ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Company co-founded by Nancy Pelosi's son charged with securities fraud
BanHam 01:57 PM 11-14-2019
Patrick Howley
@HowleyReporter

BOOM: Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE!

And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE



The Washington Times reported:

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged a company cofounded by Paul Pelosi Jr. with fraud on Wednesday after learning that two convicted criminals were running the business.

Paul Pelosi Jr., the son of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), was the president and chief operating officer of Natural Blue Resources Inc., an investment company he cofounded that focuses on “environmentally-friendly” ventures.

The SEC charged four individuals with fraud, including former New Mexico Gov. Toney Anaya, and suspended trading in the company’s stock. Pelosi owned over 10 million shares in the company in 2009.

The SEC said Wednesday the company was “secretly controlled” by James E. Cohen and Joseph Corazzi, both of whom had previous fraud convictions. Corazzi violated federal securities laws and was barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company. Cohen was previously incarcerated for financial fraud.



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...harged-secur/?

> "IMPEACH 45"
[Reply]
Amnorix 04:25 PM 11-14-2019
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
I wish I could give you one. There's not really a fact-checking site that plays it straight. I mean, even sites rating fact checking sites are ridiculous biased (see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/...hecking-sites/ for an example of this). So, if I were to give you any advice on this, I would just say something like this:

Don't trust any of these so-called "fact check" sites. Always look for opposing websites, and find a couple of fairly straight shooting reporters from multiple points on the political spectrum to serve as your fact checkers in the moment.

This is fair. Of course, both sides are tearing down everyone and everything that could possibly be used a resource. If I cite to the New York Times, CNN, Snopes, just about any other major newspaper source, I'm going to be accused of using a liberal rag. Anyone citing Fox News or a litany of other sites will get the same response from the other side.

Now that we've all learned to just undermine the source if you don't like the facts, it's an endless downward spiral. Nobody's sources are reliable except the ones YOU (the reader) like/approve.

It undermines everything.

So, again, we're fucked.
[Reply]
Amnorix 04:33 PM 11-14-2019
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Have you ever found them to disparage a Democrat or liberal? I did not, the sole reason I quit using them years ago. It seemed like a pattern to me.

Who them? Snopes? I honestly don't use them terribly much. I've been less engaged in political debate on here, which is usually when I'm doing those types of searches.

I did find this:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/07/12/trump-lies/

The Lies of Donald Trump’s Critics, and How They Shape His Many Personas

Originally Posted by :
Take, for example, the claim that Trump was the only world leader at a G7 summit in May not to take notes, based on a photograph posted to Twitter by French President Emannuel Macron. Here Trump was portrayed as unprepared and out of his depth on the world stage, with a “ten-second attention span”. However, the claim was entirely untrue, with other images and video of the meeting showing that Trump did indeed have notes and a pen. Not only that, but the very image used to make the false claim clearly shows two other world leaders sitting with no note-taking paraphernalia. In this case, even the cherry-picked evidence chosen to make the point undermines it.

[Reply]
Amnorix 04:36 PM 11-14-2019
I don't have time to research the shit out of this, but I very much suspect that when the right lost it's fucking mind over Obama being elected and started circulating ridiculous bullshit (remember -- he wasn't born in Hawaii...:-) :-) ) that Snopes stated was false, the witchhunt against Snopes itself was on.

Now maybe that witchhunt did turn up solid and reliable evidence of either conflicts of interest (liberal funding) or extreme bias.

Or maybe the effort to undermine Snopes itself was done through false allegations intended to create a cloud of suspicion undermining their credibility. It would likely take far more time and effort than I am able to invest to reach anything close to a reasonable determination.

Just Passing By isn't wrong when he says the best path is to find original sources where possible and read the conflicting accounts and reach your own determination. That shit takes time and effort however, which is not always readily available.
[Reply]
HemiEd 04:38 PM 11-14-2019
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
Who them? Snopes? I honestly don't use them terribly much. I've been less engaged in political debate on here, which is usually when I'm doing those types of searches.

I did find this:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/07/12/trump-lies/

The Lies of Donald Trump’s Critics, and How They Shape His Many Personas
Yes, Snopes. I used them exclusively years ago before retiring and most recently during the 2016 election.

However, it seemed like they totally leaned left to me. Blue was good and red was bad.

That is not how I lean, so I quit using them. Sound familiar?


***edit*** good article by the way, thanks
[Reply]
Amnorix 04:47 PM 11-14-2019
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Yes, Snopes. I used them exclusively years ago before retiring and most recently during the 2016 election.

However, it seemed like they totally leaned left to me. Blue was good and red was bad.

That is not how I lean, so I quit using them. Sound familiar?


***edit*** good article by the way, thanks

That's fair. I don't really use them enough to reach any kind of determination. At least you reached your determination independently and not on the basis of some third party what seem at this point to be nothing more than unsupported allegations.
[Reply]
banecat 04:50 PM 11-14-2019
The corruption in Eastern Europe must rival Latin America for so many dems to go there for "work"
[Reply]
LiveSteam 04:53 PM 11-14-2019
https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-r...va-convention/

https://www.scribd.com/document/4282...enko-Statement
[Reply]
LiveSteam 04:58 PM 11-14-2019
Solomon interviewed after yesterdays Schiff hearings .

https://youtu.be/pQPxCjQ9cWM
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 05:03 PM 11-14-2019
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
This is fair. Of course, both sides are tearing down everyone and everything that could possibly be used a resource. If I cite to the New York Times, CNN, Snopes, just about any other major newspaper source, I'm going to be accused of using a liberal rag. Anyone citing Fox News or a litany of other sites will get the same response from the other side.

Now that we've all learned to just undermine the source if you don't like the facts, it's an endless downward spiral. Nobody's sources are reliable except the ones YOU (the reader) like/approve.

It undermines everything.

So, again, we're ****ed.
What undermines everything is not the sites. What undermines everything is an electorate (all along the political spectrum) that has largely allowed itself to become both ignorant and stupid enough to believe the bullshit they're being fed.

And, with regards to sites like "New York Times, CNN, Snopes", the secret for a leftist is to try avoiding citing those left wing sites for anything but the straightest of straight news, unless they are willing to acknowledge that their site is often full of shit. I mean, you should know better than to cite Snopes, Politifact, Factcheck.org, NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, etc... without a jaundiced eye. And you should know that because, even if you like those sites for one reason or another, you should already know that they are ridiculously biased left, which means that uncritical citing of them will reflect badly on you and your arguments.
[Reply]
Amnorix 05:07 PM 11-14-2019
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
What undermines everything is not the sites. What undermines everything is an electorate that has allowed itself to become both ignorant and stupid enough to believe the bullshit they're being fed.

And, with regards to sites like "New York Times, CNN, Snopes", the secret for a leftist is to try avoiding citing those left wing sites for anything but the straightest of straight news, unless they are willing to acknowledge that their site is often full of shit. I mean, you should know better than to cite Snopes, Politifact, Factcheck.org, NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, etc... without a jaundiced eye. And you should know that because, even if you like those sites for one reason or another, you should already know that they are ridiculously biased left, which means that uncritical citing of them will reflect badly on you and your arguments.

What sites are reliable then? Fox News? Because it isn't.

Every writer is going to bring some degree of personal bias into a story. One needs to read from sufficient sources to try to sift out a reasonably unbiased understanding of the facts.

But people have little time/interest in doing that. It's far more rewarding to read those sources that are predisposed to see the "facts" the same way as you.

And Twitter and Facebook and Google are specifically feeding you those "facts", and helping to make a bad problem much worse. Nutjobs think that they're mainstream because they see how many different people/sources agree with them. This is true on both sides. And the middle is left wondering why the nuts are so deep in believing their own nutty bullshit.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 05:17 PM 11-14-2019
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
What sites are reliable then? Fox News? Because it isn't.
The Fox site is actually pretty good. At least it screws up in both directions, and it's easy to check, since it doesn't usually break new ground more than a few moments ahead of the pack. But, really, you shouldn't be trusting any large site, and not many, if any, small sites. You should find specific reporters who prove themselves to be trustworthy in terms of facts and presentation, even if they're biased. And, even with them, you should always look for areas where you can see too much bias/slant from them, so that you don't get suckered in. This approach is one I take, and it's why I try always to add the site to the title of a news thread when I start one.

When it comes to sites, you should be scanning sites all along the spectrum, until they demonstrate a complete lack of trustworthiness. That means that the left should be reading Fox and the right should be reading CNN.


Originally Posted by Amnorix:
Every writer is going to bring some degree of personal bias into a story. One needs to read from sufficient sources to try to sift out a reasonably unbiased understanding of the facts.

But people have little time/interest in doing that. It's far more rewarding to read those sources that are predisposed to see the "facts" the same way as you.

And Twitter and Facebook and Google are specifically feeding you those "facts", and helping to make a bad problem much worse. Nutjobs think that they're mainstream because they see how many different people/sources agree with them. This is true on both sides. And the middle is left wondering why the nuts are so deep in believing their own nutty bullshit.

Much of this is true. So, with that in mind, let me pose a serious question to you, as something for you to think about, rather than being something to respond to:

Why the hell do you fall for the bullshit with such frequency? I expect that from loneiguana, who comes off as having the I.Q. of a half eaten walnut. But you seem smart enough that you should know better.
[Reply]
LiveSteam 05:19 PM 11-14-2019
Solomon
Kim Strassel
Byron York
More out there. But you're not gonna find them at the places JPB sited. Its hard to find them.
That's my top 3. Listed in my order of Trust.
[Reply]
LiveSteam 05:23 PM 11-14-2019
And Hemie-E and JPB are right. Their is no real fact checking site out there. Zip.
Polling sites are just as bad.
[Reply]
Bump 05:26 PM 11-14-2019
Liberals: "It clearly says "fact-check" so that's obviously true, it says FACT in the title"


Also, isn't it hilarious that libshits can't tell the difference between satire/fiction and reality so they have to have snopes fact check the babylon bee for them? That's fucking funny right there.
[Reply]
HonestChieffan 05:34 PM 11-14-2019
How does a President and COO of a firm not know he has silent partners that are crooks? He had to know. Simple as that. The smarmy shit Bidens kid and Pelosis kid are mixed up with goes directly to Joe and Nancy and anyone who will try to spin it otherwise knows full well they need to be investigated as well as Nan and Joe
[Reply]
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
Up