War on the 1st Amendment

[Ocala Mike]

http://uproxx.com/news/cnn-nyt-block-white-house-briefing/

This has the fingerprints of the "Secretary of Deconstruction" all over it.

Open warfare now.

[PaceAdvantage]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[woodtoo]

No more very fake news outlets smells better already.:popcorn:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

You don't find that action just a little bit messed up?

[davew]

This action is like, UNPRECEDENTED !!!!!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/

[PaceAdvantage]

You don't find that action just a little bit messed up?DT is a completely new paradigm, if you haven't figured that out by now. He's a bull in a china shop.

Unless he starts surrounding the NYT building with National Guardsmen, or sends a few drone strikes down towards Atlanta/CNN way, it doesn't bother me much, no.

Why does it bother you? In this day and age especially...does anyone really believe if you're not physically in that room you're going to miss out on something?

It's nothing but a show...a tradition...it's not in the Constitution that the President must hold daily press briefings and ALL media everywhere must be represented....so....this is nothing but a spectacle and in the end, just fodder for Internet chatter.

[boxcar]

http://uproxx.com/news/cnn-nyt-block-white-house-briefing/

This has the fingerprints of the "Secretary of Deconstruction" all over it.

Open warfare now.

There is no law that says Trump can't ban any news organization from press briefings. In fact, going from memory, Obama was no stranger to banning agencies he didn't like. Here's on such story below:

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/06/18/obama-was-banning-unfriendly-media-long-before-trump/

At least to Trump's credit, he was HONEST about why he bans these clowns -- unlike Obama who lied!

There are other incidents, too, when Obama banned people. But I'm sure you know how to use Google or your search engine of choice.

And by the way, Trump isn't anti-first amendment -- he's not anti-news -- he's anti FAKE news. Can't say I blame him, most especially after CNN's stunt yesterday!

[boxcar]

This action is like, UNPRECEDENTED !!!!!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/

I see all the Dem lap dogs made that big, off-the-record dinner. And that Fox News omission was an oversight by a very low level HRC campaign aide. Completely honest mistake.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

DT is a completely new paradigm, if you haven't figured that out by now. He's a bull in a china shop.

Unless he starts surrounding the NYT building with National Guardsmen, or sends a few drone strikes down towards Atlanta/CNN way, it doesn't bother me much, no.

Why does it bother you? In this day and age especially...does anyone really believe if you're not physically in that room you're going to miss out on something?

It's nothing but a show...a tradition...it's not in the Constitution that the President must hold daily press briefings and ALL media everywhere must be represented....so....this is nothing but a spectacle and in the end, just fodder for Internet chatter.
I suppose I think it was strategically a poor move. I think if you are in his position there are some groups worse to have as enemies. Sure, the NYT or the BBC will find a way to get the news, but it has to be a distraction to spend as much time as he might spend fending off attacks that are a result of a pissing contest. Perhaps he feels like they were going to always going to be a pain in his side and he's not losing anything by antagonizing them.

Yeah, he's a different type of cat and maybe we just find his approach too much of a shock to see it as the best way to go. But the news agencies have a lot of resources and a lot of ways they can go after people, and like I said you don't need them on the enemies list.

[woodtoo]

But the news agencies have a lot of resources and a lot of ways they can go after people, and like I said you don't need them on the enemies list.[/QUOTE]

This explains a lot...maybe too much.

[boxcar]

Yeah, he's a different type of cat and maybe we just find his approach too much of a shock to see it as the best way to go. But the news agencies have a lot of resources and a lot of ways they can go after people, and like I said you don't need them on the enemies list. (emphasis mine)

It's been an awfully long time since I've read anything chock-full, so over-brimming, overflowing with pure, unadulterated naivete! When was the last time the mainstream media wasn't understood by all thinking people to be the sworn enemies first of conservatives then Republicans? (In this order because the lying, slithering snakes in the grass will cozy up once in a while to a RINO.)

The only difference between Trump and other Republican presidents is that Trump doesn't play the word games. He calls a spade a spade because he knows what the score is, just as the mainstream does. So...just how in the world could Trump make enemies of the openly hostile mainstream media who has hated him from day one of his presidential campaign, as our resident wanna be smartest-guy-in the room wants us to think? :bang::bang:

[boxcar]

Banned HuffPo Contributor: Trump "Must Go Through Hell Every Day If This Is How The Press Is Behaving"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-23/banned-huffpo-contributor-trump-must-go-through-hell-every-day-if-how-press-behaving

It's the liberal, mainstream media who are the real enemies of the First Amendment! They lie constantly by commission and omission!

[Greyfox]

http://uproxx.com/news/cnn-nyt-block-white-house-briefing/

This has the fingerprints of the "Secretary of Deconstruction" all over it.

Open warfare now.

Obama excluded conservative media on several occasions.
Why the big deal now?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/24/fake-news-media-outrage-white-house-exclusion/

"Obama’s private briefings for liberal members of the media, which excluded conservatives, were well-documented. A few:

December 2012: Several journalists reported that MSNBC hosts were meeting privately with President Obama to discuss the impending “fiscal cliff” fight.
May 2013: NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported that President Obama was meeting privately with “lefty columnists,” but hastened to add that there was “nothing nefarious” about it.
November 2013: President Obama met again with liberal journalists, as Obamacare struggled with the failure of healthcare.gov and other problems.
March 2015: Politico’s media reporter, Hadas Gold, reported that “a group of journalists and columnists,” all on the left, met privately with President Obama, but the White House refused to say “who else was at the meeting or what was discussed.”

[Fager Fan]

I suppose I think it was strategically a poor move. I think if you are in his position there are some groups worse to have as enemies. Sure, the NYT or the BBC will find a way to get the news, but it has to be a distraction to spend as much time as he might spend fending off attacks that are a result of a pissing contest. Perhaps he feels like they were going to always going to be a pain in his side and he's not losing anything by antagonizing them.

Yeah, he's a different type of cat and maybe we just find his approach too much of a shock to see it as the best way to go. But the news agencies have a lot of resources and a lot of ways they can go after people, and like I said you don't need them on the enemies list.

What good was accomplished when conservatives played nice with the liberal media?

So far, Trump has proven far smarter than his critics. Maybe he's being smarter here too, and we'll finally get the press to do some soul searching about their very important role in our government. It's not to shape government. It's to be the people's watch dog.

[chadk66]

holy crap I'm loving the liberals loosing their minds over this kind of stuff. just makes my day when I read this stuff:pound:

[AndyC]

How is this a first amendment issue?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can't Trump talk to or with whomever he wants? He certainly isn't prohibiting any news organization from printing or saying anything.

[thaskalos]

How is this a first amendment issue?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can't Trump talk to or with whomever he wants? He certainly isn't prohibiting any news organization from printing or saying anything.

The press can say or print what they like...but there is no White House access unless they print or say nice stuff about the president. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

The press can say or print what they like...but there is no White House access unless they print or say nice stuff about the president. :ThmbUp:

Would you settle for "unless they print or say the truth about the president"?

[TJDave]

The press can say or print what they like...but there is no White House access unless they print or say nice stuff about the president. :ThmbUp:

Why bother?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What good was accomplished when conservatives played nice with the liberal media?

So far, Trump has proven far smarter than his critics. Maybe he's being smarter here too, and we'll finally get the press to do some soul searching about their very important role in our government. It's not to shape government. It's to be the people's watch dog.

And the role of the president is to be the leader of the people, not spending a lot of time jousting with everyone who looks at him sideways.

[JustRalph]

Tough shit

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Tough shit

It's good to know you expect so little from your president, unless of course the president is a Democrat.

[ReplayRandall]

It's good to know you expect so little from your president, unless of course the president is a Democrat.

No, that would be "soft shit"....:pound:

[NJ Stinks]

Tough shit

Remember how pissed you guys were at Obama for erasing his line in the sand in Syria?

Righties are proving daily that you will erase that proverbial line in the sand when it comes to un-American actions by the TV personality in the White House. :rolleyes:

[ReplayRandall]

Remember how pissed you guys were at Obama for erasing his line in the sand in Syria?

Righties are proving daily that you will erase that proverbial line in the sand when it comes to un-American actions by the TV personality in the White House. :rolleyes:

At least the sand there isn't "glowing" right now....:rip:

[reckless]

Remember how pissed you guys were at Obama for erasing his line in the sand in Syria?

Righties are proving daily that you will erase that proverbial line in the sand when it comes to un-American actions by the TV personality in the White House. :rolleyes:

That un-American presidential personality you mention must certainly be Barry Obama, who regularly committed a war on the First Amendment and other real and serious misdeeds. But, yet, the liberal press just fawned all over this clown for 8 years, never questioning his policies, motives and especially his circumvention of the US Constitution.

Where was all this outrage from the liberal media when one of their own Sharyl Atkinson's phone and computer was hacked by the White House? Were you guys calling for Obama's head? No where. None where heard or seen, the media and you guys, of course.

And where was the outrage from the liberal press corps when the Barry Obama Justice Department hacked the computer of one Fox News reporter named James Rosen? Were all you sanctimonious left wingers on here and in the mainstream media denouncing such a war on the 'free' press? No, not then either.

Clowns, clowns and more clowns each of them in the liberal media. And now they are hurt and outraged because President Donald J. Trump calls them out for what they really are. :lol:

[Fager Fan]

And the role of the president is to be the leader of the people, not spending a lot of time jousting with everyone who looks at him sideways.

If he hadn't been the type willing to joust, he'd have never won the office.

There's no indication that it's stopping him from doing his job. What he's done in the past 30 days is unlike anything I've ever seen and it makes me happy as hell. He's not a politician who'll say whatever he has to to get elected, then get in office and start doing nothing (except play golf).

So far I'm thrilled and it's looking as though I was right, that Trump may straighten us out and be one of the best Presidents ever.

[newtothegame]

It's good to know you expect so little from your president, unless of course the president is a Democrat.
Wasn't it Obama who told certain groups that they could go "to the back of the bus" ???
Guess your standards only apply to non liberals....:pound:

[tucker6]

Wasn't it Obama who told certain groups that they could go "to the back of the bus" ???
Guess your standards only apply to non liberals....:pound:

Not sure about that, but I am sure he told our closest ally that if they voted for Brexit that he would put them in the back of the bus for trade partnerships. What a useless turd 0bama was.

[elysiantraveller]

Wasn't it Obama who told certain groups that they could go "to the back of the bus" ???
Guess your standards only apply to non liberals....:pound:

Mine apply to both. I thought it was BS when Obama did and find it equally BS that Trump is doing it.

Several Trump supporters on here were furious when Obama did it... just saying. :cool:

[davew]

How is this a first amendment issue?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can't Trump talk to or with whomever he wants? He certainly isn't prohibiting any news organization from printing or saying anything.


It is not restricting the freedom of the press. Not until the authors of some articles start getting jailed or killed.

[Tom]

The press can say or print what they like...but there is no White House access unless they print or say nice stuff about the president. :ThmbUp:

CNN has proven it is not an unbiased news source.
they do not deserve to be treated like one.
I said long ago to deny them press credential and I agree 100% with Trump to keep them out.

Always fun to watch the lying, drunkard, racist Lemon melt down at night.:popcorn:

CNN - you DESERVE this.

[Tom]

It's good to know you expect so little from your president, unless of course the president is a Democrat.

Try to at least appear to be honest.
You guys never had problem with the POS OBama constantly attacking FOX and Ruhs and conservative talk radio.

Stop crying like a little girl and put on your big boy pants.
Do you have a pair?
(BB pants, that is.)

And as far as Trump goes, he is working on FAR more stuff that will benefit the people tha Obama ever did in 8 years. Unlike the libs who cry, he can multi-task. Tweeting doesn not use upp all of his brain as it does with most libs.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Try to at least appear to be honest.
You guys never had problem with the POS OBama constantly attacking FOX and Ruhs and conservative talk radio.

Stop crying like a little girl and put on your big boy pants.
Do you have a pair?
(BB pants, that is.)

And as far as Trump goes, he is working on FAR more stuff that will benefit the people tha Obama ever did in 8 years. Unlike the libs who cry, he can multi-task. Tweeting doesn not use upp all of his brain as it does with most libs.

Did you even take a moment to put my comment in context? It had to do with suggesting the liar in chief has more important things to do than spend valuable time engaging in a pissing match with the press. Trump has spent more time disparaging the press in a month than Obama spent in eight years. If you were paying closer attention, I never suggested Trump (or Obama) shouldn't criticize the press, just that six times a day means he's not working on important issues. He is not only wasting time, he's trying to distract you from noticing his constant missteps. Nobody is crying about anything. The problem with Trump and his Trumpistas is that you are so insecure the slightest bit of criticism has you jumping up and down like Rumplestiltskin. Typical "can give it but can't take it". Talk about needing big boy pants.

[boxcar]

Remember how pissed you guys were at Obama for erasing his line in the sand in Syria?

Righties are proving daily that you will erase that proverbial line in the sand when it comes to un-American actions by the TV personality in the White House. :rolleyes:

What's un-American about Trump for telling it like it is? He can't practice his First Amendment Rights because he's a Republican president?

[LottaKash]

The problem with Trump and his Trumpistas is that you are so insecure the slightest bit of criticism has you jumping up and down like Rumplestiltskin. Typical "can give it but can't take it". Talk about needing big boy pants.

Me personally, I don't think that it is the criticism, as I believe that the trump administration knows full well that criticism will ensue at every turn of their cards....

The problem that they are having is about "THE TRUTH" in reporting...

HOH, I am disappointed that you don't see or perceive this...

[boxcar]

Did you even take a moment to put my comment in context? It had to do with suggesting the liar in chief has more important things to do than spend valuable time engaging in a pissing match with the press. Trump has spent more time disparaging the press in a month than Obama spent in eight years. If you were paying closer attention, I never suggested Trump (or Obama) shouldn't criticize the press, just that six times a day means he's not working on important issues. He is not only wasting time, he's trying to distract you from noticing his constant missteps. Nobody is crying about anything. The problem with Trump and his Trumpistas is that you are so insecure the slightest bit of criticism has you jumping up and down like Rumplestiltskin. Typical "can give it but can't take it". Talk about needing big boy pants.

Trump has far more of the press to disparage than Obama did. Therefore, Trump has far more people to call out for their fake news. Do the math.

[mostpost]

There is no law that says Trump can't ban any news organization from press briefings. In fact, going from memory, Obama was no stranger to banning agencies he didn't like. Here's on such story below:

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/06/18/obama-was-banning-unfriendly-media-long-before-trump/

At least to Trump's credit, he was HONEST about why he bans these clowns -- unlike Obama who lied!

There are other incidents, too, when Obama banned people. But I'm sure you know how to use Google or your search engine of choice.

And by the way, Trump isn't anti-first amendment -- he's not anti-news -- he's anti FAKE news. Can't say I blame him, most especially after CNN's stunt yesterday!
False equivalency! Obama was not President at the time. He was a candidate. The three media outlets were not banned from covering any event. They were denied transportation. I'm pretty sure news organizations have to pay for seats on those campaign planes, so it should not make any difference if they have to fly commercial.

Why don't you provide an instance when Obama, or any President, banned a news organization from a White House press briefing.

On the other hand, Trump is banning news organizations from covering legitimate news, because he is a whiny bitch who does not like what they are saying about him. Or, to put it another way, because they are telling the truth.

The only fake news we have is the news coming out of the White House.

[mostpost]

DT is a completely new paradigm, if you haven't figured that out by now. He's a bull in a china shop.

Unless he starts surrounding the NYT building with National Guardsmen, or sends a few drone strikes down towards Atlanta/CNN way, it doesn't bother me much, no.

Why does it bother you? In this day and age especially...does anyone really believe if you're not physically in that room you're going to miss out on something?

It's nothing but a show...a tradition...it's not in the Constitution that the President must hold daily press briefings and ALL media everywhere must be represented....so....this is nothing but a spectacle and in the end, just fodder for Internet chatter.
You fool! Don't you realize that National Guardsmen around the NYT building is what this is leading to? And when that happens, it will be too late.

It is truly amazing that all of you Constitution loving conservatives are so blind to this very serious attack on the first amendment.

[PaceAdvantage]

You fool! Don't you realize that National Guardsmen around the NYT building is what this is leading to? And when that happens, it will be too late.

It is truly amazing that all of you Constitution loving conservatives are so blind to this very serious attack on the first amendment.I truly believe that you and those that think like you need counseling.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Me personally, I don't think that it is the criticism, as I believe that the trump administration knows full well that criticism will ensue at every turn of their cards....

The problem that they are having is about "THE TRUTH" in reporting...

HOH, I am disappointed that you don't see or perceive this...
Here is my challenge to you. First, let's stick with the definition of fake news as lies posing as news. Then, take a copy of the NY Times. Any day. Then find a story that is "fake" and explain how it is fake.

This is an interesting explanation of what Trump means when he calls the MSM "fake." As you'll see, it really isn't about an objective truth, but about information as Trump wishes to characterize it. The last sentence hits the nail on the head.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515630467/with-fake-news-trump-moves-from-alternative-facts-to-alternative-language

Just a few moths ago "fake news" meant meant lies posing as news. Now, Trump casts all unfavorable news coverage as fake news. In one tweet, he even went so far as to say that "any negative polls are fake news."

As a linguist, University of California, Berkeley professor George Lakoff is one of the few people in the world who can truthfully say things like "I've studied the word 'fake' in some detail."

Because of that expertise, he finds the term fake news uniquely troubling. He explained to NPR exactly what is so destabilizing about calling news "fake."

To illustrate, he used the word "gun." Putting the adjective "black" in front of it doesn't negate that it's a gun. It just specifies a kind of gun. That black gun still has the same primary function of any other gun — that is, it can shoot something.

But the word fake is entirely different, Lakoff said in an email to NPR:

"A fake does not have the primary function, but is intended to deceive you into thinking that it does have that function, and hence to serve the secondary function. A fake gun won't shoot, but if you are deceived into thinking it is real, it can intimidate you."

News' primary function is to not be fake; it's to pass along factual information that serves the public good, and the people who create it intend it to be factual and to serve the public good. By Lakoff's logic, putting most modifiers in front of the word news — good, bad, unbiased, biased, liberal, conservative — still implies that the news is still somehow news. It is in some way tied to that main purpose, of being tethered to reality, with the intention of informing the public.

When Trump calls news fake, then, that word implies that the news isn't serving its basic purposes: It means that the story is intended to serve something other than the public good, and that the author intended to falsify the story.

In other words, calling something fake news implies that it isn't news at all. And using that phrase in the way that Trump uses it, said Lakoff, is dangerous:

"It is done to serve interests at odds with the public good. It also undermines the credibility of real news sources, that is, the press. Therefore it makes it harder for the press to serve the public good by revealing truths. And it threatens democracy, which requires that the press function to reveal real truths."
It may seem like a lot of fuss over one little phrase, but to Lakoff, it's an important fuss.

"Calling real news fake is an attempt to hide the truth and undermine the function of the truth in a democracy," he said.

[boxcar]

That's the title of this thread. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is definitely a war being waged against the 1st Amendment, and it's been going on for an awfully long time. But it's not by Trump. It's by the whiny but openly hostile mainstream media! The MM constantly -- day in day out -- pursues its aggressive agenda against Trump (and most Republicans, generally) by abusing its First Amendment rights. If fact, this abuse is so flagrant and ongoing, Congress should pass laws to regulate this abuse. Let me repeat what I said since I know some mind-numbed liberal robots out there will misquote me or deliberately misrepresent what I said and mean: Congress should pass laws regulating Media's abuse of its First Amendment rights AND its own Media and Journalistic Codes of Ethics. What I don't mean by this statement is that Congress should regulate content of news; but rather Congress should hold media's feet to the fire when it can be proved that media don't follow their own Code of Ethics for reporting. In other words, when media violate the public trust by reporting inaccurate news or treats its object(s) of reporting unfairly, then they should be held accountable. Truth and Fairness are supposed to be the twin cornerstones of good, honest journalism. It's high time that all journalists, all reporting media be held accountable for the accuracy and fairness of their reporting. The abuse of media's First Amendment rights must cease and desist!

The First Amendment doesn't give anyone the carte blanche right to speak what it wants, when it wants and where it wants. Numerous examples of these restrictions exists and we all know it. For example, no one has the right to abuse his First Amendment right by going into a crowded indoor venue or stadium shouting fire or bomb for the obvious reason that such abuse of free speech could result in serious physical harm to people. Likewise, no media should report untruthful news because the object(s) of that kind of reporting is/are hurt in other ways. All reporting agencies, all journalists should be made to adhere to their OWN Code of Ethics. Congress should act to pass Journalistic Control Laws.

Professional Codes of Ethics

American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE)

https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/431ethics/codes.htm

Society of Professional Journalists

SPJ Code of Ethics

www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[mostpost]

How is this a first amendment issue?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can't Trump talk to or with whomever he wants? He certainly isn't prohibiting any news organization from printing or saying anything.
This is a perfect example of where the Constitution means more than is written on paper. It says, "Congress shall make no law...." Does that mean that it is okay for the governor of Missouri to shut down the St. Louis Post Dispatch? Does it mean that the Mayor of Chicago can ban the Chicago Sun Times from City Hall. There are more ways to violate the first amendment than by Congress passing a law.

Trump can certainly talk to whoever he wants. Many, if not all, presidents have granted exclusive interviews. That is not what this is. This is denying access to a traditionally open event, because the President does not like what someone is writing. It is intimidation, pure and simple and it should not be tolerated.

[mostpost]

I truly believe that you and those that think like you need counseling.I'm sure I will receive it as soon as Trump establishes the reeducation camps.

[newtothegame]

Did you even take a moment to put my comment in context? It had to do with suggesting the liar in chief has more important things to do than spend valuable time engaging in a pissing match with the press. Trump has spent more time disparaging the press in a month than Obama spent in eight years. If you were paying closer attention, I never suggested Trump (or Obama) shouldn't criticize the press, just that six times a day means he's not working on important issues. He is not only wasting time, he's trying to distract you from noticing his constant missteps. Nobody is crying about anything. The problem with Trump and his Trumpistas is that you are so insecure the slightest bit of criticism has you jumping up and down like Rumplestiltskin. Typical "can give it but can't take it". Talk about needing big boy pants.


Slightest bit ?????
Apparently, you live in a bubble. Every day 24/7, the mainstream is absolutely pounding the administration. Add in the dems, who have basically said destroy at all cost and its easy to see why Trump is hitting back.

You then say he "has more important things to do than spend valuable time".....This is subjective and I would suggest that he has already accomplished more in several weeks then Obama has in EIGHT YEARS!

[newtothegame]

This is a perfect example of where the Constitution means more than is written on paper. It says, "Congress shall make no law...." Does that mean that it is okay for the governor of Missouri to shut down the St. Louis Post Dispatch? Does it mean that the Mayor of Chicago can ban the Chicago Sun Times from City Hall. There are more ways to violate the first amendment than by Congress passing a law.

Trump can certainly talk to whoever he wants. Many, if not all, presidents have granted exclusive interviews. That is not what this is. This is denying access to a traditionally open event, because the President does not like what someone is writing. It is intimidation, pure and simple and it should not be tolerated.

Tradition??? You don't like that Trump is breaking "tradition"??? You truly are a barrel of laughs!! Not following tradition is what got him elected!!!
Where does it state in law, that TRUMP and this administration MUST allow whomever, whenever, access ???
Its not his job to hand them the cheese along with their constant Whine!! (yes, I intentionally misspelled WINE in case you missed it)! :D:D

[zico20]

This is a perfect example of where the Constitution means more than is written on paper. It says, "Congress shall make no law...." Does that mean that it is okay for the governor of Missouri to shut down the St. Louis Post Dispatch? Does it mean that the Mayor of Chicago can ban the Chicago Sun Times from City Hall. There are more ways to violate the first amendment than by Congress passing a law.

Trump can certainly talk to whoever he wants. Many, if not all, presidents have granted exclusive interviews. That is not what this is. This is denying access to a traditionally open event, because the President does not like what someone is writing. It is intimidation, pure and simple and it should not be tolerated.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch should be shut down. It is a radical, left wing paper, almost on par with the NYT. New ownership a few years back did nothing to change the slant of the editorial page. They are obsessed with daily rants against Trump.

Talk about vile rants, look no further than Eugene Robinson from the Washington Post. Every article he writes goes off on either Trump or white people. I can't believe the Post Dispatch allows his crap.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Slightest bit ?????
Apparently, you live in a bubble. Every day 24/7, the mainstream is absolutely pounding the administration. Add in the dems, who have basically said destroy at all cost and its easy to see why Trump is hitting back.

You then say he "has more important things to do than spend valuable time".....This is subjective and I would suggest that he has already accomplished more in several weeks then Obama has in EIGHT YEARS!

As Paul Simon said, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

[newtothegame]

As Paul Simon said, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
At least you openly admit to being biased by seeing what you want......:lol::lol:

Your floor (or ceiling) whichever you choose. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy into your perceived views.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm sure I will receive it as soon as Trump establishes the reeducation camps.If anyone needs a reeducation camp, it would be you.

Thinking like yours is what led to Trump as President in the first place, so you only have yourself and your extreme beliefs to blame for President Donald J. Trump.

Trump is the swing AWAY from your ideology. It is an attempt to restore the natural order of things...a balance...as you can see, eight years of Obama required a LOT of rebalancing.:pound:

[davew]

I'm sure I will receive it as soon as Trump establishes the reeducation camps.

Is that where they are going to send the not peaceful rioters?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

At least you openly admit to being biased by seeing what you want......:lol::lol:

Your floor (or ceiling) whichever you choose. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy into your perceived views.

We're all biased in one way or another. That's what makes horse races. Inevitably, if you think the 4 horse is better than the 7 horse, and I believe the opposite, one of us will be shown right and the other wrong, but not until they run the race. Until then, your opinion is as legitimate as mine, and vice versa.

If you believe Trump doesn't deserve the criticism he is getting, then we do have a difference of opinion. Don't make the mistake of thinking PA represents the real world. There are plenty of people who think you would be the one with the wrong opinion. But, as I said, eventually we'll get the result of this race.

[Tom]

If anyone needs a reeducation camp, it would be you.

Objection, your Honor.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
To be reeducated, one must first be educated.
No evidence of that has been presented thus far. :pound:

[chadk66]

If anyone needs a reeducation camp, it would be you.

Thinking like yours is what led to Trump as President in the first place, so you only have yourself and your extreme beliefs to blame for President Donald J. Trump.

Trump is the swing AWAY from your ideology. It is an attempt to restore the natural order of things...a balance...as you can see, eight years of Obama required a LOT of rebalancing.:pound::ThmbUp:

[chadk66]

Objection, your Honor.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
To be reeducated, one must first be educated.
No evidence of that has been presented thus far. :pound:
:lol:

[newtothegame]

We're all biased in one way or another. That's what makes horse races. Inevitably, if you think the 4 horse is better than the 7 horse, and I believe the opposite, one of us will be shown right and the other wrong, but not until they run the race. Until then, your opinion is as legitimate as mine, and vice versa.

If you believe Trump doesn't deserve the criticism he is getting, then we do have a difference of opinion. Don't make the mistake of thinking PA represents the real world. There are plenty of people who think you would be the one with the wrong opinion. But, as I said, eventually we'll get the result of this race.

You seriously have me dying over here.....
Where did I say Trump didn't deserve criticism? Every politician or elected official understands that going in.
What I am saying is it has been way over the top and due to that, he has a right to defend his position just as you and I do.

I have never said you or anyone else doesn't deserve to have an opinion. You're right in the aspect that one of us will be right and the other...well not so much.

I just am appalled at the fact that the media, which are supposed to be journalist reporting the news....(not making the news), have gone on an all out assault (even before Trump retaliated). And, I believe this is due to the fact that he played them like a damn fiddle all throughout the primaries. He used them for coverage and didn't have to spend nearly as much as other candidates. Now, they are upset. Hell, if I am not mistaken, that bimbo on Morning Joe the other day even proclaimed that it was the medias responsibility to tell people what to think!!! It couldn't of been more clearer what she was saying (even if she slipped up).

Trump is right...the media is biased and has conveniently left out things to make a story appear one way when in fact, in context, meant something different. The people even see it and polls reflect the peoples faith in the media. So much so that even when he does say something crazy, the people are more likely to believe him.

Its no different then the approval ratings of congress. People are so skeptical, that even when they try to get it right at this point, it will inevitably be wrong.

Anyway, carry on with your hating as I said.....Just don't expect all of us to buy in......:pound::pound:

[PaceAdvantage]

We're all biased in one way or another. That's what makes horse races. Inevitably, if you think the 4 horse is better than the 7 horse, and I believe the opposite, one of us will be shown right and the other wrong, but not until they run the race. Until then, your opinion is as legitimate as mine, and vice versa.

If you believe Trump doesn't deserve the criticism he is getting, then we do have a difference of opinion. Don't make the mistake of thinking PA represents the real world. There are plenty of people who think you would be the one with the wrong opinion. But, as I said, eventually we'll get the result of this race.Of course PA represents the real world. You have people on here who think one thing, and others who think differently.

If PA didn't represent the real world, you (and a host of others) wouldn't be allowed to post here.

I take great offense to your remark. I allow EVERYONE from ALL political persuasions to post freely here. Unless you're a disruptive asshole or you don't follow basic rules of forum decorum (like don't SPAM a million different threads with the SAME BIG BOLD TEXT {that turned out to be wrong anyway}), you'll be fine here and completely welcome.

[boxcar]

False equivalency! Obama was not President at the time. He was a candidate. The three media outlets were not banned from covering any event. They were denied transportation. I'm pretty sure news organizations have to pay for seats on those campaign planes, so it should not make any difference if they have to fly commercial.

Why don't you provide an instance when Obama, or any President, banned a news organization from a White House press briefing.

On the other hand, Trump is banning news organizations from covering legitimate news, because he is a whiny bitch who does not like what they are saying about him. Or, to put it another way, because they are telling the truth.

The only fake news we have is the news coming out of the White House.

Yeah...they were "denied transportation". That was the lame excuse (a/k/a lie they used. As I said...at least Trump is honest. You can never say that (apart from lying yourself) about Obama who never knew how to be truthful!

And you're wrong. Trump is not banning anyone from covering legit news. He's banning certain news organizations who print mostly fake news about him. Trump's beef is with their [very serious lack of ethics. His beef is with the open disdain some news organizations have with their own Journalistic Code of Ethics. (See my earlier post if you want to know who is really abusing the First Amendment!

[AndyC]

......Trump can certainly talk to whoever he wants. Many, if not all, presidents have granted exclusive interviews. That is not what this is. This is denying access to a traditionally open event, because the President does not like what someone is writing. It is intimidation, pure and simple and it should not be tolerated.

So you are saying I should get access because it's an open event? Point me in the direction of the amendment guaranteeing access to a press briefing. There are more press who want to "get access" than there are seats. Who should determine who gets priority?

[Tom]

Any of those "news" people are FREE to find and report any news thye wnt to. NO ONE is stopping them.

But Trump is under NO obligation to spoon feed them information.
You libs just think you are entitled to everything free.

This is so much more fun than I imagined it would be! :lol::pound::headbanger:

Somehow, PA KNEW we would need more emoticons for this new world order.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You seriously have me dying over here.....
Where did I say Trump didn't deserve criticism? Every politician or elected official understands that going in.
What I am saying is it has been way over the top and due to that, he has a right to defend his position just as you and I do.

I have never said you or anyone else doesn't deserve to have an opinion. You're right in the aspect that one of us will be right and the other...well not so much.

I just am appalled at the fact that the media, which are supposed to be journalist reporting the news....(not making the news), have gone on an all out assault (even before Trump retaliated). And, I believe this is due to the fact that he played them like a damn fiddle all throughout the primaries. He used them for coverage and didn't have to spend nearly as much as other candidates. Now, they are upset. Hell, if I am not mistaken, that bimbo on Morning Joe the other day even proclaimed that it was the medias responsibility to tell people what to think!!! It couldn't of been more clearer what she was saying (even if she slipped up).

Trump is right...the media is biased and has conveniently left out things to make a story appear one way when in fact, in context, meant something different. The people even see it and polls reflect the peoples faith in the media. So much so that even when he does say something crazy, the people are more likely to believe him.

Its no different then the approval ratings of congress. People are so skeptical, that even when they try to get it right at this point, it will inevitably be wrong.

Anyway, carry on with your hating as I said.....Just don't expect all of us to buy in......:pound::pound:
One thing I find is that many on the far right think in extremes, like if you criticize Trump you are a "hater."

Frankly, I think Trump should extend great gratitude to the media. First, they gave him an enemy to rally around, but more than that they kept him in the news 24/7. Every tweet, every rally, every presser was covered in excruciating detail. Whatever the policy differences between the two candidates, the election really came down to a personality contest, and Hillary was simply too flawed and carried too much negative baggage to stand up against the assault from Trump.

I think the media are far more upset at being accused of fake news, which morphed from lies masquerading as news to anything Trump didn't like. I can tell you that a lot of people heard Trump say things like there were more people on the mall for his inauguration than for any other inauguration, and when he was called on it he changed the story to more people witnessed his inauguration, if you include TV and the internet. The fact that the media reported it, exactly as it happened, with exactly what he said, only wound up getting called "fake news." That's not hating.

I told you everybody is biased, whether the MSM or Breitbart. We're all colored by our basic values. And whether or not it is overblown, there is a great fear in some quarters that Trump and his minions (like Steve Bannon) will not fix whatever the problems are, but will create even worse problems. That's not hating, it's an honest disagreement about values and policy. While the extraordinary extremes are unusual, Trump has always elicited that reaction. I'd issue the same challenge to you. Define fake news as lies that are trying to be passed off as real news. Pick a copy of the NYTimes, any copy, and find a story that fits the definition of fake news.

Honestly, I don't expect the pitchfork and axe handle crowd to buy into anything. I present my side and hope you don't put your foot through the floor disagreeing with it.

[PaceAdvantage]

One thing I find is that many on the far right think in extremes, like if you criticize Trump you are a "hater."Nothing new. Those who criticized Obama were called RACIST by many on the left...not to mention far-left.

You simply can't be this naive when it comes to these things. Why do you play with us so? :rolleyes: Pretending like these sorts of things are limited to the evil far-right...:sleeping:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Of course PA represents the real world. You have people on here who think one thing, and others who think differently.

If PA didn't represent the real world, you (and a host of others) wouldn't be allowed to post here.

I take great offense to your remark. I allow EVERYONE from ALL political persuasions to post freely here. Unless you're a disruptive asshole or you don't follow basic rules of forum decorum (like don't SPAM a million different threads with the SAME BIG BOLD TEXT {that turned out to be wrong anyway}), you'll be fine here and completely welcome.

My fault. I should have said THE ENTIRETY of the real world. Of course the people here represent a specific cohort of the political spectrum. My apologies.

[PaceAdvantage]

Have you ever read the comments section at any national news website? What goes on there is often times far worse than what goes on here, in terms of extreme...from both sides.

If what you're TRYING to say is that there are more conservatives/right-wing people posting on off-topic, and that is not representative of the mix in the real world, then OK...I will accept that.

But nobody on here is SUPPRESSING opposition viewpoints from being expressed. The left on here is free to post as much or as loudly as you perceive the right to be doing. I can't help it if conservatives comprise more of a percentage of the horseplaying population as opposed to liberals.

But then again, being that the demographics for horseplayers skew older, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone that the off-topic section leans right.

[johnhannibalsmith]

For a week my Yahoo! feed of major mainstream news sources has been insisting that someone named Mama June is now super hot after losing a bunch of weight. I'm starting to fall in line with the Donald.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Nothing new. Those who criticized Obama were called RACIST by many on the left...not to mention far-left.

You simply can't be this naive when it comes to these things. Why do you play with us so? :rolleyes: Pretending like these sorts of things are limited to the evil far-right...:sleeping:

I think in this case I take umbrage at the idea that MY criticism of Trump should label me a hater. I absolutely understand that there were people who criticized Obama and were called racist. The fact is that some of the Trump opponents are haters, and some of the Obama opponents were racists. But not all of them.

We've had this discussion. Lumping the entirety of any political thought into some sort of simplistic pejorative is at the least anti-intellectual, and up to abhorrent. It's not right when it goes on about the left (which you have to admit is the theme of a lot of threads and posts here) and it's not right when it goes on about the right. I'd say anyone with a view somewhere between centrist and left has to take a lot of crap if they choose to participate.

I'm just going to say when you call me a hater when I've made a reasonable disagreement, I'm not likely to take it well.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Have you ever read the comments section at any national news website? What goes on there is often times far worse than what goes on here, in terms of extreme...from both sides.

If what you're TRYING to say is that there are more conservatives/right-wing people posting on off-topic, and that is not representative of the mix in the real world, then OK...I will accept that.

But nobody on here is SUPPRESSING opposition viewpoints from being expressed. The left on here is free to post as much or as loudly as you perceive the right to be doing. I can't help it conservatives comprise more of a percentage of the horseplaying population as opposed to liberals.

But then again, being that the demographics for horseplayers skew older, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone that the off-topic section leans right.

I agree wholeheartedly that you have gone out of your way to be inclusive. In fact, you have been far better than I would ever have been.

I wasn't trying to say more than the fact that here I am in a small minority, but in the country as a whole I'm pretty close to the majority that exists between center left and center right.

I'll just say again I don't hate Trump. I simply don't see him in the positive light many do here.

[LottaKash]

Here is my challenge to you.

And, you're gonna hit my and my pragmatic way with NPR and Berkeley...haha.,, Nice try...

Get real, just words...

[NJ Stinks]

That un-American presidential personality you mention must certainly be Barry Obama, who regularly committed a war on the First Amendment and other real and serious misdeeds. But, yet, the liberal press just fawned all over this clown for 8 years, never questioning his policies, motives and especially his circumvention of the US Constitution.

Where was all this outrage from the liberal media when one of their own Sharyl Atkinson's phone and computer was hacked by the White House? Were you guys calling for Obama's head? No where. None where heard or seen, the media and you guys, of course.

And where was the outrage from the liberal press corps when the Barry Obama Justice Department hacked the computer of one Fox News reporter named James Rosen? Were all you sanctimonious left wingers on here and in the mainstream media denouncing such a war on the 'free' press? No, not then either.

Clowns, clowns and more clowns each of them in the liberal media. And now they are hurt and outraged because President Donald J. Trump calls them out for what they really are. :lol:

Sharyl Atkinson's boss (CBS) never said the government hacked anything of hers.

The FBI got warrant first on Rosen:

The FBI sought and obtained a warrant to seize all of Rosen's correspondence with Kim, and an additional two days' worth of Rosen's personal email, the Post reported. The bureau also obtained Rosen's phone records and used security badge records to track his movements to and from the State Department.

link:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/20/fox-news-reporter-targeted-us-government

My outrage is reserved for fools who claim the press is the enemy of the people.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

And, you're gonna hit my and my pragmatic way with NPR and Berkeley...haha.,, Nice try...

Get real, just words...

If you make the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. I'd assume that if you aren't willing, all you have is BS. All you have to do is find one story in the NY Times that you can document as fake using the definition that fake means printing a lie and calling it true. Sounds to me like you're all sizzle, no steak.

[boxcar]

If you make the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. I'd assume that if you aren't willing, all you have is BS. All you have to do is find one story in the NY Times that you can document as fake using the definition that fake means printing a lie and calling it true. Sounds to me like you're all sizzle, no steak.

Hey, will someone here please challenge this wanna-be Einstein to explain to us what does the MSM mean when they say that the Russians Hacked the Election. In fact, this challenge from me goes out to the rest of you liberals, if you feel up to the task!

[LottaKash]

Sounds to me like you're all sizzle, no steak.

Yeah, that's me...

Take the Blinkers OFF and try an Open Bridle for a change of pace...

Get real...You know what you see...

You're just too smart for some of us, cause, you are an NPR kind of guy....

[buzzy]

the backdrop of this administration are the release of sanctions against Russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html?_r=0

tillersons appointment and lack of rebuke of Russia's interference on the election is worrisome

follow the sanctions

[newtothegame]

One thing I find is that many on the far right think in extremes, like if you criticize Trump you are a "hater."

Frankly, I think Trump should extend great gratitude to the media. First, they gave him an enemy to rally around, but more than that they kept him in the news 24/7. Every tweet, every rally, every presser was covered in excruciating detail. Whatever the policy differences between the two candidates, the election really came down to a personality contest, and Hillary was simply too flawed and carried too much negative baggage to stand up against the assault from Trump.

I think the media are far more upset at being accused of fake news, which morphed from lies masquerading as news to anything Trump didn't like. I can tell you that a lot of people heard Trump say things like there were more people on the mall for his inauguration than for any other inauguration, and when he was called on it he changed the story to more people witnessed his inauguration, if you include TV and the internet. The fact that the media reported it, exactly as it happened, with exactly what he said, only wound up getting called "fake news." That's not hating.

I told you everybody is biased, whether the MSM or Breitbart. We're all colored by our basic values. And whether or not it is overblown, there is a great fear in some quarters that Trump and his minions (like Steve Bannon) will not fix whatever the problems are, but will create even worse problems. That's not hating, it's an honest disagreement about values and policy. While the extraordinary extremes are unusual, Trump has always elicited that reaction. I'd issue the same challenge to you. Define fake news as lies that are trying to be passed off as real news. Pick a copy of the NYTimes, any copy, and find a story that fits the definition of fake news.

Honestly, I don't expect the pitchfork and axe handle crowd to buy into anything. I present my side and hope you don't put your foot through the floor disagreeing with it.

You can say what you like but I don't recall calling you a "hater". I did say keep on "hating" which is to infer that you post a lot of negative stories about Trump. That's a BIAS! You cant say your neutral as that would indicate 50/50 or somewhere close.
You yourself claim that you don't view him positively. So if not positively, what's the opposite if not (neutral)?

You talk of the extremism on the right in your first paragraph as if its ONLY on the right.."One thing I find is many on the far right think in extremes". Well no duhhhh...That's what FAR means! The same could be and is said about the FAR left. They think in extremes!!! Yet you didn't mention "seeing" that aspect.
So, based on your own words, its fair to say your biased and don't see the left extremes as you do the right. It's ok Halves....as you said, we all have biases and opinions. I just wont allow my biases to gloss over what I think is wrong, even if in my own party affiliation.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yeah, that's me...

Take the Blinkers OFF and try an Open Bridle for a change of pace...

Get real...You know what you see...

You're just too smart for some of us, cause, you are an NPR kind of guy....

I know what YOU think YOU see. You really make my point. Since you apparently believe it is so obvious that the MSM is full of fake news, it should be pretty easy to find an example from the nation's newspaper, the NY Times. The fact that you refuse to cite one increases my confidence that it's a dodge.

Now if you are saying the Times has a liberal slant on its editorial page, sure. And while NPR is pretty much down the middle on its news shows, it also has a mild liberal bias on its talk shows. What I like about NPR is that they will have interviews from both the right and left, but more than that they allow time to develop an issue. You get more than 30 second sound bites. I've listened to Fox and I've listened to right wing radio as well, and my sense is that their primary job is to work the base into a frenzy about the liberals. Based on what I see here, they are successful.

I do find it curious that some of the far right seem disdainful of the highly educated class, which does tend to be more liberal than conservative. I certainly can't help how intelligent or how educated I am, and I'm certainly not uncomfortable with how I've reached my beliefs, although it is comical to suggest I don't do as much reading and research as anybody here.

I'll just say anyone who tells you anything is obvious probably doesn't want you to look into the truth.

[Greyfox]

I certainly can't help how intelligent or how educated I am, and I'm certainly not uncomfortable with how I've reached my beliefs, although it is comical to suggest I don't do as much reading and research as anybody here.


Once again, the man who wants to be smartest boy in the room has found the need to flash his credentials.
We swine and other deplorables, should just accept his pearls of wisdom as gospel.

[TJDave]

I do find it curious that some of the far right seem disdainful of the highly educated class

You're kidding, right?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You can say what you like but I don't recall calling you a "hater". I did say keep on "hating" which is to infer that you post a lot of negative stories about Trump. That's a BIAS! You cant say your neutral as that would indicate 50/50 or somewhere close.
You yourself claim that you don't view him positively. So if not positively, what's the opposite if not (neutral)?

You talk of the extremism on the right in your first paragraph as if its ONLY on the right.."One thing I find is many on the far right think in extremes". Well no duhhhh...That's what FAR means! The same could be and is said about the FAR left. They think in extremes!!! Yet you didn't mention "seeing" that aspect.
So, based on your own words, its fair to say your biased and don't see the left extremes as you do the right. It's ok Halves....as you said, we all have biases and opinions. I just wont allow my biases to gloss over what I think is wrong, even if in my own party affiliation.

That's slicing the baloney pretty thin. In your mind someone who engages in what you term "hating" is not a hater?

I'm reminded of Marvin Hagler who, when interviewed once, said, "I've only got two things on my mind. Destroy and destruction." The interviewer wisely chose not to point out to him that destruction is simply the nominative form of the verb destroy.

Who engages in hating if not a hater? I'm pretty sure you called me a hater, at least with regard to Trump. I've got to tell you, I'm a professional writer with hundreds of publications, and I know the difference between the word hate, meaning intense dislike, which only has a negative connotation, and the word bias, meaning prejudice, which is omni-directional. Ironically, you were a lot closer to right the second time. I don't hate Trump - my opinions about him and his ideas are not emotional, but philosophical. I am biased toward center left politicians, although I honestly couldn't tell you exactly where Trump falls on the political continuum. Trump does sometimes come off like the 8 year old who complains his teacher "hates" him because she corrected him. The emotionally lacking often aren't nuanced in how the describe feelings.

Frankly, I think too many liberals have far too much empathy to be as extreme as those on the right, but that is my bias. We all have opinions colored by our experiences and our studies.

Kyrie Irving has come out as believing the earth is flat. I don't think it is hating or biased to believe he's wrong on that one. In the case of Trump, I think he is simply wrong that the wall will make a difference, wrong that a tariff will improve the American economy, and wrong that the MSM is full of fake news. That's neither hating nor bias. It's simply the artifact of my analysis of issues.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You're kidding, right?

Not at all. Highly educated meaning those with graduate and post graduate degrees. College professors are often the target of the right. Egghead liberals. You've noticed that, right?

[TJDave]

Not at all. Highly educated meaning those with graduate and post graduate degrees. College professors are often the target of the right. Egghead liberals. You've noticed that, right?

Of course.

You said you were curious. You haven't formed an opinion as to why?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Of course.

You said you were curious. You haven't formed an opinion as to why?

I think the fact that they reside in Ivory Towers, removed from the real world, and generally disagree with conservatives on everything AND are usually disdainful in the way they disagree seems like reason enough for noticing that.

[tucker6]

Once again, the man who wants to be smartest boy in the room has found the need to flash his credentials.
We swine and other deplorables, should just accept his pearls of wisdom as gospel.
Still trying to figure out why such intelligence is slumming on the off topic section of a horse racing forum on a Saturday night. I would have expected him to be at a party where smart people interact with one another and pronounce what our future should look like.

[TJDave]

I think the fact that they reside in Ivory Towers, removed from the real world, and generally disagree with conservatives on everything AND are usually disdainful in the way they disagree seems like reason enough for noticing that.

In other words, no one likes a wise ass.

The reason we now have an idiot in the White House.

[ReplayRandall]

In other words, no one likes a wise ass.

The reason we now have an idiot in the White House.

I guess you would've rather had the Hag or Jeb!.....Democrats are hopelessly clueless, Republicans are angry idiots and the beat goes on and on and on..:rip:

[JustRalph]

In other words, no one likes a wise ass.

The reason we now have an idiot in the White House.


You mean the billionaire idiot. I wonder if he got better grades than Obama?

Still no Obama transcripts......still .......why?

[TJDave]

Still no Obama transcripts......still .......why?

Yeah. It drives me nuts. Can't sleep at night.

[Clocker]

Frankly, I think too many liberals have far too much empathy to be as extreme as those on the right, but that is my bias. We all have opinions colored by our experiences and our studies.



You mean like the 200+ liberals charged with felony rioting in protest of Trump's inauguration?

There are plenty of idiots on both sides of the political aisle, as well as plenty of people with empathy. Some of us just don't believe that empathy is a proper function of the federal government, or a civil right protected by the Constitution.

Empathy begins at home.

[Fager Fan]

Once again, the man who wants to be smartest boy in the room has found the need to flash his credentials.
We swine and other deplorables, should just accept his pearls of wisdom as gospel.

Reading Halv does trigger a violent gag reflex.

[newtothegame]

That's slicing the baloney pretty thin. In your mind someone who engages in what you term "hating" is not a hater?

I'm reminded of Marvin Hagler who, when interviewed once, said, "I've only got two things on my mind. Destroy and destruction." The interviewer wisely chose not to point out to him that destruction is simply the nominative form of the verb destroy.

Who engages in hating if not a hater? I'm pretty sure you called me a hater, at least with regard to Trump. I've got to tell you, I'm a professional writer with hundreds of publications, and I know the difference between the word hate, meaning intense dislike, which only has a negative connotation, and the word bias, meaning prejudice, which is omni-directional. Ironically, you were a lot closer to right the second time. I don't hate Trump - my opinions about him and his ideas are not emotional, but philosophical. I am biased toward center left politicians, although I honestly couldn't tell you exactly where Trump falls on the political continuum. Trump does sometimes come off like the 8 year old who complains his teacher "hates" him because she corrected him. The emotionally lacking often aren't nuanced in how the describe feelings.

Frankly, I think too many liberals have far too much empathy to be as extreme as those on the right, but that is my bias. We all have opinions colored by our experiences and our studies.

Kyrie Irving has come out as believing the earth is flat. I don't think it is hating or biased to believe he's wrong on that one. In the case of Trump, I think he is simply wrong that the wall will make a difference, wrong that a tariff will improve the American economy, and wrong that the MSM is full of fake news. That's neither hating nor bias. It's simply the artifact of my analysis of issues.

I always find it amazing, how those on the left feel the need to display their credibility, all the while trying to use words like "empathy". How can you possibly know or share my feelings when you are so much above the rest of us? :faint:

Its easy to hate without being a hater. One is a person who engages in such manner to elicit comments or feelings while the other truly believes what he or she says. You know, the proverbial trolling.....

And yes, "hate" does mean having an intense dislike. You admitted that you don't see Trump positively. We have also established that you're not really neutral as that would indicate a close to 50/50 bias. So if your not positive, and not neutral, what is left to be said? I guess it would come down to the meaning of intense (which can be subjective at best). Rock on though Halves...as I said, it's ok to have a bias. Don't be so defensive of it. OWN IT as I do mine. As you said, we all have them. I am just not ashamed of nor do I deny mine.

I also love how the left, when having conversation with someone from the right, almost always tries to play the "I'm smarter and better then you" card.
Having to show your credentials is proof of this. It's really no different then our resident MOSTY consistently telling us what people are really "thinking" versus what they actually said. :lol::lol:

So tell me oh great one (who has over a HUNDRED publications)....what are MY credentials since you seem to know that liberals are of higher intellect. Ahhh... never mind, I am sure in comparison, I would merely look like I graduated from kindergarten. Surely though, the way libs talk of their education level and the lack of any on the right, kindergarten has to be some sort of accomplishment...right? :lol:

Have a good evening sir knighted one of a hundred publications!!!!! :headbanger::headbanger:

[Clocker]

I always find it amazing, how those on the left feel the need to display their credibility, all the while trying to use words like "empathy". How can you possibly know or share my feelings when you are so much above the rest of us? :faint:

Elites pride themselves on their empathy for the common folk who rarely know what is good for them, and gladly share the benefit of their more extensive knowledge and experience.

[Clocker]

I've got to tell you, I'm a professional writer with hundreds of publications

I can eat 50 eggs. -- Cool Hand Luke

[Clocker]

Still trying to figure out why such intelligence is slumming on the off topic section of a horse racing forum on a Saturday night. I would have expected him to be at a party where smart people interact with one another and pronounce what our future should look like.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[LottaKash]

I can eat 50 eggs. -- Cool Hand Luke

"I got my mind right Boss"... Luke

[chrisl]

Clocker, that picture is classic Halvnot. Hahahahah:headbanger::headbanger:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I always find it amazing, how those on the left feel the need to display their credibility, all the while trying to use words like "empathy". How can you possibly know or share my feelings when you are so much above the rest of us? :faint:

Its easy to hate without being a hater. One is a person who engages in such manner to elicit comments or feelings while the other truly believes what he or she says. You know, the proverbial trolling.....

And yes, "hate" does mean having an intense dislike. You admitted that you don't see Trump positively. We have also established that you're not really neutral as that would indicate a close to 50/50 bias. So if your not positive, and not neutral, what is left to be said? I guess it would come down to the meaning of intense (which can be subjective at best). Rock on though Halves...as I said, it's ok to have a bias. Don't be so defensive of it. OWN IT as I do mine. As you said, we all have them. I am just not ashamed of nor do I deny mine.

I also love how the left, when having conversation with someone from the right, almost always tries to play the "I'm smarter and better then you" card.
Having to show your credentials is proof of this. It's really no different then our resident MOSTY consistently telling us what people are really "thinking" versus what they actually said. :lol::lol:

So tell me oh great one (who has over a HUNDRED publications)....what are MY credentials since you seem to know that liberals are of higher intellect. Ahhh... never mind, I am sure in comparison, I would merely look like I graduated from kindergarten. Surely though, the way libs talk of their education level and the lack of any on the right, kindergarten has to be some sort of accomplishment...right? :lol:

Have a good evening sir knighted one of a hundred publications!!!!! :headbanger::headbanger:

The empathy is toward the less fortunate, most of whom liberals believe got there through circumstance, oppression, Republican policies - certainly nothing they did. Should be pretty clear I have no empathy for you since I'm sure wherever you are is entirely of your own doing.

No, I admitted I don't see Trump's PROGRAMS in a positive light. For those of us with the ability, there is a clear difference between disliking a person and disliking his policies. I've heard in person Trump can be charming, so there's even a chance I might like the guy if we went golfing. What is exasperating is that according to the great conservative minds, anyone who criticizes Trump's programs must be a hater.

I've also said I would call myself center left. That generally means on fiscal issues I would trend conservative, on social issues I would trend liberal. A lot of my opposition to the wall is that besides the fact I believe it will make little difference, it is a colossal waste of money. If you are a fiscal conservative, you believe you have to stop spending money on frivolous projects. God himself couldn't cut taxes, seriously increase spending and balance the budget.

You could see pointing out the torture of the language as playing the "I'm smarter and better than you" card. Regardless of how smart you are, trying to suggest that hating is somehow separated from hater is simply wrong. You can hate without being a hater has to be one of the most illogical things I've ever heard here, and believe me that is a pretty big accomplishment.

People like you complain when it degenerates into name calling. I think making fun of someone for being educated or intelligent is one of the standard tools in the conservative toolbox. If someone says, I'm qualified to critique statements like, hate and hater can be two different things, the first thing you want to do is discredit the person for being qualified. Imagine if someone here said, I was a cop for 30 years, or a plumber all my life and that makes me qualified to comment on public safety or water pipes. You wouldn't respond with "O great one" but someone says they are qualified to comment on misuse of english, and they are arrogant and demeaning. I simply chalk it up to small people acting small. If you said, even though I've never been a cop, I know more than the 30 year veteran, people here would call you a fool.

Frankly, I don't care what your credentials are. I've chosen to be transparent here, most of the other people have chosen to stay anonymous. It often gives them great courage to be attack dogs.

[Tom]

Yes, I go to great lengths to hide my identity.
I wouldn't want a bunch of PA people to spot me at the track or anything as dangerous as that.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Clocker, that picture is classic Halvnot. Hahahahah:headbanger::headbanger:

Luckily you will never to bear the burden of being the smartest person in the room. Hahahahah

[woodtoo]

You got one thing right, your transparency.:rant:

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah. It drives me nuts. Can't sleep at night.I hear ya...kind of like that bus video of Trump kept me up all night, tossing and turning...or those thoughts of Trump actually saying that he wanted to get along with Russia....<<shiver>>

Man...don't these politicians realize what they are doing to us common folk?

[davew]

I hear ya...kind of like that bus video of Trump kept me up all night, tossing and turning...or those thoughts of Trump actually saying that he wanted to get along with Russia....<<shiver>>

Man...don't these politicians realize what they are doing to us common folk?

Sure, that is why some are calling for impeachment and others for revolution.

[boxcar]

Yeah. It drives me nuts. Can't sleep at night.

Yeah...but I bet those absentee Trump tax returns keep you awake!

[boxcar]

Once again, the man who wants to be smartest boy in the room has found the need to flash his credentials.
We swine and other deplorables, should just accept his pearls of wisdom as gospel.

Hey, Foxy, maybe you can get our resident Einstein to tell us what the MSM means when they tell us that the Russians Hacked the Election. After all, he challenged everyone to come up with a fake news story. If you can get him to respond, I promise you that you won't be sorry that you broached this subject with him. I guarantee it. :ThmbUp:

Plus you can be assured that we have a winning issue because no liberal since my post 71containing the same challenge has come forward. Rather incredible considering this "Russians Hacked the Election" narrative still has legs today long after the election. In fact, it is this very narrative that is providing the impetus for the Trump impeachment rhetoric, since he's an illegitimate president who didn't beat the Witch fair and square. But it appears that the propaganda-fed, low-info liberals are lost for words to explain the "news" that the "Russians Hacked the Election".

[Greyfox]

Hey, Foxy, maybe you can get our resident Einstein to tell us ...

Nah. Mr. Bin Der Dun Dat won't respond to questions or comments from you and me.
He put us on IGNORE when we turned the heat up too high in the kitchen in another thread and he scrambled out.
We saw his true essence then. All stetson, no cattle.

[boxcar]

Nah. Mr. Bin Der Dun Dat won't respond to questions or comments from you and me.
He put us on IGNORE when we turned the heat up too high in the kitchen in another thread and he scrambled out.
We saw his true essence then. All stetson, no cattle.

You mean he has you on iggy too!? We just don't get any respect. :lol:

Mr. Highly Educated-Know-it-All didn't learn how to grow a pair when receiving all his high falutin higher education. Nor did he learn the psychological dangers of sportin' a paper-thin ego. I guess in addition to his degrees, these mighty fine institutions of higher learning gave him a bubble to take home with him too.

[mostpost]

Hey, Foxy, maybe you can get our resident Einstein to tell us what the MSM means when they tell us that the Russians Hacked the Election. After all, he challenged everyone to come up with a fake news story. If you can get him to respond, I promise you that you won't be sorry that you broached this subject with him. I guarantee it. :ThmbUp:

Plus you can be assured that we have a winning issue because no liberal since my post 71containing the same challenge has come forward. Rather incredible considering this "Russians Hacked the Election" narrative still has legs today long after the election. In fact, it is this very narrative that is providing the impetus for the Trump impeachment rhetoric, since he's an illegitimate president who didn't beat the Witch fair and square. But it appears that the propaganda-fed, low-info liberals are lost for words to explain the "news" that the "Russians Hacked the Election".
I looked at the final sentence in your post, and I said "What is he talking about, I posted a reply last night." However, when I went back I did not find it. So, I will post it again. But before I do that, I will tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean that Russia hacked into the vote counting process and changed Clinton votes to Trump.

Here is a link to a Joint Analysis Report compiled by the FBI and the DHS.
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is mostly a technical report which details how the Russians hacked into the DNC and into members of Clinton's staff. I honestly don't understand that technical stuff-although I am sure some here will.

What was clear to everyone according to the report is that operatives from Russian Intelligence Services hacked into to computers at the DNC as well as computers used by various Clinton staffers, and used the information there to build false and misleading narratives about Hillary Clinton. And that they did this with the tacit approval and encouragement of the Trump campaign.

We know that Michael Flynn talked to Russian diplomats before the inauguration to assure them that the sanctions put in place by the Obama administration would be lifted when the new administration took office. We also know that there are still three separate investigations ongoing, looking into contacts between Trump campaign staff and Russian Intelligence.

So that is what the MSM means when it says "Russia Hacked the Election."
Although I am not sure if you will find those words anywhere in the MSM.

[Greyfox]

What was clear to everyone according to the report is that operatives from Russian Intelligence Services hacked into to computers at the DNC as well as computers used by various Clinton staffers, and used the information there to build false and misleading narratives about Hillary Clinton. And that they did this with the tacit approval and encouragement of the Trump campaign.


You've added significantly to the report and are reporting false information here.
The report says that Russian Intelligence Services were hacking.

It does NOT SAY:
"and used the information there to build false and misleading narratives about Hillary Clinton. "
Nor does it say that the Trump campaign gave it their tacit approval.

You sir, are promoting FAKE NEWS HERE! :mad:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I looked at the final sentence in your post, and I said "What is he talking about, I posted a reply last night." However, when I went back I did not find it. So, I will post it again. But before I do that, I will tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean that Russia hacked into the vote counting process and changed Clinton votes to Trump.

Here is a link to a Joint Analysis Report compiled by the FBI and the DHS.
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is mostly a technical report which details how the Russians hacked into the DNC and into members of Clinton's staff. I honestly don't understand that technical stuff-although I am sure some here will.

What was clear to everyone according to the report is that operatives from Russian Intelligence Services hacked into to computers at the DNC as well as computers used by various Clinton staffers, and used the information there to build false and misleading narratives about Hillary Clinton. And that they did this with the tacit approval and encouragement of the Trump campaign.

We know that Michael Flynn talked to Russian diplomats before the inauguration to assure them that the sanctions put in place by the Obama administration would be lifted when the new administration took office. We also know that there are still three separate investigations ongoing, looking into contacts between Trump campaign staff and Russian Intelligence.

So that is what the MSM means when it says "Russia Hacked the Election."
Although I am not sure if you will find those words anywhere in the MSM.

boxcar was referring to me when he said resident Einstein.

Of course the fake news phonies still haven't come up with just one story from the NY Times that was fake in accordance with the definition that fake meant a story they knew was a lie but printed as true.

Speaking of fake news, I'd offer this headline:

God Creates Universe in a Week
Caps Astonishing Feat by Creating All Animals in a Day

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Speaking of fake news, I'd offer this headline:

God Creates Universe in a Week
Caps Astonishing Feat by Creating All Animals in a Day

But Screws It All Up By Creating The Dishonest Press

[boxcar]

I looked at the final sentence in your post, and I said "What is he talking about, I posted a reply last night." However, when I went back I did not find it. So, I will post it again. But before I do that, I will tell you what it does not mean. It does not mean that Russia hacked into the vote counting process and changed Clinton votes to Trump.

Here is a link to a Joint Analysis Report compiled by the FBI and the DHS.
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is mostly a technical report which details how the Russians hacked into the DNC and into members of Clinton's staff. I honestly don't understand that technical stuff-although I am sure some here will.

What was clear to everyone according to the report is that operatives from Russian Intelligence Services hacked into to computers at the DNC as well as computers used by various Clinton staffers, and used the information there to build false and misleading narratives about Hillary Clinton. And that they did this with the tacit approval and encouragement of the Trump campaign.

We know that Michael Flynn talked to Russian diplomats before the inauguration to assure them that the sanctions put in place by the Obama administration would be lifted when the new administration took office. We also know that there are still three separate investigations ongoing, looking into contacts between Trump campaign staff and Russian Intelligence.

So that is what the MSM means when it says "Russia Hacked the Election."
Although I am not sure if you will find those words anywhere in the MSM.

Oh, goodie, we have a lefty player. Brave soul.. ;)

So...the real hacking -- the true headline should have read that someone (maybe Russia, maybe not) hacked into the DNC computers. No one hacked the election per se. In fact, the MSM changed the definition of the word "hacked" in order to deliberately mislead the public -- most especially the low-information people, of which there are plenty out there (most of them liberals :lol::lol: ). In my trusty M-W Collegiate dictionary, the 4th definition of "hack" reads: a: to write computer programs for enjoyment b: to gain access to a computer illegally. But we all know that Russia or whoever did not hack into electronic voting machines. In fact, we know this because Hillary won the popular vote. And, of course, it's not possible for anyone to hack the electoral college, is it? So...no one hacked the election.

We all know that DNC computers were hacked. And so what the MSM (as willing accomplices of lying Democrat politicians) want to instill into people's minds is the idea that because the DNC computers were, this hacking influenced the outcome of the election. Now...if the MSM wants to do that -- fine! But the more honorable and honest way of writing the story would be to use the term "hack" properly and theorize or hypothesize that this hacking may have influenced the outcome of the election. And the operative term here is "may".

Or another honest way of writing the story (or reporting it over the airwaves) is that the hack of the DNC 'puters was an attempt to sabotage the election.

Understand this: There is no way that anyone can prove that the hacking of the DNC computers influenced the outcome of the election; and if it did, to what degree it did. But once the public is constantly bombarded with the Russians hacked into election narrative, the conveys the idea that the Russians successfully altered the outcome of the election -- because, after all, it was the ELECTION itself that was hacked, not the DNC computers. Forget how the story reads. Forget that the story does reports that DNC computers were hacked -- but the big headline is not the DNC computers but the election. The slight of hand here is very obvious. The headline doesn't match the storyline of hacked DNC computers -- which is what were really hacked.

Another advantage to misleading the public with this kind of headline narrative is that it takes the public's mind off the hacked emails! The public is not at all concerned about the contents of those emails or the fact that the contents have never been denied by Clinton or the DNC.

So, the bottom line is that the headline narrative of Russians hacked the election is patently false. It's fake news!

Here is an excerpt from Newsweek on this subject -- not hardly a conservative publication:

This was basically a massive propaganda campaign to influence public opinion in favor of Trump and against Clinton.

To put it in simpler terms, no one stuffed any ballot boxes here, but someone did do the equivalent of breaking into campaign offices and rifling through their confidential files and paperwork, stealing information and files that could be portrayed as damaging, and then selectively leaking that information. It’s just that all those files and paperwork are now kept on computers, which can be broken into remotely.

This did not falsify the election results. It may have influenced how people voted, but the degree to which it may have done this is unknown and unknowable. It was not election fraud in the sense that Trump warned about all year. He was saying lots of people would vote illegally, or vote two or three or four times each, to make sure Clinton got more votes than he did. This did not happen, and was never likely to happen because there are already extensive safeguards against it.

http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-how-was-russia-involved-election-539180

[Tom]

You sir, are promoting FAKE NEWS HERE!

That is what he does.
What was released about hte DNC and hillary was the TRUTH.
Nothing more, nothing embellished, the cold, hard truth.
She is a pig, the rest of them snakes and liars.
The voters found out and rejected them all.

That is the bottom line.
The worst enemy of the left is the truth.

No matter what mostie tries to tell you.

[davew]

You've added significantly to the report and are reporting false information here.
The report says that Russian Intelligence Services were hacking.

It does NOT SAY:
"and used the information there to build false and misleading narratives about Hillary Clinton. "
Nor does it say that the Trump campaign gave it their tacit approval.

You sir, are promoting FAKE NEWS HERE! :mad:

The GRIZZLY STEPPE report doesn't even do that. It suggests the activity is consistent to that seen before from APT29 and APT28, a couple of groups thought to originate in Russia.

Of course if you are a blind follower of the democrat faith, and your leaders tell you so, you believe and spread the lies.

[boxcar]

boxcar was referring to me when he said resident Einstein.

Wow! I'm almost impressed by your "brilliant" deduction, Sherlock.

Of course the fake news phonies still haven't come up with just one story from the NY Times that was fake in accordance with the definition that fake meant a story they knew was a lie but printed as true.

Will someone please kick, pinch or bite our wondrous scholar out of his self-induced stupor!?

FAKE NEWS: New York Times Caught MAKING-UP False Quote From Trump’s CPAC Speech

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/fake-news-new-york-times-caught-making-false-quote-trumps-cpac-speech/

Our resident scholar needs more education on how to get his big mouth to follow his smaller brain, instead of the other way around, especially in this day and age of the internet.

[tucker6]

boxcar was referring to me when he said resident Einstein.



Talk about fake news!! :lol:

[mostpost]

Oh, goodie, we have a lefty player. Brave soul.. ;)

So...the real hacking -- the true headline should have read that someone (maybe Russia, maybe not) hacked into the DNC computers. No one hacked the election per se. In fact, the MSM changed the definition of the word "hacked" in order to deliberately mislead the public -- most especially the low-information people, of which there are plenty out there (most of them liberals :lol::lol: ). In my trusty M-W Collegiate dictionary, the 4th definition of "hack" reads: a: to write computer programs for enjoyment b: to gain access to a computer illegally. But we all know that Russia or whoever did not hack into electronic voting machines. In fact, we know this because Hillary won the popular vote. And, of course, it's not possible for anyone to hack the electoral college, is it? So...no one hacked the election.

We all know that DNC computers were hacked. And so what the MSM (as willing accomplices of lying Democrat politicians) want to instill into people's minds is the idea that because the DNC computers were, this hacking influenced the outcome of the election. Now...if the MSM wants to do that -- fine! But the more honorable and honest way of writing the story would be to use the term "hack" properly and theorize or hypothesize that this hacking may have influenced the outcome of the election. And the operative term here is "may".

Or another honest way of writing the story (or reporting it over the airwaves) is that the hack of the DNC 'puters was an attempt to sabotage the election.

Understand this: There is no way that anyone can prove that the hacking of the DNC computers influenced the outcome of the election; and if it did, to what degree it did. But once the public is constantly bombarded with the Russians hacked into election narrative, the conveys the idea that the Russians successfully altered the outcome of the election -- because, after all, it was the ELECTION itself that was hacked, not the DNC computers. Forget how the story reads. Forget that the story does reports that DNC computers were hacked -- but the big headline is not the DNC computers but the election. The slight of hand here is very obvious. The headline doesn't match the storyline of hacked DNC computers -- which is what were really hacked.

Another advantage to misleading the public with this kind of headline narrative is that it takes the public's mind off the hacked emails! The public is not at all concerned about the contents of those emails or the fact that the contents have never been denied by Clinton or the DNC.

So, the bottom line is that the headline narrative of Russians hacked the election is patently false. It's fake news!

Here is an excerpt from Newsweek on this subject -- not hardly a conservative publication:

This was basically a massive propaganda campaign to influence public opinion in favor of Trump and against Clinton.

To put it in simpler terms, no one stuffed any ballot boxes here, but someone did do the equivalent of breaking into campaign offices and rifling through their confidential files and paperwork, stealing information and files that could be portrayed as damaging, and then selectively leaking that information. It’s just that all those files and paperwork are now kept on computers, which can be broken into remotely.

This did not falsify the election results. It may have influenced how people voted, but the degree to which it may have done this is unknown and unknowable. It was not election fraud in the sense that Trump warned about all year. He was saying lots of people would vote illegally, or vote two or three or four times each, to make sure Clinton got more votes than he did. This did not happen, and was never likely to happen because there are already extensive safeguards against it.

http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-how-was-russia-involved-election-539180
maybe Russia, maybe not. Not "Maybe Russia; definitely Russia. The very first paragraph of the JAR states: This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election.

At the top of page two it states: The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016. (APT29 is a group of hackers run by the FSB-Federal Security Services. APT28 is a group of hackers run by the GRU-Russian Military Security.)
I will respond to your Newsweek link in another post.


Figure

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Talk about fake news!! :lol:
I could be as smart as you. Of course I'd have to lose 70 IQ points first.

[ReplayRandall]

I could be as smart as you. Of course I'd have to lose 70 pounds first.

FTFY...;)

[mostpost]

This was basically a massive propaganda campaign to influence public opinion in favor of Trump and against Clinton.

To put it in simpler terms, no one stuffed any ballot boxes here, but someone did do the equivalent of breaking into campaign offices and rifling through their confidential files and paperwork, stealing information and files that could be portrayed as damaging, and then selectively leaking that information. It’s just that all those files and paperwork are now kept on computers, which can be broken into remotely.

This did not falsify the election results. It may have influenced how people voted, but the degree to which it may have done this is unknown and unknowable. It was not election fraud in the sense that Trump warned about all year. He was saying lots of people would vote illegally, or vote two or three or four times each, to make sure Clinton got more votes than he did. This did not happen, and was never likely to happen because there are already extensive safeguards against it.

This is all about semantics. You choose to concentrate on one aspect of the phrase "Hacked the Election" because that one aspect fuels your narrative. No one really thinks that Russia stuffed any ballot boxes electronically, but it is clear that they tried to influence how people thought and voted.

It does not matter if they succeeded; or how well they succeeded. The attempt itself is illegal.

[ReplayRandall]

This is all about semantics. You choose to concentrate on one aspect of the phrase "Hacked the Election" because that one aspect fuels your narrative. No one really thinks that Russia stuffed any ballot boxes electronically, but it is clear that they tried to influence how people thought and voted.

It does not matter if they succeeded; or how well they succeeded. The attempt itself is illegal.

The Fake frickin' "news" outlets in this country have been doing the same damn thing every single day for DECADES......Yes, what outstanding unbiased news journalism we have here in the good 'ol USA.....And yet somehow, someway, with the unbelievable persuasion of Vodka guzzling Putin, and against all odds, Trump was boosted to victory??...:rolleyes::puke:

[NJ Stinks]

You can tell us lefties all day how dumb we are but we ain't askin' to look at Donny's college grades, are we? :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

maybe Russia, maybe not. Not "Maybe Russia; definitely Russia. The very first paragraph of the JAR states: This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election.

At the top of page two it states: The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016. (APT29 is a group of hackers run by the FSB-Federal Security Services. APT28 is a group of hackers run by the GRU-Russian Military Security.)
I will respond to your Newsweek link in another post.


Figure

Big deal! Who hacked into the DNC is not central to my thesis that the MSM narrative of "Russians hacked the election" is fake news!

And I thought you libs didn't trust intelligence agencies? Remember Iraq and the "weapons of mass destruction"? (Oh wait...you didn't trust them under the Bush Admin but all the leftover political hacks of the Obama administration, that's a different story.) Maybe someone was smart enough to frame the Ruskies. Or maybe not. Assange, the hacktivist extraordinaire, swears to this day the Ruskies didn't do it.

And don't waste your time dissecting the Newsweek article. My thesis didn't rest on that either. It doesn't have to. My thesis is that the headline/talking point narrative of the "Russians hacked the election" doesn't match with the more accurate storyline which is the hacking was done into DNC computers. Nor does it change the secondary point to my theses that the MSM changed the definition of "hack" in order to run with the false headline narrative. After all, it's wasn't electronic voting machines that were hacked into. The election was no more hacked [into] than the Superbowl was. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

This is all about semantics. You choose to concentrate on one aspect of the phrase "Hacked the Election" because that one aspect fuels your narrative. No one really thinks that Russia stuffed any ballot boxes electronically, but it is clear that they tried to influence how people thought and voted.

It does not matter if they succeeded; or how well they succeeded. The attempt itself is illegal.

No, this goes way beyond semantics! The headline narrative was constantly employed to dupe the low-information masses -- and believe me, there are plenty of low-info types out there. And in addition to this (and as pointed out previously), this kind of headline narrative provides the impetus behind the Trump impeachment movement. It's a very important Democratic Party talking point! This kind of narrative is meant to convey the idea that Trump is an illegitimate president -- because the "Russians hacked the election" -- and Trump would not have won without help from "sworn enemies of the U.S.A. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

There would have been far more honest ways to report the hacking -- and it could have started with having the headline narrative match the storyline narrative.

[boxcar]

You can tell us lefties all day how dumb we are but we ain't askin' to look at Donny's college grades, are we? :rolleyes:

No, because he's a very successful multi-billionaire businessman. Obama, on the other hand....a punk community organizer. Oh yeah...and less than 3 years in the U.S. senate. Some resume... :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

This is all about semantics. You choose to concentrate on one aspect of the phrase "Hacked the Election" because that one aspect fuels your narrative. No one really thinks that Russia stuffed any ballot boxes electronically, but it is clear that they tried to influence how people thought and voted.

It does not matter if they succeeded; or how well they succeeded. The attempt itself is illegal.

But the illegality is not the main talking point of the Dems. What the Dem Party wants us to believe is that because "Russians hacked the election", this makes Trump an illegitimate president. This is what this kind of headline narrative is all about.

[Clocker]

I could be as smart as you. Of course I'd have to lose 70 IQ points first.

I can eat 70 eggs. :p

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Amazing how the right wing has a great sense of humor if liberals are the target. Not so much when the shoe is on the other foot.

[PaceAdvantage]

both sides need to get a grip...and stop trying to rip each other and the rest of the country to shreds

[davew]

Amazing how the right wing has a great sense of humor if liberals are the target. Not so much when the shoe is on the other foot.


All that crap you are saying is just a joke?

[ReplayRandall]

Amazing how the right wing has a great sense of humor if liberals are the target. Not so much when the shoe is on the other foot.

For someone who claims he is "center-left" Rich, you're becoming very distant from this "center right" independent with the content of your posts lately. I fear you're being lulled/pulled to the extreme left and have a case of ideological vertigo....

[NJ Stinks]

both sides need to get a grip...and stop trying to rip each other and the rest of the country to shreds

Where was this sentiment 6 years ago....3 years ago.... :coffee:

[MutuelClerk]

both sides need to get a grip...and stop trying to rip each other and the rest of the country to shreds

Both sides never will. That's why both sides need to go. Sadly it's become party before country. That's the real problem with fake news. The divide. If it's not your side reporting, it's fake. Or it's ok because the other side did it previously. There are very few Americans left in our country. Republicans and Democrats aren't elephants and donkeys they are sheep. They are the pilots flying us into the towers. Our government crumbles every freaking day. Blue and red are the reason why.

[ReplayRandall]

Both sides never will. That's why both sides need to go. Sadly it's become party before country. That's the real problem with fake news. The divide. If it's not your side reporting, it's fake. Or it's ok because the other side did it previously. There are very few Americans left in our country. Republicans and Democrats aren't elephants and donkeys they are sheep. They are the pilots flying us into the towers. Our government crumbles every freaking day. Blue and red are the reason why.

I appreciate the straight forwardness in your post, the dialog has gotten quite toxic lately. I believe there's only one answer, but I don't believe our society knows how to express real love to one another anymore, the chasm between both sides seems almost unbridgeable......"Almost" means there's still hope, but who will step forward and unify us all?

[Greyfox]

There would have been far more honest ways to report the hacking -- and it could have started with having the headline narrative match the storyline narrative.
,
That bears repeating! :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

."Almost" means there's still hope, but who will step forward and unify us all?

At this point?
An attack flom Martians maybe?
America has to give Trump and his Administration a chance, like it or lump it.
To date, that has not been the case in some quarters.

[PaceAdvantage]

Where was this sentiment 6 years ago....3 years ago.... :coffee:It's never been as bad as it is now.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

For someone who claims he is "center-left" Rich, you're becoming very distant from this "center right" independent with the content of your posts lately. I fear you're being lulled/pulled to the extreme left and have a case of ideological vertigo....

Most of this thread has had little to do with political position. I'd be interested in hearing what positions I've taken that marks me as part of the far left. If I can't defend my position by being intellectually honest, you've got me. Other than correcting the guy with the gorilla avatar regarding how hate and hater are just the nominative and predicate version of the same exact thing, and taking all kinds of crap for being smart enough to point that out, I haven't been particularly political in this thread. I did challenge all the people who claim the NY Times is fake news to cite one story that they printed as true knowing it was a lie. Perhaps you think the whole fake news thing is real, but I think it is a clever way of preemptively discrediting any criticism the media might lay on Trump. At the risk of taking more shit, for 20 years I read the NY Times (and the Wall Street Journal) every day, and while they were both biased, I thought as news sources they were anything but fake. If fake means they push an editorial position, then every newspaper, magazine and television station is fake, and that would be a ridiculous position. I would put either publication up against any news source in the world and be thankful America has those kinds of publications. But again, I don't think my opinion they are not fake news is a leftist opinion, unless you mean almost everyone who thinks they are fake is so far to the right everybody with a different opinion must be left.

I've said I thought Trump's wall was a bad idea, but because I think it is a waste of money that we really don't have and that it isn't going to work anyway. It strikes me as more symbolic than anything, and it doesn't mean just let all those Mexicans in. Sort of like the Washington Monument. Generally useless for anything other than pointing out every country needs a national phallic symbol. If someone on the left is against the wall for some lefty reason, it isn't fair to lump me in with them.

I've said, pretty much to no avail, we need immigration reform, including a secure border. No, I don't agree that we can't vet refugees who happen to be Muslim, but I don't favor Muslims over Christians and the last thing I would advocate for are open borders. The problem is that if you can only think in extremes, it's hard to recognize the middle position.

Fiscally I've advocated for essentially a zero based approach. I disagree that you can only fix the revenue side (the Republican idea of tax cuts) or the spending side (usually tagging the Democrats for advocating runaway spending) by tackling them separately and at different times. I think we all deserve only the government we are willing to pay for. I think politicians have abdicated their responsibilities when it comes to fixing entitlement programs. I've clearly said I tend to be more left on environmental and social issues, more right on fiscal issues. I clearly said I didn't have much use for Hillary. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can oppose clean air or clean water. I've always believed those kind of resources belong to all of us equally, and that business and industry only have the right to use them if they are granted the right by the people. I think that is a pretty righteous position and it is one of the things that makes America better than some of the shitholes around the world.

For 20 years I worked for politicians, more Republicans than Democrats. I wrote speeches, letters, position papers for both and got plenty of appreciation from both. That's a long time to to fool the world. I'm sure that will stimulate somebody to be derisive toward me.

I've learned people see what they want to see, and coming upon the truth sometimes can be accidental.

[PaceAdvantage]

I did challenge all the people who claim the NY Times is fake news to cite one story that they printed as true knowing it was a lie.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

[newtothegame]

The empathy is toward the less fortunate, most of whom liberals believe got there through circumstance, oppression, Republican policies - certainly nothing they did. Should be pretty clear I have no empathy for you since I'm sure wherever you are is entirely of your own doing.

No, I admitted I don't see Trump's PROGRAMS in a positive light. For those of us with the ability, there is a clear difference between disliking a person and disliking his policies. I've heard in person Trump can be charming, so there's even a chance I might like the guy if we went golfing. What is exasperating is that according to the great conservative minds, anyone who criticizes Trump's programs must be a hater.

I've also said I would call myself center left. That generally means on fiscal issues I would trend conservative, on social issues I would trend liberal. A lot of my opposition to the wall is that besides the fact I believe it will make little difference, it is a colossal waste of money. If you are a fiscal conservative, you believe you have to stop spending money on frivolous projects. God himself couldn't cut taxes, seriously increase spending and balance the budget.

You could see pointing out the torture of the language as playing the "I'm smarter and better than you" card. Regardless of how smart you are, trying to suggest that hating is somehow separated from hater is simply wrong. You can hate without being a hater has to be one of the most illogical things I've ever heard here, and believe me that is a pretty big accomplishment.

People like you complain when it degenerates into name calling. I think making fun of someone for being educated or intelligent is one of the standard tools in the conservative toolbox. If someone says, I'm qualified to critique statements like, hate and hater can be two different things, the first thing you want to do is discredit the person for being qualified. Imagine if someone here said, I was a cop for 30 years, or a plumber all my life and that makes me qualified to comment on public safety or water pipes. You wouldn't respond with "O great one" but someone says they are qualified to comment on misuse of english, and they are arrogant and demeaning. I simply chalk it up to small people acting small. If you said, even though I've never been a cop, I know more than the 30 year veteran, people here would call you a fool.

Frankly, I don't care what your credentials are. I've chosen to be transparent here, most of the other people have chosen to stay anonymous. It often gives them great courage to be attack dogs.

"The empathy is toward the less fortunate, most of whom liberals believe got there through circumstance, oppression, Republican policies - certainly nothing they did"......
You talk about an overlying theme about how things are perceived. Here is a prime example of it. You readily admit you're liberal. So lets look at what once was one of America's brightest cities. Detroit. When was the last republican leadership over that city? I mean of we are going to say its republican policies which has gotten the less fortunate there....please show me the republicans and their policies in that city. The list can go on and on....
Most large cities, are run by Democrats and that is where we find the most plight and accordingly, the most crime. Need more proof? Chicago and Illinois.
Now this is not to say that republican controlled areas do not have "less fortunate". The point is that its not one sided as libs 'perceive", And ive already told you I have no problem calling out republicans or conservatives, Most of the southern states are Republican controlled and they are not the richest states either....:bang:

As to the "hater" versus "hate" thing, this will be my last comment on it. If you don't see my position or the difference I am explaining....too bad.
I sing when my favorite song comes on the radio (knowing damn good and well I most likely sound like chit). I am NOT a singer, although I sing.
I operate machinery at times while at work when an "operator" in unavailable for whatever reason. Yet, I am not an 'operator".
You see there Halves, just because one does the adjective form of a word once in a while does not make a person the noun form always.
Now I am sure you will come back and say "in that moment" you are .....(fill in the blank).

As to you saying people are being critical of your education, YOU put it out there!!!! If you're going to claim something, as I said, then OWN IT. No one would be able to be critical if you didn't have the need to say it. You know its like Trump saying how this is going to be "huge", and its the "best", the "greatest" etc etc and now there are skits and memes about it all over the internet (which I find most of them rather funny myself). I don't discredit your intellect (whatever it may be). I find it funny you felt the need to put it out there as if somehow that makes you more or less qualified to speak on any given topic. You have the right, as do all of us, to state an opinion. We bring facts, fake news, whatever to the argument to attempt to prove our points. However, just because you wrote some hundred or so publications, means very little to my household or my thought process. However, if you bring facts that I can validate, I am willing to listen and debate the merits of those "facts". Point here is I really could care less who you think you are and how that would somehow play into the debate of any certain topic. My point here is this......No ones credentials mean much behind a computer unless it has been substantiated and its relates to said given topic. For example, Ralph has a long history in law enforcement. Many people here, myself included, have asked for his opinions on related topics.
ANDY is in taxes and CPA and accounting. So, topics related to such, we have regularly asked for his input.
The opposite could be said for someone like MOSTY, who is a known postal worker (retired) yet consistently has come on here to correct peoples grammar and misspellings. He always talks about how he "knows" what a person is "thinking" or "meant" to say versus what is said. OF COURSE THEY GUY WILL CATCH CRAP for that behavior as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. See where I am going? I am sure you are an intelligent person. That can be seen in your post. Yet, that has NOTHING to do with the content of the post.
Anyway, sir/ma'am, I have attempted to explain my position on my past post regarding you. I wont go on as it seems pointless past this point.
We can debate and disagree...that's what makes this country so great.
Have a good day!

[boxcar]

Hell, if I am not mistaken, that bimbo on Morning Joe the other day even proclaimed that it was the medias responsibility to tell people what to think!!! It couldn't of been more clearer what she was saying (even if she slipped up).

You are not mistaken. Rush played that segment of that airhead's rant on one of his shows last week! This is precisely the problem! The elite, educated, all-knowing, all-wise MSM feel it has a moral duty to shape and form the uneducated masses' opinions. And I gave a great example of this with the "Russians hacked the election" narrative. After all, if the Russians were successful in hacking into computers then this must mean they were equally successful in hacking [into] the election, i.e. altering the outcome thereof. And if the Russians were successful in this, then how in the world can Trump be a legitimate president? It is is these kinds of thoughts and ideas that the MSM want to plant firmly into as many listeners' or readers' minds as possible.

[boxcar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

You should at least tell him that I did that very thing last night -- took me every bit of two minutes, too. I know our resident Einstein won't read my post but at least you'll tick him off by telling him that I met his challenge with a very recent example, to boot. :D

[HalvOnHorseracing]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

That doesn't quite fit the definition of publishing as true something you knew to be a lie. When they printed it they believed it was true because they were misled by the author. He had fake notes and interviews, and his editor was fooled. You can argue that the editor did a poor job, but there wasn't a point where the editor said, yeah, this story is BS but it's so good let's publish it anyway. And when they determined it was not true they investigated, fired the reporter and admitted they dropped the ball.

[boxcar]

It's never been as bad as it is now.

Did NJ just admit that conservatives were more civil during the Obama years? :eek:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

For someone who claims he is "center-left" Rich, you're becoming very distant from this "center right" independent with the content of your posts lately. I fear you're being lulled/pulled to the extreme left and have a case of ideological vertigo....

Take immigration. Far right would be nobody should get in. Far left would be the borders should be open. Center left might be immigrants should be allowed in only after proper vetting, including Muslims. Center right might be immigrants should be only allowed in after proper vetting, not including Muslims.

My point is that it is hard for people on either end to see the middle. On this issue I would be center left.

For what it is worth, for those who think I am completely anti-Trump, I'm actually very much in favor of Trump's infrastructure improvement plan. From the center right, I have concerns about where the money comes from. Just growing the debt to pay for it isn't my first choice. However, from a selfish standpoint, I might make a lot of money from the financing of those projects.

[PaceAdvantage]

Take immigration. Far right would be nobody should get in.Really? No immigration period?

Oh wait...wouldn't far-right folks want to bring in plenty of pure-bred, white Europeans? :rolleyes:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Really? No immigration period?

Oh wait...wouldn't far-right folks want to bring in plenty of pure-bred, white Europeans? :rolleyes:

Tough to make a point here.

You define what the far right thinks then. Everybody in and nobody in are the two end points of the continuum. I've certainly heard here that no Muslim should be let in because you can't trust a one of them not to turn out terrorist. I've certainly heard about keeping Mexicans out. I've heard hate groups who are totally anti-immigration. But I'll concede that since I don't spend any time consorting with the far right, my perspective may be lacking. Go ahead and give me the correct end point of the continuum.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tough to make a point here.

You define what the far right thinks then. Everybody in and nobody in are the two end points of the continuum. I've certainly heard here that no Muslim should be let in because you can't trust a one of them not to turn out terrorist. I've certainly heard about keeping Mexicans out. I've heard hate groups who are totally anti-immigration. But I'll concede that since I don't spend any time consorting with the far right, my perspective may be lacking. Go ahead and give me the correct end point of the continuum.You're a clever one. You took my obvious sarcasm and turned it against me, implying I frequent far-right websites or hate groups and would know the ins and outs of their thinking.

You score 1 point for today. Bravo.

BTW, you've "heard here" someone say that NO MUSLIMS should be let in...really? Now that the search engine on this site doesn't crash and burn like it used to, this should be pretty easy to verify. I have my doubts as to this claim.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
BTW, you've "heard here" someone say that NO MUSLIMS should be let in...really? Now that the search engine on this site doesn't crash and burn like it used to, this should be pretty easy to verify. I have my doubts as to this claim.

You are probably right that nobody has said exactly that. But, I also believe that there are at least a few posters here that believe exactly that based upon what they have said over and over about Islam and Muslims in general.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

BTW, you've "heard here" someone say that NO MUSLIMS should be let in...really? Now that the search engine on this site doesn't crash and burn like it used to, this should be pretty easy to verify. I have my doubts as to this claim.

I'm sure I've had a posting battle with some of the more passionate anti-Muslim folks here who believe we need to keep all Muslims out. I'd be surprised if you didn't find evidence of that.

[woodtoo]

Who is the Muslim leading the cause of the peaceful Muslims? Anyone?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Who is the Muslim leading the cause of the peaceful Muslims? Anyone?

On the other hand, who is leading the cause of peaceful Christians if not the hundreds of millions of Christians who are peaceful? There are eight million Muslims living peacefully in America. Are they not all leading the cause of peaceful Muslims?

Muslims have had recent Nobel PEACE Prize winners.

Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Muta Maathai, Mohamed Mustafa ElBaradei, Tawakkul Karman, and Malala Yousafzai have all won the Nobel Prize since 2000.

To save someone the trouble, no I don't favor Muslims over Christians or think we should fling the borders open to Muslims. I just take the CENTER position that not all Muslims are barbaric head chopping, women abusers.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Muslims have had recent Nobel PEACE Prize winners.

Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Muta Maathai, Mohamed Mustafa ElBaradei, Tawakkul Karman, and Malala Yousafzai have all won the Nobel Prize since 2000.

...

Geeez, you forgot Obama.

Sorry, couldn't resist beating Tom to the punch.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Geeez, you forgot Obama.

Sorry, couldn't resist beating Tom to the punch.

Believe it or not that got a laugh

[woodtoo]

On the other hand, who is leading the cause of peaceful Christians if not the hundreds of millions of Christians who are peaceful? There are eight million Muslims living peacefully in America. Are they not all leading the cause of peaceful Muslims?

Muslims have had recent Nobel PEACE Prize winners.

Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Muta Maathai, Mohamed Mustafa ElBaradei, Tawakkul Karman, and Malala Yousafzai have all won the Nobel Prize since 2000.

To save someone the trouble, no I don't favor Muslims over Christians or think we should fling the borders open to Muslims. I just take the CENTER position that not all Muslims are barbaric head chopping, women abusers.

Any or all those you mention should pick up the ball and
be a voice for peaceful Muslims, a REAL leader is needed for Muslims.
Similar to MLK and the human rights movement or exactly like that.

Right now it is the beheaders leading the way.
In my opinion this is a must do situation, they need a peace movement not a pieces movement.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Any or all those you mention should pick up the ball and
be a voice for peaceful Muslims, a REAL leader is needed for Muslims.
Similar to MLK and the human rights movement or exactly like that.

Right now it is the beheaders leading the way.
In my opinion this is a must do situation, they need a peace movement not a pieces movement.

That's how they won the Prize in the first place.

Remember Malala Yousafzai? She was the school girl the Taliban tried to assassinate. She's been very outspoken.

However, I know what you are saying. There should be more obvious Muslim leaders who are denouncing the beheaders. I agree that until the majority of Muslims make it clear that ISIS or the Taliban must be eradicated it is hard to blindly accept the sincerity of the ones who are silent.

[woodtoo]

Ali Hirsi is another fine spokesperson against the evils of Islam, unfortunately
Islam has a big problem with woman who do not submit, as you well know.

So it probably must be a man, I do hope someone fills those shoes. And soon.

[Tom]

Geeez, you forgot Obama.

Sorry, couldn't resist beating Tom to the punch.

:rant:

OK, regroup.
Did you guys see what happened at the OScars last night?

RUSSIANS switched envelops and tries to hack the Picture of the Year voting.

[boxcar]

Cool, heh? The Russians Hacked the Oscars! :cool::ThmbUp:

[Fager Fan]

Any or all those you mention should pick up the ball and
be a voice for peaceful Muslims, a REAL leader is needed for Muslims.
Similar to MLK and the human rights movement or exactly like that.

Right now it is the beheaders leading the way.
In my opinion this is a must do situation, they need a peace movement not a pieces movement.

They don't speak up for fear of repercussion .... from those within the peaceful religion.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not to change the subject but this gem was in my Yahoo! just now. Figured someone would enjoy attributing the article to any number of Democrat. Men.

[boxcar]

Not to change the subject but this gem was in my Yahoo! just now. Figured someone would enjoy attributing the article to any number of Democrat. Men.

What would possess the patient to think she was human to begin with? :D