When I see something on the net that I find questionable, I can search for alternating positions from a dozen different sources in minutes. Weighting them from past experience and judging the apparent veracity by self contradiction gives me a pretty good idea of what is happening.
Your logical fallacy indicate to me that your opinion is based purely on bias, not experience or capability.
So where do you come up with your "facts" and opinions? If you don't believe anything that you find on the net, what do you do? Make them up? On that I would have to congratulate you. It is pretty hard to consistently find an opinion or claimed fact that doesn't appear on the net. You must have a wild imagination.
Then you need to learn how to use the net. Far and away above all other sources of the news you have the ability to check and countercheck all statements. That is of course not a guarantee that truth will be exposed at all , but it is far superior to reading one paper, or worse watching one one TV channel.
With responses like @9:19 it makes me wonder how many ringers are on Techdirt.
Catching syphilis or gonorrhea was a court martial offense in the US military until someone realized that hiding the occurrences of these diseases was far worse than exposing them. Not just for the infected individual, but also for spreading those infections.
The more truth that is known, the safer that we all are. The NYTimes was aware of the extent of torture in Gitmo a year before the 2004 election, but decided that it couldn't release that information because it would "interfere" with the election. From a legal, moral and pragmatic stance, it have an obligation to make sure that horror was cleansed with sunlight before Bush got another four years to innure the public to what was happening.
Why do you think it was never noticed? It just became convenient for someone to actually do something about it.
Richard Hansen, the FBI spy, had so many red flags that it was impossible not to know he was leading a double life. Suddenly it became useful for someone to actually act on that knowledge. Either that, or the entire upper third of the FBI should be dismissed for incompetence. Or perhaps both.
Placing the "decision" making process in another's hands is a decision. Undoubtedly politically based with the "decision" agreed to beforehand. And let me point out that the FBI is a part of the DOJ. Just handing off the official process to a subordinate.
The DOJ is corrupt, vile, and supports the breaking of law when it suits it. Up to and including murder. Their main rule is "don't get caught."
Just for one item, try looking at costs for other VOIP companies, and the services they provide. ISPs typically charge $30-40 per month for minimal service in the US with three abilities such as voice mail. Private VOIP companies typically charge between $5-25, and offer a wide variety of additional services free, and wider geographical calling areas without charge.
Depending on who you read, US internet service falls between 15th to 39th for speed and cost. Many nations are 10x faster, and still cost less.
First of all, it is the DOJ, not Comey which is responsible for making the decision to charge. Obama left the DOJ attorneys intact from the those left over from the Bush43 selections. This was quite unusual, because every preceding president had replaced DOJ attorneys with his own staffers. Almost all were Republican. The DOJ itself is quite heavily weighted towards Republicans.
I can only assume that she remains completely immune to criminal and civil liability for false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, etc. Even after she has admitted she had no right to commit these actions.
Where is the judge who signed the warrants? Is it not that person's responsibility to protect us from law enforcement when it behaves in such a manner?
What makes you think that prevarication is limited to the benefit of the agencies of the official despots? Many news organs have opinions and reputed facts that go off their editorial pages into direct and indirect attacks on governmental policies and those who dream them up.
I do agree that Obama's call for "truth" in public communication is an obvious attempt to censor the news. Obama's "truth" is certainly not my TRUTH. My TRUTH is rarely congruent with that of any politician.
The (D v R) bigotry in this column of comments is incredible. Individual life views are so stratified, that no matter what is presented, it is accepted or rejected based on existing petrified conceptions.