With a name like Boris

[SportsFan68]

Yes, she's profiting very handsomely isn't she? She removed herself from the company when she became an advisor and the company was shut down because of all you haters. The trademarks were applied for in 2016 and 2017. And trump is sure giving quid pro quo with china for those trademarks, ain't he?
I don't think your batphone response holds much water.

You don't understand that Pinocchio is making money from those trademarks which aren't affected by the tariffs. He must have a Chinese partner who is also making money. Someone should look into who that is.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ks-beijing
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... t-interest
https://fortune.com/2019/01/21/ivanka-t ... rademarks/

You don't want to understand that the guy doesn't need more money. He would have had a very comfortable life without running for president. And he wouldn't have a loudmouth lunatic fringe mob calling him Hitler. Your notion he ran for president to enrich himself is as shallow as you are.
If there were any indication that they could make a whataboutism to trumps kids in response to biden's kid, don't you think cnn and mslsd would be hysterical about it?
What impresses me is how much each one of trump's kids is devoted to their father, even with his past exploits and the media's image of him. Even Ivanka, who seems to be a lot more liberal than he is. If he is such a monster, he must have done something right with his kids. With a fair press, their family would be held up as role models.

It's not clear if he needs more money. If he would release his tax returns, that would clarify it. I don't know about the comfortable life, and I disagree with the notion that those of us who think he's a terrible President are a loudmouth lunatic fringe mob.

Where we really disagree is that the notion he ran for President to enrich himself is shallow. I think it was the alpha and omega right from the start. For example, The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis describes Chris Christie's efforts to head up an effective transition team should Trump win: "The first time Donald Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. . . . Chris Christie had raised several million dollars to pay the [transition] staff. . . . Trump called Steve Bannon . . . to his residence. .. . Bannon stepped off the elevator to find the governor of New Jersey seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, actually yelling, You're stealing my money! You're stealing my fucking money! What the fuck is this?? Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed, Why are you letting him steal my fucking money? . . . Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money." Bannon eventually convinced Trump to leave the transition team in place because if he shut it down, it would appear that he was sure he was going to lose the election.

The transition that Christie and dozens of others had worked so hard on came to a screeching halt right after the election when Bannon fired them all. What happened to the unspent money that Christie had raised? The book doesn't say, but I bet it went straight into Trump's pocket, along with the ill-gotten gains of so many other schemes, most notably Maralago.

[flockofseagulls104]

You don't understand that Pinocchio is making money from those trademarks which aren't affected by the tariffs. He must have a Chinese partner who is also making money. Someone should look into who that is.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ks-beijing
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... t-interest
https://fortune.com/2019/01/21/ivanka-t ... rademarks/

You don't want to understand that the guy doesn't need more money. He would have had a very comfortable life without running for president. And he wouldn't have a loudmouth lunatic fringe mob calling him Hitler. Your notion he ran for president to enrich himself is as shallow as you are.
If there were any indication that they could make a whataboutism to trumps kids in response to biden's kid, don't you think cnn and mslsd would be hysterical about it?
What impresses me is how much each one of trump's kids is devoted to their father, even with his past exploits and the media's image of him. Even Ivanka, who seems to be a lot more liberal than he is. If he is such a monster, he must have done something right with his kids. With a fair press, their family would be held up as role models.

It's not clear if he needs more money. If he would release his tax returns, that would clarify it. I don't know about the comfortable life, and I disagree with the notion that those of us who think he's a terrible President are a loudmouth lunatic fringe mob.

Where we really disagree is that the notion he ran for President to enrich himself is shallow. I think it was the alpha and omega right from the start. For example, The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis describes Chris Christie's efforts to head up an effective transition team should Trump win: "The first time Donald Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. . . . Chris Christie had raised several million dollars to pay the [transition] staff. . . . Trump called Steve Bannon . . . to his residence. .. . Bannon stepped off the elevator to find the governor of New Jersey seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, actually yelling, You're stealing my money! You're stealing my fucking money! What the fuck is this?? Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed, Why are you letting him steal my fucking money? . . . Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money." Bannon eventually convinced Trump to leave the transition team in place because if he shut it down, it would appear that he was sure he was going to lose the election.

The transition that Christie and dozens of others had worked so hard on came to a screeching halt right after the election when Bannon fired them all. What happened to the unspent money that Christie had raised? The book doesn't say, but I bet it went straight into Trump's pocket, along with the ill-gotten gains of so many other schemes, most notably Maralago.

Of course. Now convince me that Michael Lewis is as truthful as Adam Schiff. Or Maxine Waters. Or CNN. Or Peter Strzok.
We've had 3 years of this. Remember what our own bobtel posted upon learning trump won. Multiply that by a few million. Just a few, but very loud people.

I watch what the president does, not what other people who have their own agendas say he did. If you have a blue dress, then I'll believe it. Even then with a grain of salt thrown in. Because the dems and msm have overplayed it at every turn. If he is as evil as they portray him, we, who are skeptical about everything, would know it by now. The ones who seem evil are the ones that present rumor as fact, opinions as truth and molehills as mountains.

If you can deal with a different perspective, maybe read one of the many books that document the abuses of the 'resistance'.

[silverscreenselect]

If he is as evil as they portray him, we, who are skeptical about everything, would know it by now.

No, you won't "know it by now," because even when he admits something as he has with the Ukrainian situation, you choose to ignore it. Your choose to ignore all his lies while branding everything else you don't like as fake news. Your lifeboat is getting smaller all the time. Pretty soon, it's going to be just you, Hannity, and Rudy Giuliani.

[silverscreenselect]

Heard from White House. Assuming President Z [Zelensky] convinces Trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016,” we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck.

That text was sent to a Zelensky aide prior to Trump's phone call. Read the texts that were released yesterday. They are filled with admissions by Trump officials that Zelensky was being pressured to reopen the investigation before Trump would even talk to him, let alone release the aid package.

And Volker was just the first witness in these proceedings.

[SportsFan68]

You don't want to understand that the guy doesn't need more money. He would have had a very comfortable life without running for president. And he wouldn't have a loudmouth lunatic fringe mob calling him Hitler. Your notion he ran for president to enrich himself is as shallow as you are.
If there were any indication that they could make a whataboutism to trumps kids in response to biden's kid, don't you think cnn and mslsd would be hysterical about it?
What impresses me is how much each one of trump's kids is devoted to their father, even with his past exploits and the media's image of him. Even Ivanka, who seems to be a lot more liberal than he is. If he is such a monster, he must have done something right with his kids. With a fair press, their family would be held up as role models.

It's not clear if he needs more money. If he would release his tax returns, that would clarify it. I don't know about the comfortable life, and I disagree with the notion that those of us who think he's a terrible President are a loudmouth lunatic fringe mob.

Where we really disagree is that the notion he ran for President to enrich himself is shallow. I think it was the alpha and omega right from the start. For example, The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis describes Chris Christie's efforts to head up an effective transition team should Trump win: "The first time Donald Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. . . . Chris Christie had raised several million dollars to pay the [transition] staff. . . . Trump called Steve Bannon . . . to his residence. .. . Bannon stepped off the elevator to find the governor of New Jersey seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, actually yelling, You're stealing my money! You're stealing my fucking money! What the fuck is this?? Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed, Why are you letting him steal my fucking money? . . . Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money." Bannon eventually convinced Trump to leave the transition team in place because if he shut it down, it would appear that he was sure he was going to lose the election.

The transition that Christie and dozens of others had worked so hard on came to a screeching halt right after the election when Bannon fired them all. What happened to the unspent money that Christie had raised? The book doesn't say, but I bet it went straight into Trump's pocket, along with the ill-gotten gains of so many other schemes, most notably Maralago.

Of course. Now convince me that Michael Lewis is as truthful as Adam Schiff. Or Maxine Waters. Or CNN. Or Peter Strzok.
We've had 3 years of this. Remember what our own bobtel posted upon learning trump won. Multiply that by a few million. Just a few, but very loud people.

I watch what the president does, not what other people who have their own agendas say he did. If you have a blue dress, then I'll believe it. Even then with a grain of salt thrown in. Because the dems and msm have overplayed it at every turn. If he is as evil as they portray him, we, who are skeptical about everything, would know it by now. The ones who seem evil are the ones that present rumor as fact, opinions as truth and molehills as mountains.

If you can deal with a different perspective, maybe read one of the many books that document the abuses of the 'resistance'.

I can't speak to the truthfulness of Schiff, Waters, CNN, or Strzok, so I can't compare them to Lewis. I might be willing to speak to CNN if I ever watched it, which I don't, but I'm guessing they're way up there on the truthfulness scale. I remain confident that Lewis is scrupulous in his truthfulness. I haven't read Liar's Poker, Moneyball, The Blind Side, The Big Short, or The Undoing Project. I have seen the movies that are based on Blind Side and Moneyball, and they're the sort of stories that if you put one toe over the line into fudging the truth, you get sued to the moon, and your publisher too.

I was very encouraged by the last line about documenting abuses of the "resistance." I took that as a tacit admission that you believe Trump is guilty of abuses.

[Bob78164]

Just remember, if you're okay with this, then you also have to be okay with Democratic candidates publicly calling on foreign governments (such as the European allies who loathe what Donny is trying to do to America) to investigate Donny's financial transactions in their country.

Maybe one of the Democrats will make that point. Publicly. Loudly. Without, of course, actually asking for such a thing. Because that would be improper. Oh, no. We can't do that. All we're doing is observing that if we were to ask one of these governments to take such an obvious step, the request would be improper. What those governments actually choose to do with their resources is their business. And how they predict their use of their resources will affect their relationship with the next Administration, that's their business as well, and we would never presume to suggest how that calculation should turn out. --Bob

That didn't take long.

I keep telling you, flock, I don't listen to the Batphone. I write it. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Just remember, if you're okay with this, then you also have to be okay with Democratic candidates publicly calling on foreign governments (such as the European allies who loathe what Donny is trying to do to America) to investigate Donny's financial transactions in their country.

Maybe one of the Democrats will make that point. Publicly. Loudly. Without, of course, actually asking for such a thing. Because that would be improper. Oh, no. We can't do that. All we're doing is observing that if we were to ask one of these governments to take such an obvious step, the request would be improper. What those governments actually choose to do with their resources is their business. And how they predict their use of their resources will affect their relationship with the next Administration, that's their business as well, and we would never presume to suggest how that calculation should turn out. --Bob

That didn't take long.

I keep telling you, flock, I don't listen to the Batphone. I write it. --Bob

I've heard snippets of the president's gracious allowance of the press to ask stupid questions. No where, ever, did he ask anyone to get 'dirt' on biden. That is canard made up by the dems and the msm. And it is bible to you. He wants to get to the bottom of what happened to him in 2016 so it won't happen to anyone else ever again. He wants to investigate Washington D.C. corruption. Not just by biden. By anyone.

Why is no one in the msm or dem party concerned or even willing to investigate the son of the vice president getting substantial amounts of money from ukraine and china with no expertise in the areas they are supposedly paying for? It's called the swamp. And it's not limited to your political party. There are swamp denizens on every side of the aisle in D.C.. That's why I was glad Chris Collins, or whomever he is, got caught. They protect their own. Many are guilty of using their positions to enrich their family and friends. Many have done worse things than biden. How do you think someone who is a lifelong public servant gets to be a millionaire? It's NOT their salary. But they have no problem raising their own salaries when no one's looking. They are terrified of trump, because he has no problem finding them and calling them out. That's why they go so far overboard on every little thing they can amplify against trump. It's pathetic.

[flockofseagulls104]

I can't speak to the truthfulness of Schiff, Waters, CNN, or Strzok, so I can't compare them to Lewis.

Why can't you? Did you hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call? I posted it here right after it happened, before any of the 'pundits' weighed in. Did that bear any resemblance to what actually was said on that phone call? How do you know Lewis is not right there with Schiff?

I was very encouraged by the last line about documenting abuses of the "resistance." I took that as a tacit admission that you believe Trump is guilty of abuses.

But I don't think you will deign to reading a book that explains an alternate perspective and really think about it, will you?. You've been instructed that the authors of those books are all liars, have you not?

[silverscreenselect]

Why can't you? Did you hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call?

Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates: ‘We've been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him, trust me. You know what I’m asking and so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.’

"This is, in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the president says here that is in America's interest after all."

That seems to me to sum up what the President said. Yes, he exaggerates the comparisons to gangster talk, but he says that is the essence of what Trump was trying to communicate. And that's pretty much been confirmed numerous times, most recently by those text messages that got released yesterday. Your anger shouldn't be directed at Schiff; it should be directed at Trump and his strong-arm helpers like Giuliani.

[flockofseagulls104]

Why can't you? Did you hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call?

Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates: ‘We've been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him, trust me. You know what I’m asking and so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.’

"This is, in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the president says here that is in America's interest after all."

That seems to me to sum up what the President said. Yes, he exaggerates the comparisons to gangster talk, but he says that is the essence of what Trump was trying to communicate. And that's pretty much been confirmed numerous times, most recently by those text messages that got released yesterday. Your anger shouldn't be directed at Schiff; it should be directed at Trump and his strong-arm helpers like Giuliani.

He said nothing even resembling this, except in your mind. That schiff said it, in his official capacity, is disgusting. But this is the kind of representatives they send us from california.

The text messages confirm nothing. Every suggestion that there's a quid pro quo going on is shot down. More making molehills into mountains.

Schiff's lunatic rant, I believe, will be the 'Deplorables' moment of this election. But wait, there's probably more to come.

[Bob78164]

Why can't you? Did you hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call?

Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates: ‘We've been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him, trust me. You know what I’m asking and so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.’

"This is, in sum and character, what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the president says here that is in America's interest after all."

That seems to me to sum up what the President said. Yes, he exaggerates the comparisons to gangster talk, but he says that is the essence of what Trump was trying to communicate. And that's pretty much been confirmed numerous times, most recently by those text messages that got released yesterday. Your anger shouldn't be directed at Schiff; it should be directed at Trump and his strong-arm helpers like Giuliani.

Rep. Schiff's description of Donny's phone call was a helluva lot more accurate than William Barr's summary of the Mueller Report. The Republicans are just pissed that the Democrats finally have someone out front who knows how to win a PR battle. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

He said nothing even resembling this, except in your mind.

In my mind, Schiff's mind, and the mind of the overwhelming majority of those who have heard it with the exception of the handful like you who are hopelessly in the tank for Trump.

[Bob78164]

And now we understand why the whistleblower was concerned that his initial attempt to set things right was being quashed. The CIA's general counsel (whom Donny appointed to the post) made a criminal referral to the Justice Department. The Justice Department did nothing. No investigation. Nothing.

Now that this is public we can expect any day now an announcement that Ms. Elwood has decided to leave her position to spend more time with her family. --Bob

[SportsFan68]

I can't speak to the truthfulness of Schiff, Waters, CNN, or Strzok, so I can't compare them to Lewis.

Why can't you? Did you hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call? I posted it here right after it happened, before any of the 'pundits' weighed in. Did that bear any resemblance to what actually was said on that phone call? How do you know Lewis is not right there with Schiff?

I was very encouraged by the last line about documenting abuses of the "resistance." I took that as a tacit admission that you believe Trump is guilty of abuses.

But I don't think you will deign to reading a book that explains an alternate perspective and really think about it, will you?. You've been instructed that the authors of those books are all liars, have you not?

I did not hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call, nor did I read it right here after it happened, before any of the pundits weighed in. So I can't answer your question, "Did that bear any resemblance to what actually was said on that phone call?"

Lewis is neither a politician nor a pundit. He is a highly-regarded nonfiction author. I don't know what "right there with Schiff" means, but I'm sure that it's not the case.

I don't deign to read anything. I'll read anything that sounds interesting, just about anything by Stephen King (not Pet Sematary or Cujo, though), whatever my book club is reading, and (finally) the last book in the Earth's Children series (right now). Please recommend a book that explains an alternate perspective so I can read it and really think about it. I have not been instructed that the authors of those books are all liars, but I appreciate your warning that it is possible. I am happy to recommend The Fifth Risk to you.

[silverscreenselect]

Every suggestion that there's a quid pro quo going on is shot down.

Well, here's a bit more confirmation. Of course, it comes from a very untrustworthy liberal source.

Senator Ron Johnson says he was blocked by Trump from telling Ukraine foreign aid was coming

[flockofseagulls104]

I can't speak to the truthfulness of Schiff, Waters, CNN, or Strzok, so I can't compare them to Lewis.

Why can't you? Did you hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call? I posted it here right after it happened, before any of the 'pundits' weighed in. Did that bear any resemblance to what actually was said on that phone call? How do you know Lewis is not right there with Schiff?

I was very encouraged by the last line about documenting abuses of the "resistance." I took that as a tacit admission that you believe Trump is guilty of abuses.

But I don't think you will deign to reading a book that explains an alternate perspective and really think about it, will you?. You've been instructed that the authors of those books are all liars, have you not?

I did not hear Schiff's description of trump's phone call, nor did I read it right here after it happened, before any of the pundits weighed in. So I can't answer your question, "Did that bear any resemblance to what actually was said on that phone call?"

Lewis is neither a politician nor a pundit. He is a highly-regarded nonfiction author. I don't know what "right there with Schiff" means, but I'm sure that it's not the case.

I don't deign to read anything. I'll read anything that sounds interesting, just about anything by Stephen King (not Pet Sematary or Cujo, though), whatever my book club is reading, and (finally) the last book in the Earth's Children series (right now). Please recommend a book that explains an alternate perspective so I can read it and really think about it. I have not been instructed that the authors of those books are all liars, but I appreciate your warning that it is possible. I am happy to recommend The Fifth Risk to you.

I would recommend Unfreedom of the Press by Mark Levin. It gives a very well documented history of how journalism has gotten to the state which it is at today. I would be glad to discuss it with you if you read it.
I was off of Stephen King for a long time but just finished Mr Mercedes trilogy and The Institute. Good books.

[flockofseagulls104]

He said nothing even resembling this, except in your mind.

In my mind, Schiff's mind, and the mind of the overwhelming majority of those who have heard it with the exception of the handful like you who are hopelessly in the tank for Trump.

Where have I heard that response before?

I know you don't read anything I write l. I have already confessed my complete allegiance to trump. Now it's in my signature. Did you mention hannity again? One track troll.

[silverscreenselect]

I would recommend Unfreedom of the Press by Mark Levin. It gives a very well documented history of how journalism has gotten to the state which it is at today.

On his show, Levin speaks in the unmistakable tenor of a man experiencing road rage or shouting at a customer service representative. In a recent episode, he yelled at an absent Beto O'Rourke ("Nobody likes a weak man, Beto...Nobody likes a weak man like you."), attacked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's looks ("her eyeballs are popping out of her head, like ping pong balls."), called Sen. Mitt Romney an "ass," and Sen. Dick Blumenthal a "pathetic, loathsome liar." The media didn't escape his invective either, from CNN's Brian Stelter ("that little creep") to MSNBC's "whole conga line of freaks working its way right up to Rachel Mad Cow."

This is the starting point of his new book, Unfreedom of the Press. The media, Levin writes, constitute "a profession whose members form a class or aristocracy of strident, pretentious, arrogant, and self-righteously superior individuals, rarely capable of circumspection or improvement." Levin hopes to prove this by tracing the history of American media from the early days of the revolutionary press to what he calls the modern "Democratic party-press."

But the book is largely filler. Quotations and paraphrasing make up the majority of the book's central chapters. Lengthy and irrelevant block quotes from historians about, say, colonial printing practices ("The use of type commenced in Virginia about 1681...") give the book the air of a padded student essay. ... He conducts no interviews, presents no original research, and visits no newsrooms.

When Levin does offer his own analysis, it can approach parody. In one example, Levin suggests that in order to see how unjust the media's treatment of Trump is, all we have to do is compare it with the way the press garlands its most cherished progressive idol. Yes, I speak of the Broadway hit "Hamilton: An American Musical."

Here, a reader might reasonably ask: Does the difference in press coverage between "Hamilton" and the Russia probe proceed from media bias and hypocrisy, or from the fact that one of those things is a musical and the other an investigation of a sitting president? According to Levin, it is the former: "The same Democratic party-press that seeks President Trump's indictment, impeachment, and tar and feathering for his noninvolvement in a supposed Russian collusion scheme celebrate their remake of Hamilton despite Hamilton's collusion with the British during the Washington presidency."

Levin often appears to misunderstand the sources he quotes, either because he does not notice or chooses to ignore humor, irony, or nuance. In one representative instance, a quote from New York Times journalist Jim Rutenberg has been cut to appear to echo Levin's claim about left-wing media bias, when Rutenberg's ultimate point is that harsh coverage of Trump is merited, and in fact "is what being taken seriously looks like." At other times, the quotations are merely beside the point.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/21/72498320 ... t-and-bile

Knowing what I do about Levin, this review doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Knowing what I do about you, your fawning adoration for this book doesn't surprise me in the slightest either.

[flockofseagulls104]

I would recommend Unfreedom of the Press by Mark Levin. It gives a very well documented history of how journalism has gotten to the state which it is at today.

On his show, Levin speaks in the unmistakable tenor of a man experiencing road rage or shouting at a customer service representative. In a recent episode, he yelled at an absent Beto O'Rourke ("Nobody likes a weak man, Beto...Nobody likes a weak man like you."), attacked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's looks ("her eyeballs are popping out of her head, like ping pong balls."), called Sen. Mitt Romney an "ass," and Sen. Dick Blumenthal a "pathetic, loathsome liar." The media didn't escape his invective either, from CNN's Brian Stelter ("that little creep") to MSNBC's "whole conga line of freaks working its way right up to Rachel Mad Cow."

This is the starting point of his new book, Unfreedom of the Press. The media, Levin writes, constitute "a profession whose members form a class or aristocracy of strident, pretentious, arrogant, and self-righteously superior individuals, rarely capable of circumspection or improvement." Levin hopes to prove this by tracing the history of American media from the early days of the revolutionary press to what he calls the modern "Democratic party-press."

But the book is largely filler. Quotations and paraphrasing make up the majority of the book's central chapters. Lengthy and irrelevant block quotes from historians about, say, colonial printing practices ("The use of type commenced in Virginia about 1681...") give the book the air of a padded student essay. ... He conducts no interviews, presents no original research, and visits no newsrooms.

When Levin does offer his own analysis, it can approach parody. In one example, Levin suggests that in order to see how unjust the media's treatment of Trump is, all we have to do is compare it with the way the press garlands its most cherished progressive idol. Yes, I speak of the Broadway hit "Hamilton: An American Musical."

Here, a reader might reasonably ask: Does the difference in press coverage between "Hamilton" and the Russia probe proceed from media bias and hypocrisy, or from the fact that one of those things is a musical and the other an investigation of a sitting president? According to Levin, it is the former: "The same Democratic party-press that seeks President Trump's indictment, impeachment, and tar and feathering for his noninvolvement in a supposed Russian collusion scheme celebrate their remake of Hamilton despite Hamilton's collusion with the British during the Washington presidency."

Levin often appears to misunderstand the sources he quotes, either because he does not notice or chooses to ignore humor, irony, or nuance. In one representative instance, a quote from New York Times journalist Jim Rutenberg has been cut to appear to echo Levin's claim about left-wing media bias, when Rutenberg's ultimate point is that harsh coverage of Trump is merited, and in fact "is what being taken seriously looks like." At other times, the quotations are merely beside the point.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/21/72498320 ... t-and-bile

Knowing what I do about Levin, this review doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Knowing what I do about you, your fawning adoration for this book doesn't surprise me in the slightest either.

You know nothing, Jon Troll.

[silverscreenselect]

I don't care what your politics are, there's a great quote going round on Twitter:

If you like subpoena coladas ... and getting caught in Ukraine.

[Beebs52]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/te ... 2-81168121

[flockofseagulls104]

I would recommend Unfreedom of the Press by Mark Levin. It gives a very well documented history of how journalism has gotten to the state which it is at today.

On his show, Levin speaks in the unmistakable tenor of a man experiencing road rage or shouting at a customer service representative. In a recent episode, he yelled at an absent Beto O'Rourke ("Nobody likes a weak man, Beto...Nobody likes a weak man like you."), attacked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's looks ("her eyeballs are popping out of her head, like ping pong balls."), called Sen. Mitt Romney an "ass," and Sen. Dick Blumenthal a "pathetic, loathsome liar." The media didn't escape his invective either, from CNN's Brian Stelter ("that little creep") to MSNBC's "whole conga line of freaks working its way right up to Rachel Mad Cow."

This is the starting point of his new book, Unfreedom of the Press. The media, Levin writes, constitute "a profession whose members form a class or aristocracy of strident, pretentious, arrogant, and self-righteously superior individuals, rarely capable of circumspection or improvement." Levin hopes to prove this by tracing the history of American media from the early days of the revolutionary press to what he calls the modern "Democratic party-press."

But the book is largely filler. Quotations and paraphrasing make up the majority of the book's central chapters. Lengthy and irrelevant block quotes from historians about, say, colonial printing practices ("The use of type commenced in Virginia about 1681...") give the book the air of a padded student essay. ... He conducts no interviews, presents no original research, and visits no newsrooms.

When Levin does offer his own analysis, it can approach parody. In one example, Levin suggests that in order to see how unjust the media's treatment of Trump is, all we have to do is compare it with the way the press garlands its most cherished progressive idol. Yes, I speak of the Broadway hit "Hamilton: An American Musical."

Here, a reader might reasonably ask: Does the difference in press coverage between "Hamilton" and the Russia probe proceed from media bias and hypocrisy, or from the fact that one of those things is a musical and the other an investigation of a sitting president? According to Levin, it is the former: "The same Democratic party-press that seeks President Trump's indictment, impeachment, and tar and feathering for his noninvolvement in a supposed Russian collusion scheme celebrate their remake of Hamilton despite Hamilton's collusion with the British during the Washington presidency."

Levin often appears to misunderstand the sources he quotes, either because he does not notice or chooses to ignore humor, irony, or nuance. In one representative instance, a quote from New York Times journalist Jim Rutenberg has been cut to appear to echo Levin's claim about left-wing media bias, when Rutenberg's ultimate point is that harsh coverage of Trump is merited, and in fact "is what being taken seriously looks like." At other times, the quotations are merely beside the point.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/21/72498320 ... t-and-bile

Knowing what I do about Levin, this review doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Knowing what I do about you, your fawning adoration for this book doesn't surprise me in the slightest either.

Hey troll, this has nothing to do with you. Let Sprots decide for herself. She might have an open mind, unlike you. Stick to trolling me, that's what you specialize in. NPR is one of the main offenders, as this totally biased review proves.

This woman has obviously never listened to Levin's radio show or watched his show on Fox, where he has hour long, intelligent conversations with people who actually know what their talking about, rather than fishing for sound bites from one partisan hack or another. She is passing along caricatures made up by other people who have never listened to his show other than snippets gathered by media matters.

There are pleny of reviews from people who have actually read the book. Why didn't you pick one of those? I suppose in your limited mind it's just me and hannity. Trump doesn't count cause he can't read, right? You have just shown in microcosm what Levin documents thoroughly in that book. You decided your narrative is paramount and you disregard any other viewpoint as beneath your contempt. You really need some introspection badly.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/te ... 2-81168121

They've got their mob fired up, what's the point in bringing in an alternate viewpoint, you trouble-maker? No one with any credibility in the echo chamber is going to touch this with a ten foot pole.

[silverscreenselect]

They've got their mob fired up, what's the point in bringing in an alternate viewpoint, you trouble-maker?

Volker's defending himself in a prepared statement, which is what I would expect of anyone testifying. He's not defending Trump or Giuliani.

[silverscreenselect]

NPR is one of the main offenders, as this totally biased review proves.

Translation: Anyone who doesn't like Levin's book is part of the biased fake media.

But I've got a question: Does Levin actually try to compare the NY Times drama critic review of Hamilton with their coverage of Donald Trump and use that as evidence of their "bias"?