in·teg·ri·ty
inˈteɡrədē/
noun
1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
"he is known to be a man of integrity"
synonyms: honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
"I never doubted his integrity"

Facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027826490

"Who cares about Lockerbie, at last the Libyans had nice roads and electricty!"

I'm torn between a and a here at the incredible naivete of Sanders fans regarding foreign policy.

Let me go give it a kick so its easier for you to find.

I prefer the use of self restraint over ILs, after all this is a discussion board.

For only a Sith deals in absolutes ☺

Nothing funny about the devastation though, really.

North Korea has straight roads too, though not so much electricity. I'm pretty sure they'd prefer chaos to their current way of life, at least in chaos there's a chance for things to eventually get better.

Someday, if you dare ........... add up all the human lives lost and countries destroyed by your foreign policy, then come back to me with your lies about any other.

Spare a moment to reflect on what Khadaffi's oil money was spent on;

But tell yourself whatever you need to to sleep better.

Which site is this again?

will come up with next.

to be proud of.

So absolutely disgusting.

all of it are just of no concern whatsoever. Sort of a 'why bother my beautiful mind' sort of thing. The alternative is too sad and ugly to consider. That they're actually 'for' these nightmarish, life-destroying campaigns brought about by lies and cultivating and using the worst of the worst to bring them about.

Secrecy, Surveillance and Censorship

War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda

by JOHN PILGER
CounterPunch, Dec. 5-7, 2014

Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?

Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what’s called the mainstream media is not information, but power?

These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war – with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.

The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an “invisible government”. It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.

SNIP...

The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News – but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn’t Fox News; it was the New York Times.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/05/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda/

one last time, she made the obviously correct choice.

I suppose you could tell us that Fox News really is fair and balanced, scrupulously adheres to rigorous standards, and would be scrupulously impartial and fair in its treatment of all three leading presidential candidates (Especially based on their previous track record), and that a lot of the younger, more callow, and credulous Bernie fan-boys and fan-girls will believe you, but I won't.

He assured everyone that Hillary did not INTENTIONALLY endanger national security.

And as is shown in the original post, Hillary has appeared on the Evil Network prior, and it is well documented the Clintons collects money from them and their owners.

when she's (obviously) had no problems with it before.

Anytime, anywhere!

Full video:



"In a Wednesday afternoon statement, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said the Vermont senator has accepted an invitation from Fox News to debate "with the understanding that we can reach mutual agreement on the debate moderators, the format and other details.”

Weaver said both campaigns in January agreed to hold a debate in May in California, adding that the Clinton campaign has “balked at keeping that pledge.”

“More than half way through the month of May, we hope Secretary Clinton will soon make good on her campaign’s commitment and agree to a time and pace for a debate,” Weaver said in the statement.

“There are issues of enormous importance facing the people of California and our nation and the people of our largest state deserve to hear the Democratic candidates [sic] opinions."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280405-sanders-pushes-clinton-for-debate-in-california

(bbm)

because she didn't expect Bernie would still be fighting her. He SAID he was in it until the convention, but she's apparently so used to lying for convenience, she was completely flummoxed by an honest man. Now she looks like a liar (again).

She has bad advisors.

to focus on the real threat to the US--the Donald. The fact that it is Fox is irrelevant.

candidate?

has always been important anyway--and I will say they tend to provide more policy details for people to read about (vs the cables who tend to cover the gossip).

each candidate's take on the ISSUES that affect all those millions who HAVEN'T VOTED YET.

Good grief.

People in the Jun 7th states have gotten more chances to hear from the candidates than anyone. Bernie's line of thinking is what's insulting; insinuating that they haven't paid any attention to the campaign, because they didn't happen to be in LA when they were talking.

I MEAN - the differences on each candidate's take on the ISSUES that affect all those millions who HAVEN'T VOTED YET.

Seems simple enough.

with each other their differences. She said she would. Now, she's breaking her word to them. I don't think that basically being told you don't count will go over well.

even though that's not exactly what a debate is.

their own specific issues discussed.

Full video:



"In a Wednesday afternoon statement, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said the Vermont senator has accepted an invitation from Fox News to debate "with the understanding that we can reach mutual agreement on the debate moderators, the format and other details.”

Weaver said both campaigns in January agreed to hold a debate in May in California, adding that the Clinton campaign has “balked at keeping that pledge.”

“More than half way through the month of May, we hope Secretary Clinton will soon make good on her campaign’s commitment and agree to a time and pace for a debate,” Weaver said in the statement.

“There are issues of enormous importance facing the people of California and our nation and the people of our largest state deserve to hear the Democratic candidates [sic] opinions."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280405-sanders-pushes-clinton-for-debate-in-california

(bbm)

why wouldn't Hillary want the spotlight?

A smart debater could use the opportunity
to get the message out to more viewers.

So why is Hillary hiding?
Why is she so afraid of debates?

Another debate can only help
contrast republicans vs democrats...
but Hillary is too afraid of turning off
even more voters, hence she hides
from public view.

but she'll put Putin in his place!