@Baldimo,
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:That is your excuse? Most people should know what they [NDAs] are, the media should have been telling them.
I'm talking about the acronym. If you ask most people on the street what's an NDA, you will not get an answer. And rightfully so. You chose to use that acronym that lawyers use to give the impression that you have experience with legal principles. Which you have shown no evidence of having.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:I'm trying to point out that people are smarter then you give them credit for and you are pointing out that they are stupid... This is the only way you can give the story any merit.
Incorrect. I'm merely pointing out that most people aren't as pretentious as you are and don't go around using acronyms for legal documents instead of the real workaday name. I think a high percentage of people would know what a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" would mean if you call it that. However, only people in the legal or related professions, who deal with those often, (like several times a day), shorten the name to "NDA". By using the acronym you are trying to signal that you have especial expertise on these matters. Instead, you are signalling that you are pretending to have it, which is quite a different thing.
Quote Blickers:
Quote:Are you now suggesting that newspapers forsake looking at an applicant's credentials and instead insist on asking their party affiliation?
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:I suggesting that it can figured out by how and what they chose to write about. It isn't hard to figure out the political leanings of someone by how they write a story.
In other words, if the legit media write something that deviates from what right wing media is writing, such as it was dubious that Iraq had WMDs, you feel that shows a left wing bias. The unfortunate part is, most of the legit media really didn't even do that, they got on board the Iraq invasion train, but you're still complaining they were biased to the left. You are unbelievable.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:I find it funny that you have to travel back that far [Iraq invasion] to find some sort of proof that the media isn't left-leaning. The attention they paid to military deaths when Bush was in office and their lack of attention when Obama was in office.
As the Iraq invasion blew up the Middle East and we are still involved up to our necks today, I felt it served to disprove your notion of the legit media being left leaning quite well. We are still dealing daily with the result of that invasion.
Oh, and now you object to the publication of body counts? You must be kidding. The Iraq invasion was sold to the American people on the basis of Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and the war would be over quickly, so let's do it. Well, there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and we are still over there. And the right is now complaining that even though the legit media got on board the bandwagon to go in and take out Saddam, they are left leaning because they kept track of the number of casualties.
You exemplify the person who first finds out what people on his side say, then believes in it.
Quote Blickers:
Quote: Whatever Trump does or says is all right.
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:The MSM has done similar things for left-wing candidates. Bill Clinton anyone?
Bill Clinton didn't fill his campaign and Cabinet with a pack of Putin-loving Quislings who just got done working for Kremlin supported causes and meet Russian officials secretly. And then lie to the FBI and Senate when they try to check them out.