WWTBAM Bored

BackInTex wrote:A legitimate journalist wouldn't speculate about broken laws unless there was some evidence other than the fact that someone had a meeting.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
A semi-legitimate journalist would have added an "if any" after the word laws and not put "allegedly". Giuliani may have allegedly committed murder, rape, incest, and bestiality in the process. We don't know because all of the allegers haven't come up with the allegations yet. Any thing can be alleged (Russian collusion, rape at a high school party, ect.).

A legitimate journalist wouldn't speculate about broken laws unless there was some evidence other than the fact that someone had a meeting.

If only more people on the right applied that standard to bullshit claims like "President Obama was born in Kenya." --Bob

If that's all we got to do, I'll make it happen.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:If only more people on the right applied that standard to bullshit claims like "President Obama was born in Kenya." --Bob

If that's all we got to do, I'll make it happen.

Did anyone here on the right ever bring that up? It's the same thing with David Duke. The only relevance these 2 subjects ( and many more) have is for left wingers to bring up in arguments they can't win. You have a very stereotyped, prejudiced view of conservatives. It's all in your echo chamber. Just like the notion that Obama had a scandal free presidency. That notion is a laugh except in your echo chamber.

N.Y. Times wrote:The aide, Fiona Hill, testified that Mr. Bolton told her to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council about a rogue effort by Mr. Sondland, Mr. Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the people familiar the testimony.

“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to two people at the deposition.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Slamming a book and a person using shit you drag up from the batphone when you, yourself, have no personal knowledge of either the book or the man. All for the purpose of trying to prevent someone else of maybe acquiring knowledge she might not have had before.
That's what most liberals seem to do. Let other people do their thinking for them. Decide for them what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. It's very easy that way.

The purpose of reviews, whether of books, movies, restaurants, or whatever, is to provide information about something that someone else has not experienced so that they can make an informed decision as to whether to spend their own time and money on it. Mark Levin's book sells for $ 16.59 in hardback and $14.99 on Kindle on Amazon. Before spending that kind of money on any book, I would like to know more about it.

I'll admit that knowing what I know about you and Levin, I suspected his book might be what the reviews indicated. I haven't listened to an entire show of his. Only a few seconds of listening to his ranting is enough. I don't have to eat an entire spoiled food dish to know it's bad.

But here's what I will do for you Flock. I'll make the same offer to you that I make to other people who ask me to write reviews of their books. If you provide me with a copy of Levin's book (or an Amazon gift card covering the price), I'll read it and provide you with a detailed review right here on this Bored. And I'll treat it the same as I do every other book I review and provide an objective review and back up whatever I have to say.

I don't think so. Do it yourself or don't. You've got to earn your way out of the echo chamber.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Poarch wasn't an employee, just a contractor. So what? (At least, for a change, we have a NAMED source, something CNN doesn't use much). No 'journalists' were on tape. So what? (Assuming there are any at CNN.) I assume that this is just the first episode. And no (zero) response to Zucker's words and those of the other executives.

Project Veritas’s #ExposeCNN operation relied on video footage taken by Cary Poarch, who said he was a “CNN insider” at the network’s D.C. bureau. But according to a CNN spokesperson, Poarch wasn’t a CNN employee and was instead a freelance satellite truck operator whose company had been contracted by the network. Poarch had given notice prior to the release of the tapes, the spokesperson said. Included in the videos, some of which contain noticeable cuts, are clips of people talking about CNN’s bias against President Donald Trump. One video featured comments made by Nick Neville, who is identified as a “media coordinator” at CNN. He said CNN president Jeff Zucker had an “ongoing feud with Trump since ‘The Apprentice.'” (Zucker green-lit “The Apprentice” when he was head of NBC Entertainment.)

The CNN spokesperson said that Neville was only a junior employee at the network, not a journalist, and would not have had access to Zucker or knowledge of the topics in which he was speaking about. Neville did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

If you are moved by what you’ve read here, or better informed for what I’ve uncovered, please donate here on my page. I intend to use this money to establish a baseline of financial stability for my family for the next year and face down any legal challenges I may be presented with.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Telling a "news" organization what news to devote their efforts to.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Telling a "news" organization what news to devote their efforts to.

Were you born yesterday?

That's what producers of every news show do, whether it's CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS or anything. It's true now and it was even more true 50 years ago when they only had 30 minutes to cover the nightly news. You don't think the producers told Walter Cronkite how much time to devote to Vietnam each night? Producers determine how much time and emphasis to devote to various stories. That's why they cover the president, any president, rather than spend a lot of time covering obscure Congressional proceedings (that's why there's a C-Span).

"Devoting time to impeachment stories" isn't the same as "let's slant every story to show that Trump's guilty."

If it makes you feel any better, they've devoted a lot of time to covering Trump's decision to pull troops out of Turkey. And there's a big difference between covering a President's decision to pull troops out of a war zone and a President's decision to wear a tan suit.

silverscreenselect wrote: If it makes you feel any better, they've devoted a lot of time to covering Trump's decision to pull troops out of Turkey. And there's a big difference between covering a President's decision to pull troops out of a war zone and a President's decision to wear a tan suit.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Telling a "news" organization what news to devote their efforts to.

Were you born yesterday?

That's what producers of every news show do, whether it's CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS or anything. It's true now and it was even more true 50 years ago when they only had 30 minutes to cover the nightly news. You don't think the producers told Walter Cronkite how much time to devote to Vietnam each night? Producers determine how much time and emphasis to devote to various stories. That's why they cover the president, any president, rather than spend a lot of time covering obscure Congressional proceedings (that's why there's a C-Span).

"Devoting time to impeachment stories" isn't the same as "let's slant every story to show that Trump's guilty."

If it makes you feel any better, they've devoted a lot of time to covering Trump's decision to pull troops out of Turkey. And there's a big difference between covering a President's decision to pull troops out of a war zone and a President's decision to wear a tan suit.

https://www-washingtonexaminer-com.cdn. ... ump-racism

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Were you born yesterday?

That's what producers of every news show do, whether it's CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS or anything. It's true now and it was even more true 50 years ago when they only had 30 minutes to cover the nightly news. You don't think the producers told Walter Cronkite how much time to devote to Vietnam each night? Producers determine how much time and emphasis to devote to various stories. That's why they cover the president, any president, rather than spend a lot of time covering obscure Congressional proceedings (that's why there's a C-Span).

"Devoting time to impeachment stories" isn't the same as "let's slant every story to show that Trump's guilty."

If it makes you feel any better, they've devoted a lot of time to covering Trump's decision to pull troops out of Turkey. And there's a big difference between covering a President's decision to pull troops out of a war zone and a President's decision to wear a tan suit.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: If it makes you feel any better, they've devoted a lot of time to covering Trump's decision to pull troops out of Turkey. And there's a big difference between covering a President's decision to pull troops out of a war zone and a President's decision to wear a tan suit.

You are not helping your argument. The quotes are mine, as USA Today is on the same side at ABC. It must have been a mistake.

ABC News "mistakenly" airs video from Kentucky gun show as Syria bombing footage

tlynn78 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: If it makes you feel any better, they've devoted a lot of time to covering Trump's decision to pull troops out of Turkey. And there's a big difference between covering a President's decision to pull troops out of a war zone and a President's decision to wear a tan suit.

You are not helping your argument. The quotes are mine, as USA Today is on the same side at ABC. It must have been a mistake.

ABC News "mistakenly" airs video from Kentucky gun show as Syria bombing footage

We won best team name (and first place) at trivia last night: "Marked Safe from Turkey's Kentucky Invasion"

Mike McIntire New York Times wrote:The difference between journalistic mistakes and fake news:
1.) It actually IS a mistake and not willful propaganda
2.) It's acknowledged and corrected
3.) Partisan opportunists seize on it anyway to claim bias

Snopes wrote:A source from ABC said the video was provided by someone who purported to be in a “sensitive position” on the border between Turkey and Syria. The network is investigating the incident.

silverscreenselect wrote:explaining away all of Trump and his enabler's blatant lies.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:explaining away all of Trump and his enabler's blatant lies.

Mueller did that already. Turns out, they weren't lies. He was telling the truth.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:explaining away all of Trump and his enabler's blatant lies.

Mueller did that already. Turns out, they weren't lies. He was telling the truth.

It is impossible to actually read the Mueller Report and believe that. Donny knew that Russia was helping his campaign and welcomed the help. He avoided (in Mueller's view) criminal liability for conspiracy only because he didn't coordinate with Russia. He just sat back, let them do the work, and then took advantage of whatever they presented him with.

There once was a time when Republicans cared more about our country than about their Party. There once was a time when it would have been unthinkable to Republicans to support any political candidate who accepted help of this nature. It's hurting the country that that's no longer the case. But if it's the new normal (and that does appear to be the case), then the only cure is to inflict upon the national Republican Party the same fate it has already suffered in California.

Challenge, accepted. --Bob

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Mueller did that already. Turns out, they weren't lies. He was telling the truth.

It is impossible to actually read the Mueller Report and believe that. Donny knew that Russia was helping his campaign and welcomed the help. He avoided (in Mueller's view) criminal liability for conspiracy only because he didn't coordinate with Russia. He just sat back, let them do the work, and then took advantage of whatever they presented him with.

There once was a time when Republicans cared more about our country than about their Party. There once was a time when it would have been unthinkable to Republicans to support any political candidate who accepted help of this nature. It's hurting the country that that's no longer the case. But if it's the new normal (and that does appear to be the case), then the only cure is to inflict upon the national Republican Party the same fate it has already suffered in California.

Challenge, accepted. --Bob

LMAO - but you're fine with a Democrat party which actively cheats to rig their own primary.

Bob78164 wrote: Or would you be okay with the eventual Democratic nominee asking our European allies to investigate Donny's foreign dealings in their countries? Not to mention those of his kids. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:explaining away all of Trump and his enabler's blatant lies.

Mueller did that already. Turns out, they weren't lies. He was telling the truth.

It is impossible to actually read the Mueller Report and believe that.

jarnon wrote:Going back to the original topic (Barr's worldwide investigation of Democratic wrongdoing in 2016), Trump just said . . . .

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It is impossible to actually read the Mueller Report and believe that. Donny knew that Russia was helping his campaign and welcomed the help. He avoided (in Mueller's view) criminal liability for conspiracy only because he didn't coordinate with Russia. He just sat back, let them do the work, and then took advantage of whatever they presented him with.

There once was a time when Republicans cared more about our country than about their Party. There once was a time when it would have been unthinkable to Republicans to support any political candidate who accepted help of this nature. It's hurting the country that that's no longer the case. But if it's the new normal (and that does appear to be the case), then the only cure is to inflict upon the national Republican Party the same fate it has already suffered in California.

Challenge, accepted. --Bob

LMAO - but you're fine with a Democrat party which actively cheats to rig their own primary.

Didn't happen. And even if it had, that's still better than inviting and then welcoming foreign interference in our elections.

Or would you be okay with the eventual Democratic nominee asking our European allies to investigate Donny's foreign dealings in their countries? Not to mention those of his kids. --Bob

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
LMAO - but you're fine with a Democrat party which actively cheats to rig their own primary.

Didn't happen. And even if it had, that's still better than inviting and then welcoming foreign interference in our elections.

Or would you be okay with the eventual Democratic nominee asking our European allies to investigate Donny's foreign dealings in their countries? Not to mention those of his kids. --Bob

Didn't happen? Oh, you are precious. And as for your second query, that's already happened, as well. You really don't pay attention to anything outside your bubble, do you?