Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 True that. Glad they fixed it Translation: Ooops. Sorry. I'm a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 sorry. I'm a dumbass. you're not the only one who's sorry you're a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 you're not the only one who's sorry you're a dumbass. My wife has 1,726 ways of calling me a dumbass without ever using the word. She has 371 ways of calling me a dumbass without even speaking. Yes, she's THAT good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 In the real world, those of us who follow twitter, read this appalling, deceitful editorial online around 9:30 last evening. Criticism of the LIE was quick from both Conservatives and Liberals. The NYT HAD TIME to pull it before their print edition came out. They chose not to..........They deliberately printed something that they knew was libelous. Lawyer-induced corrections only impress dullards like Gator. GUY BENSON: New York Times Only Partially Corrects-Palin-Giffords Lie. The Times has added an online correction on this coruscating inaccuracy, reducing the likelihood that they’ll get sued over their libelous bilge. I obviously approve of the decision to alter this grossly inaccurate content, but the fact that their essay was approved as fit to print in the first place last evening is quite revealing. A central piece of their argument was rooted in fantastical left-wing folk lore, repeated so frequently by people who populate institutions like the New York Times editorial board that it morphed into a “fact.” The new version of the editorial still mentions Palin’s map, which is totally unconnected to anything of relevance on this subject. A bizarre non-sequitur. Their utterly wrong, unsupported implication remains intact. How about deleting the entire piece? Also, having made a change to their virtual copy under intense criticism today, will the Times showcase an apology and retraction in tomorrow’s print edition? Outlook not so good. Are you really outraged, or are you just paid to be outraged? Translation: Ooops. Sorry. I'm a dumbass. Well, once and awhile I pull a Chef. You seem to pull one every time you post, though. You dumbass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Shame on the New York Times. Shame.by David French The New York Times published its editorial in response to yesterday’s vicious, violent, and explicitly political attack on Congressional Republicans — an attack that wounded four and left Representative Steve Scalise in critical condition in a Washington-area hospital — and it is abhorrent. It is extraordinarily cruel, vicious, and — above all — dishonest. The editorial doesn’t just twist the truth to advance the board’s preferred narratives; it may even be libelous, a term I choose carefully. Yesterday’s shooter, James Hodgkinson, left little doubt as to his political leanings and his political motivations. He was a vocal Bernie Sanders supporter, belonged to Facebook groups with names such as “Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is paved with Republicans,” and he was constantly sharing angry anti-GOP messages and memes. Before opening fire, he reportedly asked whether the players on the baseball field were Democrats or Republicans. In other words, all available signs point to an act of lone-wolf progressive political terror. How does the Times deal with this evil act? The editorial begins innocently enough, describing the shooting and even forthrightly outlining Hodgkinson’s politics. But then, the board says this — and it’s worth quoting at length: Let’s be blunt. In its zeal to create moral equivalencies and maintain a particular narrative about the past, the Times flat-out lied. There is simply no “link to political incitement” in Loughner’s murderous acts. The man was a paranoid schizophrenic who first got angry at Gabby Giffords years before Palin published her map. The Times editorial board didn’t have far to go to understand Loughner’s motivations; it could have asked . . . New York Times reporters. In an excellent reported piece published just days after the Tucson shootings, the paper described Loughner’s mental illness and nonsensical political beliefs in disturbing detail. For example, as he descended into the depths of his disease, he not only spewed bizarre and incoherent political ideas, he rejected conventional math and grammar. In short, he broke with reality: Palin is a public figure, and that means that newspapers rightly have a wide berth to attack her, to criticize her, and to make even the wildest arguments about her. They do not, however, have the right to intentionally lie about her. Given the body of evidence now available about Loughner, including evidence reported in their own paper, what is the editorial board’s defense? Let’s not forget, this is the same editorial board that, one year ago, laid blame on Republican Christian politicians for an Orlando terrorist attack by a confessed Islamic jihadist. Omar Mateen swore allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but the Times editors believed (again, without any evidence) that he was inspired in part by Republican objections to granting men access to women’s restrooms. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448664/new-york-times-steve-scalise-shameful-editorial https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?_r=1 “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” - Barack Obama, 6/14/2008 When do we hold him responsible for yesterday's shootings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 gall1 ɡôl/ noun noun: gall 1. bold, impudent behavior. "the bank had the gall to demand a fee" SEE: NYT Politics NYT Politics ✔@nytpolitics Fact Check: Partisans falsely blamed Loretta Lynch, Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders for Wednesday's Virginia shooting. http://nyti.ms/2subsd9 Fact Check.................Hahahahahhahah.............partisans.................hahahahhaha Wait til the NYT Editorial board that wrote this ****...https://www.nytimes....ginia.html?_r=1 hears about the facts check The projection is strong with the NYT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share Posted June 17, 2017 When will Bernie call upon all of his supporters to voluntarily disarm themselves? It's the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 When will Bernie call upon all of his supporters to voluntarily disarm themselves? It's the right thing to do. The Bernie Bros are playing this wrong. They can play the inequality and gun control games at the same time The Bernie crew tend to not be gun owners. Red Staters tend to be gun owners Ergo it's only fair the Red Staters give up some of their guns for the Bernie Bros. It's redistribution of wealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 The Bernie Bros are playing this wrong. They can play the inequality and gun control games at the same time The Bernie crew tend to not be gun owners. Red Staters tend to be gun owners Ergo it's only fair the Red Staters give up some of their guns for the Bernie Bros. It's redistribution of wealth Yes. Trump should be all for that: "Redistribution of Guns!"The Republicans should enact the "Firearm Affordability Act" which would mandate that every household be required to show proof of firearms ownership when filing their taxes, and if they don't then the IRS will fine them. Think of it as a tax. You know, like the ACA was. The Supremes would have to allow it because of the judicial precedent they set in their ruling on the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Yes. Trump should be all for that: "Redistribution of Guns!" The Republicans should enact the "Firearm Affordability Act" which would mandate that every household be required to show proof of firearms ownership when filing their taxes, and if they don't then the IRS will fine them. Think of it as a tax. You know, like the ACA was. The Supremes would have to allow it because of the judicial precedent they set in their ruling on the ACA. Well, logically if "the right to health care" means the state has to provide you with health care, then "the right to bear arms" means the state has to provide you with weaponry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 THE MEDIA HAVE A BAD CASE OF THE TRUMPS, Andrew Ferguson writes: The meeting did sound truly appalling, utterly icky. But then I started to think … wait a minute. If the story was that every cabinet member was puckering up for Trump in public, why did the CNN reporter illustrate the point with a quote from Priebus, the chief of staff, who’s not a cabinet member? And I thought some more. Most of these cabinet secretaries are pretty self-possessed people, proud of their achievements in life, and cravenly kissing up to a boss, even when he’s president of the United States, doesn’t fit the profile. And so I did what I, as a proud consumer of the mainstream liberal press, am not supposed to do. I second-guessed the mainstream liberal press. I watched the video of the cabinet meeting, all twenty-damn-five minutes of it, and I discovered that every story I had read or heard or seen that morning about the cabinet meeting was, as a whole, wrong or misleading, and in many particulars, just wrong. Unexpectedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Best to have a solid grounding of decades in the comments of The New Republic, The Nation and National Review, holding the political comments at arm's length and enjoying the book and art and cultural reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) Via The Hill Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Tuesday that Senate Republicans are using the investigation into Russian election meddling and last week’s shooting at a congressional baseball practice as “cover” to try to move their healthcare bill. Murphy said news of the Russia controversy and the shooting that left House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) seriously wounded were crowding out coverage of the Senate’s healthcare debate and that the GOP was using this as an advantage. “There’s been a lot of coverage of the Russia investigation, obviously focused last week on the devastating shooting here in Washington,” he said on CNN’s “New Day.” “Republicans have used all that news as cover to try to move a bill to the Senate floor that is deeply unpopular,” he said. This is beginning to get into Alex Jones and chem trails territory. Sean Davis ✔@seanmdav The number one news topic on Washington Post's website 6 days post-Giffords? Giffords. 6 days post-Alexandria? Phoenix is hot in June. 12:33 PM - 20 Jun 2017 Sean Davis ✔ @seanmdav Six days after Giffords was shot, CNN had 8 stories above the fold about the shooting. Today? Not a single story on last week's massacre. pic.twitter.com/y6eFrKStGm Edited June 20, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 The media proclaimed the Georgia special election was guaranteed a crowning repudiation of Trump. Now they say he had nothing to do with it. The bigest double-bird and !@#$ you possible to all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 After the stabbing of a policeman at the Flint, Michigan airport on Wednesday morning, and the report from NBC News that the assailant had shouted “Allahi Ahkbar” before the stabbing, CNN had the temerity to issue the following tweet; see if you can figure out what’s missing: CNN ✔@CNN Preliminary indications are Michigan airport suspect said something in Arabic before stabbing officer, officials say http://cnn.it/2rWchHA 2:00 PM - 21 Jun 2017 He shouted, "Please give me a hug and I won't stab you," ? He shouted, "cultural enrinchment is peaceful" ? He shouted, "CNN is reliable" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 After the stabbing of a policeman at the Flint, Michigan airport on Wednesday morning, and the report from NBC News that the assailant had shouted “Allahi Ahkbar” before the stabbing, CNN had the temerity to issue the following tweet; see if you can figure out what’s missing: He shouted, "Please give me a hug and I won't stab you," ? He shouted, "cultural enrinchment is peaceful" ? He shouted, "CNN is reliable" ? He clearly said Make America Great Again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 After the stabbing of a policeman at the Flint, Michigan airport on Wednesday morning, and the report from NBC News that the assailant had shouted “Allahi Ahkbar” before the stabbing, CNN had the temerity to issue the following tweet; see if you can figure out what’s missing: He shouted, "Please give me a hug and I won't stab you," ? He shouted, "cultural enrinchment is peaceful" ? He shouted, "CNN is reliable" ? "These pretzels are making me thirsty!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 "These pretzels are making me thirsty!" Pretzels without something to drink? I'd be stabbing mother!@#$ers too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 "These pretzels are making me thirsty!" I'd love to see Cosmo Kramer as a personality on CNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 The media proclaimed the Georgia special election was guaranteed a crowning repudiation of Trump. Now they say he had nothing to do with it. The bigest double-bird and !@#$ you possible to all of them. Has he even signed anything of substance coming from the legislative branch? So voting in a Democrat would repudiate a president who really hasn't signed anything from congress... hmm, that sounds more like it would be a repudiation of a congress with dismal approval numbers. Or simple that the voting block in that district has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts