Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: darkozThats fine
I have some masks i could wear
Typical Leftie - does everything hidden behind a mask
Quote: ams288Forget about taking a knee, THIS is what disrespecting the US flag truly looks like:
Hmm...
Quote: beachbumbabs*EXCERPT*I'm not going to pretend I know enough about any specifics to have an argument about this.
Hasn't stopped you previously when you claimed creepy porn lawyer Avenatti was granted a special dispensation to review documents from an ongoing FBI/DOJ investigation
Quote: billryanNo.
So you think this is some 3rd world craphole
where you accuse somebody of a crime
and don't have to show them the evidence
you have in court? Really?
Quote: RomesThat's like saying "My uncle is an alt-right redneck racist guy, and he has a pod cast every night... You need to diversify your news and get some news from him!!!"
No. You get news from credible news sources. You don't waste time with lies/spins from non-credible sources that leads to brain washing with non-facts and the SPREAD of miss-information, which is what happened here when you posted an article spin from a non-trustworthy site.
Wikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
"The CIA and the Media," reporter Carl Bernstein wrote that by 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies"
"The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
If msm didn't cooperate with public perception management, they wouldn't be allowed airwaves. https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/04/01/sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-media-bashing-promos-rs.cnn/video/playlists/focus-on-the-media/
Quote: EvenBobSo you think this is some 3rd world craphole
where you accuse somebody of a crime
and don't have to show them the evidence
you have in court? Really?
They're Russians. They'll probably have a better chance in court here than in their own country. Why are you rooting for them?
Quote: petroglyphWikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
"The CIA and the Media," reporter Carl Bernstein wrote that by 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies"
"The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
If msm didn't cooperate with public perception management, they wouldn't be allowed airwaves. https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/04/01/sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-media-bashing-promos-rs.cnn/video/playlists/focus-on-the-media/
The consensus of Courts in the USA take this approach as to whether Wikipedia entries are admissible evidence (this example is from Michigan:
“We cannot fathom that a document containing content that can be altered by anyone at any time could possibly "demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Katt, 468 Mich at 290.”
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: ams288Forget about taking a knee, THIS is what disrespecting the US flag truly looks like:
Hmm...
So Russia/NK & Putin/Kim Jong Un are equivalents to you?
Interesting.
Or it could just be your ODS showing...
Quote: ams288Quote: aceofspadesQuote: ams288Forget about taking a knee, THIS is what disrespecting the US flag truly looks like:
Hmm...
So Russia/NK & Putin/Kim Jong Un are equivalents to you?
Interesting.
Or it could just be your ODS showing...
You made it about disrespecting the flag
So, I am pointing out that, at diplomatic meetings, both countries' flags are displayed just as they were in Singapore -- must be your TDS
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: ams288Quote: aceofspadesQuote: ams288Forget about taking a knee, THIS is what disrespecting the US flag truly looks like:
Hmm...
So Russia/NK & Putin/Kim Jong Un are equivalents to you?
Interesting.
Or it could just be your ODS showing...
You made it about disrespecting the flag
So, I am pointing out that, at diplomatic meetings, both countries' flags are displayed just as they were in Singapore -- must be your TDS
Agree, AOS. Two world leaders meeting and both countries flags are displayed. Only reason someone would think this is off is TDS. It is treatable.....
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: petroglyphWikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
"The CIA and the Media," reporter Carl Bernstein wrote that by 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies"
"The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
If msm didn't cooperate with public perception management, they wouldn't be allowed airwaves. https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/04/01/sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-media-bashing-promos-rs.cnn/video/playlists/focus-on-the-media/
The consensus of Courts in the USA take this approach as to whether Wikipedia entries are admissible evidence (this example is from Michigan:
“We cannot fathom that a document containing content that can be altered by anyone at any time could possibly "demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Katt, 468 Mich at 290.”
I thought Petroglyph was on your side?
Freindly fire?
Reminds me of the ending of Animal Farm.
Quote: EvenBobNo no no, you're not getting it. When Mueller
indicted the Russian's, if it was a legit indictment,
he knew that of course the defendant would
ask for the documents, they always do, it's
how it's done. You accuse somebody of a crime,
you have to show them what you have on them.
The evidence/information is there. No one is disputing that. Mueller has it, and he's already said he will gladly show it to the Russians being charged.
The only thing that's being argued is WHEN that evidence is required to be released (EDIT: and to whom, specifically).
This is all clearly explained in the articles that have already been linked to, but here's another one in case some people still don't get it.
Obama said he would meet with no only our allies but our enemies... this is definitely something I personally agree with doing. The goal is one day to have world peace, right? Well we can't just ignore the 'bad guys' and hope they die out or go away or something, that won't happen. Eventually, someone, is going to have to sit down at the table with them in an attempt to assimilate them in to the rest of the world in some form of peaceful fashion. Either that or war where we blow them off the face of the Earth, which I'm not ruling out, I'd just rather try the peaceful assimilation first.Quote: billryanNo world leader would meet with the crazed dictator who has killed hundreds of thousands of his people. Trump meets him, embraces him and screws our Allies and our military, using the dictators own words to call the exercises needed to coordinate with South Korea provocative and too expensive.
Reminds me of the ending of Animal Farm.
So while I think Donald has been one of the worst choices to send to that table, I'm still glad to see the US going to that table. I want to see the US be the 'bigger man.' It's not about "what did we get, what did they get..." in my eyes. We extended an olive branch to allow a pathway of peaceful assimilation. If Un doesn't take it, or is just using these talks to get things, in the end it will show, and then they will pay for it the hard way.
The important thing about being the good guy is that you actually try to be the good guy first, before using force, even if that means giving up small concessions.
Quote: RomesObama said he would meet with no only our allies but our enemies... this is definitely something I personally agree with doing. The goal is one day to have world peace, right? Well we can't just ignore the 'bad guys' and hope they die out or go away or something, that won't happen. Eventually, someone, is going to have to sit down at the table with them in an attempt to assimilate them in to the rest of the world in some form of peaceful fashion. Either that or war where we blow them off the face of the Earth, which I'm not ruling out, I'd just rather try the peaceful assimilation first.
So while I think Donald has been one of the worst choices to send to that table, I'm still glad to see the US going to that table. I want to see the US be the 'bigger man.' It's not about "what did we get, what did they get..." in my eyes. We extended an olive branch to allow a pathway of peaceful assimilation. If Un doesn't take it, or is just using these talks to get things, in the end it will show, and then they will pay for it the hard way.
The important thing about being the good guy is that you actually try to be the good guy first, before using force, even if that means giving up small concessions.
Romes. I completely agree
What seems odd though is meeting with our allies a few days prior and creating a rift while forging bonds with our enemies
What you say makes sense. What Trump is doing does not
The righties decried when Obama suggested meeting with Kim. Imagine if Obama had simultaneously began a trade war with our allies (during a time of prosperity no less) and pulled out of several international agreements while simultaneously saying how wonderful Putin and Kim are?
Quote: darkozThe righties decried when Obama suggested meeting with Kim.
https://youtu.be/cueMAVQ3-A0
He inherited a booming economy. Markets were rising, unemployment was dropping... There wasn't much to "fix" in the grand scheme of things. The biggest stumbling block from the Obama administration was the whole healthcare issue. He's obviously very motivated, and a "doer," and clearly not afraid to try new and different things. Despite the fact he's a wealthy elitist, he has great appeal to many in the "common man" demographic. He has a history, going back decades, of not really pandering to one political side or the other. He's been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican (and I think Independent as well?). He's not a "career politician," which is something a lot of people hate (myself included).
Trump could have showed up on day one, while Obama's seat was still warm, and easily been one of the most successful and liked Presidents in modern history.
So what went wrong? Three big things, I think....
1) He just absolutely can not keep his big stupid mouth shut. When the best course of action would be to say NOTHING, Trump will say SOMETHING, and that something will usually be something completely inflammatory, unprofessional, a downright lie, or all three.
2) He completely ignores everyone who has more experience than he does on certain issues, and refuses to surround himself with people who know what they're doing. I.e., he has a MASSIVE ego.
3) He LOVES drama. He loves creating it and being a part of it. We all knew someone like this in middle school or high school. Trump never grew out of it, and now he's doing it on a global level at the risk of alienating our allies.
'80's Trump, or even '90's Trump, would probably have been a good President. You watch interviews with him back then and he's shockingly coherent and normal sounding, regardless of whether or not you agree with what he's saying, or how big of a scumbag he is. I'm one of those people that honestly believes he is mentally ill now, either with Alzheimer's or dementia or something. I just think it's so blindingly obvious there's something wrong with the man on a fundamental level.
But whatever. He'll likely be gone in 2 1/2 years. I don't think he'll be able to survive a second term. He'll be too far gone healthwise.
I almost posted a thanks when I saw AOS's reply. I didn't perceive his comment as disparaging at all. I was glad to see it. I'm more Wikileaks, than Wikipedia anyway.Quote: darkozQuote: aceofspadesQuote: petroglyphWikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
"The CIA and the Media," reporter Carl Bernstein wrote that by 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies"
"The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
If msm didn't cooperate with public perception management, they wouldn't be allowed airwaves. https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/04/01/sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-media-bashing-promos-rs.cnn/video/playlists/focus-on-the-media/
The consensus of Courts in the USA take this approach as to whether Wikipedia entries are admissible evidence (this example is from Michigan:
“We cannot fathom that a document containing content that can be altered by anyone at any time could possibly "demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Katt, 468 Mich at 290.”
I thought Petroglyph was on your side?
Freindly fire?
Others were disparaging alternative media, as if Wikimedia was, "the one truth". It's up to the reader to weed out the truth, best they can. Or as Ace did , site legal precedence.
Funny how fast "your side" attacks either the source, or the poster, without challenging the narrative. For a while, Wikimedia was the only site my detractors would accept, so I posted links from their favorite source, indicating main stream news is manufactured, according to "their" trusted source. You know, that lead a horse to water thing.
What AOS did, was point out that Wiki can easily change "facts" around to suit the desired narrative.
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
9h9 hours ago
Robert De Niro, a very Low IQ individual, has received too many shots to the head by real boxers in movies. I watched him last night and truly believe he may be “punch-drunk.” Wake up, Punchy!
Poor old washed up alcoholic/druggie DeNiro,
raging and shaking his fist out there in La La Land.
What a dope..
Quote: darkoz
I thought Petroglyph was on your side?
Freindly fire?
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.- John Adams
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."- George Washington.
Quote: EvenBobPoor old washed up alcoholic/druggie DeNiro,
raging and shaking his fist out there in La La Land.
What a dope..
He's a "washed-up, alcoholic" actor, and yet the President of the United States is so thin-skinned he just HAS to respond with an equally childish insult.
And you see nothing wrong with that.
That speaks volumes, both to Trump's character, and to yours.
Quote: EvenBobFunniest tweet in awhile:
Donald J. Trump
þVerified account @realDonaldTrump
9h9 hours ago
Robert De Niro, a very Low IQ individual, has received too many shots to the head by real boxers in movies. I watched him last night and truly believe he may be “punch-drunk.” Wake up, Punchy!
Yes, it was the funniest tweet in a while.
Because he insulted someone else's IQ while misspelling "too" in the same sentence.
Quote: petroglyphI almost posted a thanks when I saw AOS's reply. I didn't perceive his comment as disparaging at all. I was glad to see it. I'm more Wikileaks, than Wikipedia anyway.Quote: darkozQuote: aceofspadesQuote: petroglyphWikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
"The CIA and the Media," reporter Carl Bernstein wrote that by 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies"
"The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
If msm didn't cooperate with public perception management, they wouldn't be allowed airwaves. https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/04/01/sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-media-bashing-promos-rs.cnn/video/playlists/focus-on-the-media/
The consensus of Courts in the USA take this approach as to whether Wikipedia entries are admissible evidence (this example is from Michigan:
“We cannot fathom that a document containing content that can be altered by anyone at any time could possibly "demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Katt, 468 Mich at 290.”
I thought Petroglyph was on your side?
Freindly fire?
Others were disparaging alternative media, as if Wikimedia was, "the one truth". It's up to the reader to weed out the truth, best they can. Or as Ace did , site legal precedence.
Funny how fast "your side" attacks either the source, or the poster, without challenging the narrative. For a while, Wikimedia was the only site my detractors would accept, so I posted links from their favorite source, indicating main stream news is manufactured, according to "their" trusted source. You know, that lead a horse to water thing.
What AOS did, was point out that Wiki can easily change "facts" around to suit the desired narrative.
Not disparaging but opposite message
You: wikipedia links to prove your point
AOS: wikipedia is not a legit source
Kind of crossfire there dont you think?
Quote: TigerWuHe's a "washed-up, alcoholic" actor, and yet the President of the United States is so thin-skinned he just HAS to respond with an equally childish insult.
And you see nothing wrong with that.
I don't.
This expectation that a Republican is just supposed to ignore insult after insult while he loses credibility is foolish. Trump is showing how it is done. Now DiNero will get more wound up and look even worse.
Quote: AZDuffmanNow DiNero will get more wound up and look even worse.
Exactly. Trump invented this game. Attack
me, expect it in return. Why would he give
it up just because he's president. Besides,
the press LOVES IT, they are going crazy
with it today.
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: petroglyphWikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
"The CIA and the Media," reporter Carl Bernstein wrote that by 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies"
"The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
If msm didn't cooperate with public perception management, they wouldn't be allowed airwaves. https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/04/01/sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-media-bashing-promos-rs.cnn/video/playlists/focus-on-the-media/
The consensus of Courts in the USA take this approach as to whether Wikipedia entries are admissible evidence (this example is from Michigan:
“We cannot fathom that a document containing content that can be altered by anyone at any time could possibly "demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Katt, 468 Mich at 290.”
I will relate a true story (my own) regarding wikipedia and the much more trustworthy IMDB
I was working on a film project which never came to fruition but had been gaining some nominal steam resulting in reports and a wikipedia page and imdb page
One of these reports had misinformation
Both wikipedia and imdb posted this misinformation
I personally fixed the misinformation in Wikipedia so that it was correct
In order to do that on imdb you have contact their editorial staff
They refused my credentials and to this day the correct info is on wikipedia while the misinformation is posted on the trusted IMDB
We need to all get on the same page here... Wikipedia is one of the MOST legitimate sources of information there is on the web. It has been shown time and time again to be more exact than encyclopedia britannica.Quote: darkoz...You: wikipedia links to prove your point
AOS: wikipedia is not a legit source
Kind of crossfire there dont you think?
On most pages all edits are subject to review, so no you can't just change something willy nilly, and even on pages that aren't locked, that crap will be corrected instantly and the page potentially locked.
The information you get from wikipedia is accurate and correct. Wikipedia is a 110% legitimate source of information. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. IT IS A FACT.
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't.
This expectation that a Republican is just supposed to ignore insult after insult while he loses credibility is foolish.
Why are you making this partisan? I don't give a crap if it's Republican, Democrat, or whatever. It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with being the President of the United States. And yes, he should be ignoring insult after insult. Especially from people who, as Evenbob puts it, are washed-up alcoholics. The fact that Trump is wasting time a) getting worked up over, and b) responding to, such petty childishness is what is losing him credibility.
Quote:Trump is showing how it is done. Now DiNero will get more wound up and look even worse.
Trump is sinking to Deniro's level. Deniro is taunting him, and he is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. They both look like fools. As much crap as Obama and Bush got, they never responded to such nonsense, because they at least had the professional decorum not to.
I'm sorry that you don't have higher standards for our President, but hey, it's a free country, so you can believe whatever you want I guess.
Quote: RomesWe need to all get on the same page here... Wikipedia is one of the MOST legitimate sources of information there is on the web. It has been shown time and time again to be more exact than encyclopedia britannica.
On most pages all edits are subject to review, so no you can't just change something willy nilly, and even on pages that aren't locked, that crap will be corrected instantly and the page potentially locked.
The information you get from wikipedia is accurate and correct. Wikipedia is a 110% legitimate source of information. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. IT IS A FACT.
Preach.
If you want to facepalm even harder, I had teachers in school who told us sources from a .org domain were more reliable than a .com. There is zero logic behind that.
Quote: RomesWe need to all get on the same page here... Wikipedia is one of the MOST legitimate sources of information there is on the web. It has been shown time and time again to be more exact than encyclopedia britannica.
On most pages all edits are subject to review, so no you can't just change something willy nilly, and even on pages that aren't locked, that crap will be corrected instantly and the page potentially locked.
The information you get from wikipedia is accurate and correct. Wikipedia is a 110% legitimate source of information. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE. IT IS A FACT.
Totally agree
Take s$ientology
They are blocked from lying about their own religion on Wikipedia because Wikipedia cares about FACTS
"There’s one thing about the American judicial system that is sacrosanct, when you’re charged, you have the full right to see what you’re charged with and who is saying what about you. The prosecution is required to answer those questions for you. The prosecution, the government in this case, is required to tell you what you did. They are required to show you evidence and especially if there’s any exculpatory evidence. The Supreme Court has spoken on this countless times, as have lower court judges. The rights of the accused to know what they’re up against is bedrock. You don’t go to trial until you’re ready to go to trial. You don’t go down this road unless you’re ready to go down this road. Mueller never expected to have to go down this road because he never thought these Russians would answer his indictment."
Uh oh...
Quote: gamerfreakPreach.
If you want to facepalm even harder, I had teachers in school who told us sources from a .org domain were more reliable than a .com. There is zero logic behind that.
What's funny about that is Wikipedia is a .org.
And yeah, people act like Wikipedia is just some random blog site or something where anybody can just post willy nilly.
But if you go to just about any article, almost everything is externally sourced and cited, almost into the ground. The Iraq War page has over 400 cites. Donald Trump's page has over 700. The page on "beer" has over 200. "Hot dogs" is almost 50. Heck, most papers I wrote in college probably only had between 10 and 15 cites, and that's being generous.
Why do you put words in quotes if not to quote their source??Quote: EvenBob...Uh oh...
Quote: RomesWhy do you put words in quotes if not to quote their source??
Because he doesn't want us to know Rush Limbaugh said it... haha...
In a dictatorship, some tyrant pushes the people around. In a democracy, we push each other around for him.Quote: TigerWuBecause he doesn't want us to know Rush Limbaugh said it... haha...
Quote: TigerWuBecause he doesn't want us to know Rush Limbaugh said it... haha...
Bingo.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/06/13/muellers-outrageous-bastardization-of-the-justice-system/
Quote: TigerWuWhy are you making this partisan?
Why? Because it is always the Hollywood Left attacking the Republican. Has happened since at least Ford. Democrats the Hollywood Left just goes goo-goo for. They do not have to put up with attacks so do not have to return attacks. In fact, when Obama took over the refrain was "it is going to be a dry 8 years" as Hollywood would not even look at a reason to make fun of him, despite there being many.
Trump has broken the cycle, and good for him!
Quote: TigerWuBecause he doesn't want us to know Rush Limbaugh
Proven right 98.9% of the time.
For 30 years. This drives the Left
insane.
Quote: EvenBobProven right 98.9% of the time.
LOL No.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy? Because it is always the Hollywood Left attacking the Republican. Has happened since at least Ford. Democrats the Hollywood Left just goes goo-goo for. They do not have to put up with attacks so do not have to return attacks. In fact, when Obama took over the refrain was "it is going to be a dry 8 years" as Hollywood would not even look at a reason to make fun of him, despite there being many.
Trump has broken the cycle, and good for him!
You're completely missing the point, here.
I'm not talking about the "Hollywood left," or Republicans, or Democrats.... I don't give a crap about any of that.
I'm talking about the President of the United States acting like a 12 year old on a playground at recess.
You're right, in a sense. Trump has broken the cycle.... of professionalism and Presidential decorum. And for some reason you see that as a good thing. But like I said, I guess I just have higher standards for world leaders than you do. If you want to be proud that the President is an idiot, that's on you.
And P.S., to say that Obama was never attacked or insulted during his 8 years in office is beyond laughable.
Quote: TigerWuYou're completely missing the point, here.
I'm not talking about the "Hollywood left," or Republicans, or Democrats.... I don't give a crap about any of that.
Of course not. Because you are a lefty. These attacks come from the left, so you of course will say, "he needs to just stand there and take it!"
Quote:And P.S., to say that Obama was never attacked or insulted during his 8 years in office is beyond laughable.
I guess I missed all the attacks on Obama on places from SNL to every awards show? Save that line for the freshmen. I remember the past.
Quote: AZDuffmanOf course not. Because you are a lefty. These attacks come from the left, so you of course will say, "he needs to just stand there and take it!"
I guess I missed all the attacks on Obama on places from SNL to every awards show? Save that line for the freshmen. I remember the past.
If you refuse to google the past you will conveniently not remember it
Google Hillary clinton or barack obama and SNL and you get plenty of skits making fun of them
For you to say otherwise is simply a lie
Could you name some, either your standards or world leaders that have high standards?Quote: TigerWu.... But like I said, I guess I just have higher standards for world leaders than you do.,,,
Quote: darkozIf you refuse to google the past you will conveniently not remember it
Google Hillary clinton or barack obama and SNL and you get plenty of skits making fun of them
For you to say otherwise is simply a lie
I remember because I laughed
I laughed then, I laugh now
I can laugh at jokes at the expense of Obama, Clinton and Trump
The problem with some conservatives is they cant laugh. They seethe when they see Trump being made fun of
Really sad
Quote: AZDuffmanOf course not. Because you are a lefty. These attacks come from the left, so you of course will say, "he needs to just stand there and take it!"
Haha... I've never been a "lefty." I'm actually pretty moderate. F*** the left. Screw Hollywood. I hate Hillary. I didn't vote for Obama. (Hell, even EvenBob voted for Obama.) And I've already said MULTIPLE times in the last few pages that Deniro is a fool and a child for saying what he did. Did you just conveniently ignore that? You are continuing to make this about left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, etc. YOU are part of the problem in this country. YOU are one of the ones sowing divisiveness.
How are you not getting this? How do you not understand that what Trump is doing is sinking down the level of idiotic foolishness that YOU YOURSELF are berating the "left" for? Your obsession with partisan politics is blinding you to the real problems in this country.
Quote:I guess I missed all the attacks on Obama on places from SNL to every awards show? Save that line for the freshmen.
Ah, yes, Obama, "the most divisive president in history," "the worst President in history," "the secret Kenyan Muslim Commie Socialist gay prostitute," no, he's never been insulted or spoken ill of. LOL Nobody ever told Obama "he's a piece of s***. I told him to suck on my machine gun." -- Ted Nugent
Nope. None of that ever happened. Everyone loved Obama. Everyone on the right, everyone at Fox News, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, they all loved him. No conservative ever spoke ill of Obama or insulted him or told him he was a terrible person.
Quote:I remember the past.
You might want to schedule a checkup with your doctor, comrade. I think your memory is starting to go.
Quote: darkozQuote: aceofspadesQuote: petroglyphWikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
"The CIA and the Media," reporter Carl Bernstein wrote that by 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies"
"The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
If msm didn't cooperate with public perception management, they wouldn't be allowed airwaves. https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/04/01/sinclair-broadcast-group-local-news-media-bashing-promos-rs.cnn/video/playlists/focus-on-the-media/
The consensus of Courts in the USA take this approach as to whether Wikipedia entries are admissible evidence (this example is from Michigan:
“We cannot fathom that a document containing content that can be altered by anyone at any time could possibly "demonstrate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Katt, 468 Mich at 290.”
I thought Petroglyph was on your side?
Freindly fire?
I am merely stating how Courts view Wikipedia - not going for a gotcha moment just enlightening the forum
Quote: petroglyphCould you name some, either your standards or world leaders that have high standards?
Almost any President before Trump. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. etc. etc.
I'm just talking about professionalism, here. Not how good or bad their policies were. Just people who didn't act a complete fool while in office.
Quote: TigerWuAlmost any President before Trump. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. etc. etc.
I'm just talking about professionalism, here. Not how good or bad their policies were. Just people who didn't act a complete fool while in office.
I agree
About the only leader similar to Trump is Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
Former Foreign Minister of Iraq
Also known as Comical Ali and Baghdad Bob
