Central American masses. In the US-engineered 1954 coup against Guatemalas elected president, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, Honduras served as a base and training camp for a CIA rebel force on Guatemalas southern border. The US intervention in Guatemala would ultimately provoke a series of civil wars prosecuted by US-backed anti-communist death squads, lasting over 30 years and claiming 200,000 lives, according to US figures.
In 1963, Honduran President Ramón Villeda was overthrown by military officers led by General Oswaldo López Arellano. US President John F. Kennedy then decided to end US adherence to the Betancourt doctrine, which held that the US should not recognize extra-constitutional governments. López Arellano called elections in 1971 but lost. He regained power through another coup in 1972.
The US responded to the 1979 overthrow of the Somoza family in neighboring Nicaragua by setting up the anti-communist Contra insurgency, which it funded in violation of US laws banning aid to the Contras. Based in Honduras, the Contras fought a war against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas that lasted until 1987, costing 60,000 casualties and displacing 250,000 people
.
Seen in the context of Honduras historical role as a center of US-backed counterrevolution, the ouster of Zelaya constitutes a sharp warning to the working class in the Americas. Prompted by concern over the political ramifications of Zelayas links to Venezuela, a US-backed coup in Honduras could well be the signal for a broader regional campaign by US imperialism against Venezuela and allied regimes throughout the continent.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/07/pers-j01.html
uhnope
(6,419 posts)From your own link:
Hmm sounds like an internal problem, caused by Zalaya himself.
The nitty gritty:
Sorry, no, this is not even sponsoring or supporting the coup.
The article is conjecture and vague claims that, because of something in the past, something must be true in the present--but without much proof. Extreme assertions require extreme proof.
Nope.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)there aren't too many other excuses.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Don't you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the language of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.
~George Orwell, 1984
- We aren't supposed to notice when it's happening though. We're supposed to pretend like it's not.....
K&R