hightor
 
  4  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 10:40 am
@layman,
Quote:
Well, that kinda shoots down the misguided notion, recently expressed in this forum, that Fox reports selectively and selectively condemns members of one party, eh?

No, it doesn't. The initial reports only mentioned those two senators. As new information comes to light, news sources edit and correct their coverage. I think what got the attention was Burr selling off his hotel stocks and Loeffler's marriage to the chairman of the NYSE. Both Feinstein and Inhofe are mentioned in the NYT's story and if there are others we'll learn who they are as well. The Reuters headline is not comparable at all with the Fox presentation.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 10:43 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

The Reuters headline is not comparable at all with the Fox presentation.


Ya think? Do you even look at Fox News?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 10:52 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

The Reuters headline is not comparable at all with the Fox presentation.


You're right about this in one sense. No commentator from Reuters called for the resignation and prosecution, unless satisfactorily explained, of a republican senator. Maybe Reuters didn't want to tinker with the republican majority in the senate, who knows?

When Fox first reported on Burns, whose picture do you think accompanied the headline? Feinstein's?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 11:10 am
@revelette3,
Quote:
When Sander first started to run for the presidency back in 2015 he did so by inferring the established democrats, long time democrats, are beholden to special interest groups. .... While mentioning the problems and some of his solutions, some of which were agreeable, some not every democrat liked, he always had to get in something about "establishment Democrats."

Yes, he is a disruptive force. Everybody can agree to that I would think. Disruption is not always a good thing but it's not always a bad thing either.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 11:12 am
Attention whores will say anything to keep an argument going.
revelette3
 
  4  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 11:16 am
@Olivier5,
(I guess I am a john? snigger)

It was more than disruption, it was dividing and conquer and the only winner was Trump.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 11:37 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Attention whores will say anything to keep an argument going.

We have noticed. Does this mean you are going to stop?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  6  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 12:29 pm
Quote:
Update: Several readers have asked about the other senators who sold stock during the same period, including Dianne Feinstein (a California Democrat), James Inhofe (an Oklahoma Republican) and Ron Johnson (a Wisconsin Republican). But none of their trades look particularly suspicious.

Feinstein has said that she did not attend the Jan. 24 briefing; her stock was in a blind trust, which means she didn’t make the decision to sell; and the transaction lost her money, because the trust was selling shares of a biotechnology stock, the value of which has since risen. Inhofe’s transactions were part of a systematic selling of stocks that he started after he became chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Johnson sold stock in his family’s plastic business, as part of a process that has been occurring for months; his sale also occurred well after stock market began falling.

nyt/leonhardt
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  7  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 12:39 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Is targeted harassment still against TOS, or are we all free to attack each other and say whatever we please—because I have a lot I’d like to say.

Political arguments about the nature and motivations of the positions someone takes here don't constitute harassment. Where and when they are unfounded (as I believe at least some of Setanta's assertions are), you can, and regularly do, rebut them. Nobody gets suspended for arguing that someone must just be trolling, and a post that makes the case when someone deems it relevant doesn't get pulled as long as it doesn't devolve in name-calling or yet another endless spat that "gets in the way of others being able to discuss a topic".

That's the problem though: whenever this happens (and I agree it's usually on Setanta's rather than your instigation), the two of you are soon escalating it into just calling each other names or otherwise having at it again in endless sequences of repetitive posts at a time. And yeah, I'm seeing those posts by both of you "disappeared" regularly, and for good reason, and I'm sure the same would happen here.

I'm with you on one thing though, and that's that this stuff has become borderline obsessive. Like jesus ******* christ guys, get some perspective. There's a lethal virus sweeping the world and having whole countries of us in anxious lockdown. I haven't been able to leave the house for a week now, and I've been freaking out all day about being short of breath when that's one of the symptoms -- and I'm one of the lucky ones. Your President and TV hosts are spreading lies with megaphones about a billion times the size of any A2K member's. Your members of Congress have been making millions off the crisis. Your hospitals (and ours too) are so understocked with safety gear that nurses and doctors are resorting to life-threatening improvisations, and the example of Italy shows that healthcare workers can end up making up to a tenth of the victims. Yet you keep blowing a gasket because some gal on an obscure internet forum takes anti-Dem/Clinton, pro-Bernie positions that you consider disingenuous during a primary that's become meaningless anyway. Okay?

Rebut any factual points you feel are wrong. Downvote the ones you can't be bothered with. Or just, for god's sake please, put the other user on ignore altogether. This site makes it all possible (as long as you don't vote brigade). For all of you. You can live with thinking that a member on a little-visited Internet forum is making fake pro-Bernie arguments, which won't matter much anymore anyway. If you want to fight the threat of institutional disinformation, there are so many more worthy ways to spend your time than to keep harping on how you believe some a2k member isn't honest about their stated convictions. For god's sake.

/rant
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 12:46 pm
@layman,
Why won't that damn Fox just leave poor republicans be, I ask ya?

Quote:
Sen. Kelly Loeffler grilled by Ed Henry over reports she sold off stocks ahead of coronavirus pandemic

Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., denied any allegations of insider trading or misconduct on Friday. "It's absolutely false. And, it could not be true," she stated.


See the link for the full grilling, eh?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kelly-loeffler-defends-stock-sales-before-coronavirus-crash
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  4  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 01:38 pm

Briahna Joy Gray
@briebriejoy
· 2h
I hope it’s not too “divisive” for me to gently suggest that if you’re running for President right now, you should be front and center addressing this crisis. Sorta like Bernie.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 02:22 pm
Fake news agitators bite the dust, yet again, eh?

Quote:
Trump spars with reporters during fiery coronavirus briefing

President Trump sparred with journalists during his daily coronavirus task force press conference on Friday, going so far as to call NBC News' Peter Alexander a “terrible reporter.” Many other reporters in the room in turn sided with Alexander, making a large portion of the question-and-answer session more about their frayed relationship with the president than it was about the pandemic.

It all started when Alexander asked Trump if his “impulse to put a positive spin on things” could be giving Americans a “false sense of hope” amid the pandemic. The president explained he had a “good feeling” about possible solutions the FDA is working on.

“Let’s see what happens, we have nothing to lose,” Trump said.

Alexander interrupted the next reporter who was called on and shouted, “What do you say to Americans who are scared?”
“I say that you’re a terrible reporter. That’s what I say,” Trump fired back.

“I think that’s a very nasty question and I think it’s a very bad signal that you’re putting out to the American people,” Trump said. “The American people are looking for answers and they’re looking for hope. And you’re doing sensationalism and, the same with NBC and Con-cast. I don’t call it Comcast, I call it Con-cast”

Trump then pointed at Alexander and said, “That’s really bad reporting,” and urged him to “get back to reporting instead of sensationalism.”

“You ought to be ashamed of yourself,” Trump said before moving on to the next reporter.


Reprimanded like a dull, surly schoolboy, eh?

Trump, he ROCKS!
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 03:21 pm
@nimh,
I was responding to a post by georgeob1, so don't allege that I instigated a personal attack. I addressed Lash's behavior since the 2016 primary season. I did not attack her character, and I did not indulge in the name-calling which seems to have become habitual with her.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 03:31 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I was responding to a post by georgeob1, so don't allege that I instigated a personal attack. I addressed Lash's behavior since the 2016 primary season. I did not attack her character, and I did not indulge in the name-calling which seems to have become habitual with her.

Saying that everything a person says is a calculated lie is in fact character assassination.

And it has continued for five years and it is unprovoked
targeted harassment.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 03:48 pm
By your criterion, repeatedly calling someone a coward without provocation is targeted harassment. You have become addicted to name-calling.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 05:03 pm
Quote:
Ex-FEMA boss bolts from MSNBC interview: 'I don't have time to listen to bullshit, people'

The issue of how big a role federal agencies should play in the response to the coronavirus outbreak led to some fireworks on MSNBC on Thursday.

Both guests worked for the Obama administration, with Fugate heading FEMA for eight years, and Slavitt serving as acting CMS administrator from 2015-2017.

"I don't have time to listen to bullshit, people," a fed-up Craig Fugate said, as he took off his earpiece and stormed out of the set during an interview with the network's Katy Tur.

Fugate left while Slavitt was speaking. The altercation started after Fugate said the federal government needed to get out of the way and allow state agencies to do their jobs.

Slavitt claimed Fugate's comments weren't "helpful" in addressing the outbreak, and contended that the nation needed a central overseer, "someone looking through the entire system," to respond to the outbreak. .


These Democrats are sure divided, eh? When you make career out of sowing seeds of division, I guess that's where you inevitably end up,

I aint tryin to get into this dispute, but you would think that Fugate, who served as the head of FEMA for 8 years, would have the better insight into how these things work best. And, of course, commies always want to "centralize government," so what else is new there?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 05:17 pm
During this lull in the conversation...



layman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 05:19 pm
@blatham,
Who is that singing there?

I wanna know so I don't ever accidentally listen to her again.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 06:46 pm
Quote:
Mike Bloomberg spent nearly $1B of his own money on failed presidential bid

A Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing revealed on Friday that the billionaire contributed $935,360,675.56 to his campaign during the 2020 election cycle.


Heh.

By cheese-eater math, he could have instead given $1 million to every American.

Boy did that chump get played by his own staff, eh? One guy, who of course encouraged Mini-Mike at every step, reportedly ripped off over $40 million for handling the campaign ads.

Nice try, Mini-Mike.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2020 08:04 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

By cheese-eater math, he could have instead given $1 million to every American.


Quote:
MSNBC's Brian Williams, NYT's Mara Gay Agree Bloomberg Could Have Given Each American $1 Million With Money He Spent

Thursday on MSNBC's "The Eleventh Hour" with Brian Williams, New York Times Editorial Board Member Mara Gay and the host accepted without question a tweet that (jokingly) said that Michael Bloomberg could have given every American one million dollars with the five hundred million dollars he spent on his short-lived presidential campaign. In reality, $500 million divided by 327 million Americans is about $1.53 per person.

"When I read it tonight on social media, it kind of all became clear," Williams said.

The tweet read: "Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. Population, 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and have had lunch money left over."

"It’s an incredible way of putting it," Williams said.

"It’s an incredible way of putting it," Gay said. "It’s true. It’s disturbing.


It's bad enough if you're a fool who reads tweets and believes them all. But it's even worse when you're a dumb-ass who is incapable of thinking for yourself, eh?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:12:36