Strong Cities Network

[GMDino]

(10-05-2015, 11:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And CBS who confirmed everything he stated.

We've over this too much.  BOR at best "misremembered" what happened and at worst flat out lied to make himself look braver/better than he was/is.  Mother Jones wasn't the only citation for his bloviating.  He's just fortunate that he works at FOX where ratings are more important than truth.



CBS staffers dispute Bill O'Reilly's 'war zone' story


CBS News Puts Bill O’Reilly-Requested Falklands War Report On Its Website



Former CBS correspondent: Bill O'Reilly made up claims about Argentina 'war zone' reporting



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-oreilly-falklands-coverage-mother-jones#ixzz3Sa2KHlNq

Quote:Not long after wagging his finger at NBC anchor Brian Williams for embellishing stories about his war coverage, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly now faces questions about his own tales covering the Falklands War in the 1980s.

An article by Mother Jones published on Thursday raised the issue, contrasting several statements from O'Reilly over the years with the account of his time covering the war in his 2001 book.

Shortly after the article was published on Thursday night, O'Reilly called it "bullshit" and denied he'd embellished anything.
But the Mother Jones article, written by David Corn and Daniel Schulman, found discrepancies in things the Fox News host had said, including about his time working at CBS News earlier in his career.

In a 2013 episode of "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox, the host described being "in the Falklands."

"I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete," O'Reilly said, according to Mother Jones.

"And the army was chasing us," he said. "I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I'm looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important."

Mother Jones noted that O'Reilly's book, "The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America," contained "no references to O'Reilly experiencing or covering any combat during the Falklands war."

In fact, Mother Jones reported, no American reporters ever made it to the Falklands Islands, the only place where combat took place.

The piece also noted that O'Reilly wrote in his book about covering a protest for CBS News in Buenos Aires after the war was over. The book described a violent demonstration in which people were gunned down, according to the magazine. But that description, Mother Jones noted, conflicts with reports at the time, including from his own CBS bureau.

In his book, it was during the protest in Buenos Aires that O'Reilly described rescuing his cameraman amid the chaos, Mother Jones reported.

Both in his book and in a 2009 appearance on "Hamptons TV," O'Reilly stated that the Argentinian junta shot people dead on the scene, "just gunning these people down, shooting them down in the streets." (He also said on the TV appearance that he was covering the protest "pretty much by myself because the other CBS news correspondents were hiding in the hotel.")

Scanning reports from the time in the New York Times, the Miami Herald, and UPI, Mother Jones found no mentions of fatalities at the protests O'Reilly recounted.

Mother Jones mentioned several other instances during the past decade in which O'Reilly has recounted his time in "war zones" and having "been there" in combat situations.

The piece also raised questions over a report O'Reilly filed for CBS News from El Salvador, another "active war zone" he described having reported from.
"O'Reilly's CBS report gave no indication that he had experienced any combat on this assignment in El Salvador," the magazine reported.

Mother Jones reported that neither O'Reilly nor Fox News returned requests for comment, but O'Reilly did tell Mediaite on Thursday that the report was "total bullshit."
“Everything I reported is absolutely accurate” he said, and called Mother Jones' David Corn “a despicable human being.”

“If you were assigned to a war, you put on your resume you covered the Falklands, the Middle East, El Salvador, wherever it is where you were sent. That is what journalists do," the Fox host told Mediaite.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2015, 03:57 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: Anyone comparing Breitbart  as the rights version of Mother Jones is only kidding themselves. Mother Jones is nothing more than the Onion except that the only thing funny is that lefties believe that shit.

Feel free to expose all the lies and enlighten me.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/05/white-house-obama-preparing-executive-actions-gun-control/

http://www.breitbart.com/

There is no point in sitting here and going back and forth about these news sites. Those of you that have a loyalty to one or the other refuse to see the bias because their bias aligns with your own. You have shown yourself to be very biased, and extremely obstinate. In order for me to thoroughly show you why these sites are comparable I would have to spend way more time than I would like on either one, then typing up the post, all for you to ignore what was in front of your face.

I'll just skip all that and prepare myself for what would be your inevitable retort: "nuh uh!"

[GMDino]

(10-06-2015, 07:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is no point in sitting here and going back and forth about these news sites. Those of you that have a loyalty to one or the other refuse to see the bias because their bias aligns with your own. You have shown yourself to be very biased, and extremely obstinate. In order for me to thoroughly show you why these sites are comparable I would have to spend way more time than I would like on either one, then typing up the post, all for you to ignore what was in front of your face.

I'll just skip all that and prepare myself for what would be your inevitable retort: "nuh uh!"

[fredtoast]

Look at who wrote the article for Breitbart.

BTW I read stories from all sources, but I do so with aknowledge that both the left and the right have certian sources that always slant things in their favor.

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2015, 08:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We should be out of the UN altogether. We allowed too many countries to join. It shouldn't be that way.

It's now just an attempt at a world government. They have the blueprint of the EU and have already tried to take steps with climate change to allow the UN to enforce wealth redistribution.

You mean the U.S.? That is, after all, what the E.U. is, what the U.S. was dreamed to be by some of our founding fathers.

[Belsnickel]

So after digging around on the internet and looking at actual information on this program and not fear-mongering propaganda based on disdain for the UN, I can't see any reason to be concerned about it. It's a networking tool. It provides zero authority to the UN in this country. I don't get the hoopla.

I do find interesting that this is one of those topics bringing our right wing in this country together with the Muslim communities as they are both against this, albeit for different reasons.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-06-2015, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So after digging around on the internet and looking at actual information on this program and not fear-mongering propaganda based on disdain for the UN, I can't see any reason to be concerned about it. It's a networking tool. It provides zero authority to the UN in this country. I don't get the hoopla.

I do find interesting that this is one of those topics bringing our right wing in this country together with the Muslim communities as they are both against this, albeit for different reasons.

"Mainstream media" sources are all slanting progressive . That's why these stories aren't published in those places . They want a growth of UN involvement.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2015, 02:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: "Mainstream media" sources are all slanting progressive .  That's why these stories aren't published in those places .  They want a growth of UN involvement.

Except I'm not looking at media sources. I'm looking at primary source material on the program. See, that's what you do when you don't want a bias in what you are reading. It allows you to critically analyze the subject and come to your own conclusions.

[WhoDeyWho]

(10-06-2015, 11:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Look at who wrote the article for Breitbart.

BTW I read stories from all sources, but I do so with aknowledge that both the left and the right have certian sources that always slant things in their favor.

Everyone has a bias and informed consumers of news need to understand that and take it for what it's worth.  There are stories at Breitbart that I roll my eyes at and others that I consider to be credible reporting of facts.  

Most of it is just red meat for conservatives.  

[fredtoast]

(10-06-2015, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do find interesting that this is one of those topics bringing our right wing in this country together with the Muslim communities as they are both against this, albeit for different reasons.

This was the first thing I noticed about the links in the OP.

One said it was clearly Pro-Muslim, and another said it was clearly Anti-Muslim.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-04-2015, 05:27 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I haven't had time to read through the whole thing, yet (currently working it into the day).
However, there seems to be some concerns over the possible UN involvement and what it means to US Sovereignty ?
Since the game is over, I'd thought I'd drop the links and let things roll.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/launch-strong-cities-network-strengthen-community-resilience-against-violent-extremism

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/29/countering-violent-extremism1.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/obama-administration-and-un-announce-global-police-force-to-fight-extremism-in-u-s/

Someone mentioned The Onion and that is what Pamela Geller's article reads like, except she is dead serious which makes it even funnier.  For whatever reason, some people have a fear of the UN which borders on the pathological.  The UN is all bark an no bite.  They talk.  They pass resolutions.  But, they can't even enforce their own resolutions unless countries volunteer forces.  Hell, Saddam thumb his nose at UN resolutions for over a decade before the US removed his government from power despite objections from numerous UN members.  People who are afraid of the UN have a tenuous grip on reality and probable still sleep with a night light on because they're also afraid of the Boogeyman.

Are you familiar with the Director of National Intelligence?  Before 911, no one US intelligence agency coordinated foreign, domestic, and military intel and it turned out these agencies didn't share intel very well.  To me, this Strong Cities United seems similar.  One unifying organization which collects, collates, and disseminates best policies and procedures for cities to defend against terrorism.  I see that as a good thing and Pamela Gellar as a lunatic fear mongerer trying to sell her next book.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-06-2015, 05:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: For whatever reason, some people have a fear of the UN which borders on the pathological. 

They are amongst us.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-06-2015, 06:02 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: They are amongst us.

I know.  The UN's mission is to promote world peace and security.  If the UN was a person it might be John Lennon Jesus Christ.  They're afraid John Lennon Jesus Christ will forcibly take over the US.  It's preposterous.


Edited to replace one liberal pacifist with a more famous liberal pacifist.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2015, 09:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I know.  The UN's mission is to promote world peace and security.  If the UN was a person it might be John Lennon.  They're afraid John Lennon will forcibly take over the US.  It's preposterous.

I really think sometimes that one reason some people dislike the UN here is that the organization does a decent job of reminding us what hypocritical assholes we really are as a country. They are the source of so many studies that show how messed up the world is and how little we tend to do about it unless it benefits us. It is a constant reminder of our reneging on agreements.

Or they could just be paranoid. No idea.

[Rotobeast]

(10-06-2015, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This was the first thing I noticed about the links in the OP.

One said it was clearly Pro-Muslim, and another said it was clearly Anti-Muslim.

Thank you for noticing.
I was trying to be somewhat fair, given the tone of the Breitbart article.

(10-06-2015, 05:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Someone mentioned The Onion and that is what Pamela Geller's article reads like, except she is dead serious which makes it even funnier.  For whatever reason, some people have a fear of the UN which borders on the pathological.  The UN is all bark an no bite.  They talk.  They pass resolutions.  But, they can't even enforce their own resolutions unless countries volunteer forces.  Hell, Saddam thumb his nose at UN resolutions for over a decade before the US removed his government from power despite objections from numerous UN members.  People who are afraid of the UN have a tenuous grip on reality and probable still sleep with a night light on because they're also afraid of the Boogeyman.

Are you familiar with the Director of National Intelligence?  Before 911, no one US intelligence agency coordinated foreign, domestic, and military intel and it turned out these agencies didn't share intel very well.  To me, this Strong Cities United seems similar.  One unifying organization which collects, collates, and disseminates best policies and procedures for cities to defend against terrorism.  I see that as a good thing and Pamela Gellar as a lunatic fear mongerer trying to sell her next book.

Yeah, I knew the alphabet agencies had a stiffie for one another and they needed someone to make them play nice.
I suppose that doing the same for large cities makes quite a bit of sense.
I mean, let's be serious...... there are going to be egos out there that refuse to share information and egos that refuse to utilize someone else's.
But, I guess the question is..... Is this our version of Interpol and will we have the questionable (supposedly politically driven) situations that they've been accused of ?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-07-2015, 12:37 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Thank you for noticing.
I was trying to be somewhat fair, given the tone of the Breitbart article.


Yeah, I knew the alphabet agencies had a stiffie for one another and they needed someone to make them play nice.
I suppose that doing the same for large cities makes quite a bit of sense.
I mean, let's be serious...... there are going to be egos out there that refuse to share information and egos that refuse to utilize someone else's.
But, I guess the question is..... Is this our version of Interpol and will we have the questionable (supposedly politically driven) situations that they've been accused of ?

Seems like it could be similar to Interpol.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2015, 01:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Seems like it could be similar to Interpol.

Not really, though. All this will be is a network. It will have no authority, no law enforcement capabilities. It seems to simply be a network of cities looking for new ideas on combating violent extremism.