|
Post by jld54 on Jan 31, 2019 15:54:53 GMT -5
Setting aside the fact that you're missing a lot of context here, imagine thinking 2 years out that this election will come down to the thoughts of State Senator from Virginia nobody has heard of.... And I will not even mention “moderate” VA Governor comment that a mother and doctor can decide to terminate the life of a LIVE birth. Yes, I know, I am missing the “context”...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 31, 2019 14:11:57 GMT -5
Your modern Democratic Party:
Transcript of questioning of Va. State Rep Tran who proposed new abortion bill:
Gilbert: So, um, where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth. She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified…she’s dilating.
Tran: Mr. Chairman, that would be a, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point.
Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.
Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.
And you wonder why a maniac like Trump won? Keep this up and he will win again.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 30, 2019 19:16:33 GMT -5
You are like a birther with your obsession with everything Russia.. or Joe McCarthy...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 30, 2019 17:18:19 GMT -5
You seem gleeful that this company did not follow through with its commitment and many jobs will not be created. Sad! 🤔 🤦🏾♂️ Since you deal in facts, what part of my 2 word post gave you that impression? I always feel bad when good people are deceived by conmen. You have an amazing knack for asking questions to which you already know the answer. Your play on words… You know very well what I was referring to. Please do not play dumb – –
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 30, 2019 12:17:29 GMT -5
You seem pleased that this company did not follow through with its commitment and many jobs will not be created. All I guess to mock your nemeses, Orange Man and Fox News. Sad!
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 24, 2019 21:07:55 GMT -5
This may well be, but despite that, the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate continue to lick Trump's boots, or at least not speak out against him, out of abject fear that the Trump cultists, as SS calls them, will turn against them. True profiles in courage. None of these people will make an updated version of JFK's book. Agreed. The Republicans ran on promises and once the won they did nothing except collect donations from their donor base. Hence Trump. But I am not holding my breath waiting for Wall Street Schumer and his ilk to be portraits in courage. They kow-tow to Wall Street, Silicon Valley and identity politics and are as out of touch with ordinary people as McConnell, Ryan and crew.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 24, 2019 20:44:48 GMT -5
I find it curious that the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a subpeona to Cohen. Don't the Repubs control the Senate panels? Apparently they weren't interested before. What's up now? Burr -R NC is in on the whole scam. Remember, Trump is not really a Republican. He hijacked the party because it was so stupid that it thought the country would go for Jeb! The Republicans hate Trump almost as much as the Dems do.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 24, 2019 16:04:54 GMT -5
Dog and pony show. Of all the people to act as his “lawyer”, Cohen has Clinton fixer Lanny Davis? This is purely political. Lanny was on the other end of a political impeachment gambit by good ole’ Newt in the late 1990s, so who better to use on the political offensive?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 24, 2019 16:04:23 GMT -5
Dog and pony show. Of all he people to act as his “lawyer”, Cohen has Clinton fixer Lanny Davis? This is purely political. Lasnyvwas on the other end of a political impeachment witch-hunt by good ole’ Newt in the 1990s, so who better to use on the political offensive?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 14:01:55 GMT -5
Oh, so now Mueller is not telling us the truth? Which is it, as you cannot have it both ways. I realize nuance might be tough for you, but Mueller's office statement says two things are inaccurate : - description of specific statements to the special counsel's office - characterization of documents + testimony received by SCO There's ample room in there for both Mueller and Buzzfeed to be right and for this to be tied up in semantic questions. Then why is he the President's lawyer? You see, I do not blindly support anything that anyone does. I think Rudy is way over the hill and think that he does more harm than good ("good", from his client's perspective).
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 11:28:51 GMT -5
It is so sad that your worldview is governed by whether a person follows a particular media source. Whatever happened to gaining facts and forming opinions there on? You cannot conceive that a person can do this? My worldview? Ha! The only fact here is that your views align with Fox News at almost 100%. Since I was watching our game, I couldn't catch the 9:00 PM news programs so I cannot tell you if FN's position re: Covington HS kids aligns with your own. Sorry. Your obsession over whether another poster watches Fox News and insisting that he does despite repeated statements that he does not borders on obsession. For the thousandth time, I do not form my opinions based upon slanted cable news propaganda outfits -- not Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. Nor do I jump at "too good to be true" reporting like Buzzfeed/Cohen, or the false reporting of CNN with the "Vietnam Era Veteran Native American Elder Vietnam Era Veteran"!
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 11:24:19 GMT -5
Except that Buzzfeed has doubled down and defended their reporting, and Rudy Giuliani has basically admitted that Trump talked to Cohen about his testimony which pretty much confirms the basis of the story. It's more of a question of what in that report Mueller's office is disputing, and we don't know what that is. Throwing the term fake news around constantly doesn't help your case that you are just looking for accurate reporting. Oh, so now Mueller is not telling us the truth? Which is it, as you cannot have it both ways. As far as Giuliani, I have no idea what he is talking about, and I doubt that he does. But speaking to someone about testimony, if true, is not necessarily the same as urging someone to lie. I submit that this will all come out in the wash, but your banking on the reporting of a "serial fabulist" who has been refuted by Mueller no less seems like grasping at straws.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:35:05 GMT -5
The link is to show how so many for fake news. This refers back to the discussion on the Muelker thread regarding the debunked Buzzfeed story on Cohen. You were all excited by this on Friday on that thread. Before Mueller refuted the story I commented that it may not be accurate and noted that one of the authors had a very shaky past. The gang immediately attacked. So yes you did fall for fake news, just like the satire link.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:27:57 GMT -5
Stick to being an attorney because your armchair psychology game is not strong. You're the one linking babylonbee and saying that it made you think of those here. What did I read into that? The link is to show how so many for fake news...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:26:48 GMT -5
I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. Thanks for answering. I don't care if you read Breibart or not, but I'm calling BS on you not watching Fox News... It is so sad that your worldview is governed by whether a person follows a particular media source. Whatever happened to gaining facts and forming opinions there on? You cannot conceive that a person can do this?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 22, 2019 6:21:18 GMT -5
I responded to a question that another person asked. You seem to read wild things into other’s factual, neutral statements. I do not assume anything about what you or others read. Your insecurity is showing. Stick to being an attorney because your armchair psychology game is not strong. You're the one linking babylonbee and saying that it made you think of those here. What did I read into that? The link is to show how you all fall for fake news.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 23:13:11 GMT -5
You're really going to town on that straw man you've constructed. Great job, you're a real man for beating up on arguments no one makes.[/quote Arguing with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall! But at least I avoid ad hominem attacks...
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 23:06:57 GMT -5
I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. The odd part is that, on a Georgetown board, you assume others don't read at least as many sources as you read and also, apparently, assume that most of us rely on the networks with which you take issue. I can assure you, both assumptions are wildly wrong. I responded to a question that another person asked. You seem to read wild things into other’s factual, neutral statements. I do not assume anything about what you or others read. Your insecurity is showing.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 23:02:37 GMT -5
This team plays no defense and the BE knows it.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 21, 2019 22:35:30 GMT -5
Just curious and honest question, where do you get your news from? I do not watch network or cable "news". It is biased both ways depending upon the agenda. Since the near demise of print media over the past several years I have found that the MSM simply caters to one side or the other and has mixed news with opinion. I rely upon sources like Bloomberg News, Reuters, European papers -- they generally have far less of an agenda that the NYT, WPost, or WSJ. The financial media is also good, e.g., CNBC. I also read Real Clear Politics and Real Clear World for a sampling of opinion across the political spectrum, and the Hill as I find that it is generally less partisan than other similar sites, and read The American Interest until Walter Russell Mead left. I also check the Intercept as Greenwald has provocative articles. I Know that you will be unhappy but I do not read Breitbart -- I also avoid Vox and the like because they are the Breitbart of the left. I avoid Twitter and Facebook. And for a chuckle: babylonbee.com/news/press-that-incited-online-mob-against-teenagers-based-on-10-second-video-clip-unsure-why-some-people-call-them-fake-newsI thought of you guys when I read this...
|
|