:police: Be careful with the personal attacks Disagree with me all you want, but tone it down. :police:
If I talked to you like that, you and your fellow liberals (you claim to be a conservative :blink: ) would be spamming the report button until it broke the site.
Maybe you should have read the thread to get what's being talked about.
Oh Boy. You're lying your ass off and I'm a "liberal…" Sure thing moron...
flaming
Everyone over a certain age knows about East Germany and it's women athletes.
My question is; why do people still claim it was wrong and cheating?
They injected real women with testosterone.
Today we let guys compete in female competition just by claiming they are trans. They don't have to do anything, not even shave their mustache and they are in.
As far as I see it, East Germany was more honest than the crap going on today.
This is the most ignorant post I've ever read in my entire life.
How is utilizing a hormone that dictates your sex, cheating in a competitive sport where your sex is a requirement to compete?
If this is confusing to you, then you are retarded.
Sooner or later, you need to come to terms with the fact that you are a stupid person and that you should not speak in public, the internet, or anywhere else.
Regarding trans people competing in sports, of course it's cheating … Should it be allowed, no drugs that manipulate your body should be fucking allowed in sports, even caffeine. Obviously if you take 1g of caffeine before a workout, your performance will improve, you can build more muscle. Should steroids or testosterone injections be allowed? No, it should be a fucking sport...
You're confusing rights of transgender people and ability to compete in sports and you are a complete asshole for doing so.
If you inject testosterone into your body, you can't compete, that's the rules... You making up shit about transgender people and their ability to compete in sports is ridiculous.
flaming
Evidence that the McCain Institute may be linked to child trafficking:
See guys, I may like Trump but that's because he's not really a Republican. He only ran as one because his values are libertarian, and he had no other way to win. I despise Republicans and Democrats, because they really are only one party playing both sides, just pretending to be different. And I feel like you should appreciate that Trump destroyed not just the Democrats, but the Republicans as well. We all know they're both corrupt, and he's the only one who called them out and had the power to get people to listen.
It doesn't take an internet detective to figure out this is fake.
I'm going to glance at the rest of his channel (totally expecting there to be alien conspiracies and proof ghosts exist.)
No, but there is this : "#PizzaGate Shockumentary - They're Drinking Children's Blood"
Riiight… /eyeroll
It seems this guy is really caught up in the whole pizzagate thing.
Look at this video: he's literally "broadcasting" from his basement.
It's hard to tell what microphone that is, but it doesn't sound right. The "Ps" are loud, so it's a bad mic, no pop filter, and no post production.
It appears he really does have a radio show.
http://talk921.com/complete_schedule/
Whoa boy, 3 hour Saturday morning show on a 2,600 watt radio station in a town with a population of 139,588.
There's University DJs that have more listeners.
Edit: The guy works at a radio station, you would think he would at lease use a large diaphragm condenser microphone he got off ebay, to at least look somewhat legit. Maybe buy some plywood sheets and glue sound dampening foam to it, so it looks like he's in a studio, and not, you know, his fucking basement…
Regarding Sedition:
Note: Citing Wikipedia because it's faster then looking it up elsewhere.
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger."
_18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both._
So unless Schiff (I didn't look up the quote) was calling for a military coup, or is currently a member of the military, he's fine.
Since Donald Trump is a public figure, he has little ability to peruse civil matters:
In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.
Which is why CNN can't call him a "crook" as he has never been convicted of theft, but if he was convicted of stealing a candy bar, they can, since it's true, technically. They can put the words in the same sentence, but they have to work around it by suggesting something like; #statement#, does that make him a crook? or what Donald does, I've been hearing, people have said, somebody told me that. Or what Fox does, they just put the words and concepts next to each other in separate sentences. So, they'll say something like "Under federal law it's a crime to #statement#. #Person# was seen with #statement#." They never actually claim anything other than their true statements.
Welcome to #fakenews.
It is very difficult not to be arrogant when you are a genius. It took me decades to learn that lesson.
A piece of advice: the majority of people will only believe that if they believe you have significant bankroll.
You don't actually need to have it, but if people perceive you as being rich, to most people, 'you are a genius."
It's going to be virtually impossible to alter somebody's perception on a forum, especially this one.
I'm sure most people think we are all internet trolls living in a trailer park somewhere.
Regarding the comedy shows: the Nielson data is pretty expensive and the rights are exclusive and you don't get redistribution rights without paying more for them. You might see estimates on various websites, but that's not very accurate and the media companies obviously use the real data. From the various sites online that post the estimated numbers, it does seem like those shows have taken a minor hit, but you have the NBA finals in the #1 spot, so it's expected. Once the finals are over those shows should rebound.
Can the media hype up Jim Comey a little more? …
"The Russia maelstrom raging around Donald Trump's presidency reaches a momentous plot twist this week with a quintessential Washington drama set to unfold when ex-FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate."
It sounds like a movie trailer. Read it out loud in the "epic movie guy voice."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/comey-testimony-trump/index.html
Oh and, did anybody notice that Trump used twitter? Okay, well the media did.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/5/15739346/muslim-ban-trump-tweets
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/amp/tweeting-fuming-trump-spirals-further-crisis-n768211
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18U0YC
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/336274-london-mayor-i-have-more-important-things-to-do-than-respond-to-trumps-ill
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/06/05/trumps-latest-unhinged-tweetstorm-could-hasten-his-downward-spiral/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/04/politics/donald-trump-london-terror-tweets/
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336346-trump-tweets-might-undercut-travel-ban-case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/04/with-his-london-tweets-trump-embarrasses-himself-and-america-once-again/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-tweets-favor-original-travel-ban-not-watered-down-version-n768191
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2096992/trump-new-twitter-tirade-urges-tougher-us-travel-ban
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/new-opposition-emerges-as-trump-pushes-for-travel-ban/2017/06/04/5914e7fa-4973-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-latest-tweets-could-hurt-effort-to-restore-travel-ban/2017/06/05/c8eb5940-49e8-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-london-terror-promote-travel-bans-twitter-article-1.3222344
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2017/06/05/trumps-latest-twitter-barrage-could-hurt-his-effort-to-have-travel-ban-restored/
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/06/trump_pushes_travel_ban_on_twitter_following_londo.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/05/trump-tweets-criticism-of-his-own-travel-ban-with-comey-looming/
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2017/jun/05/trump-criticizes-justice-dept-travel-ban/431742/
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/trump-monday-twitter-seeks-quick-supreme-court-review-of-travel-ban/
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-travel-ban-tweets-supreme-court-case-2017-6
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/trump_launches_early_morning_muslim_travel_ban_twitter_tantrum
There's so much more, I just didn't feel like spending an hour cut and pasting it all.
Media hysteria?
Just a little …
As Trump already revealed, ISIS was behind the latest attacks in London England, which followed the attacks last week in Manchester England.
I have a solution to the ISIS problem. Send Barack Obama to personally negotiate with ISIS by going to Syria and meeting with his good buddy Abū Bakr al-Baghdādi.
We could just kill them like Trump was suggesting. I'm personally not sure why they are still alive. I was fully prepared for Iraq War #3 : Syria Edition. I'm just wondering what the hell happened. He's got to do something to get his poll numbers up, last time they were around where they are now, he shot off some missiles and they went back up. Instead of going in, we keep blowing up civilians while the media hides it. Were at like what? Over 1,500 now? The MSM gives it about 30 seconds of coverage for every 30 minutes of analysis of Donald Trump's Twitter account.
I'm waiting for Trey Parker's prophecy to come true.
Please get you information correct, this was London, NOT the UK, That means it warrants 24hr none stop coverage not only on local news but country and world news.
When will you Americans and the rest of the world realise that one Londoner is worth 10,000 of you guys, if not more. In the North of England and in Scotland we have known this for years and still get reminded on a regular basis that we are worthless compared to Londoners. More people died in Manchester but being "Up North" it didn't get as much coverage, had it not been children involved I doubt it would have even got mentioned.
You actually might be right about that. The Manchester attack got less coverage in US media (right now it's wall to wall everywhere), but it might be because it's a slow news day. Trump is playing golf so the center to left media can not micro analyze every single thing he does as if they're TMZ and blast it all over the place as front page news. CNN has a "Crisis Room" for every time he tweets, that is staffed 24/7 with a small army of journalists. As far as getting the attention of the media, obviously Trump is #1 and no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, no matter what you believe, Trump has gotten more media coverage then any other human being ever. I wouldn't be surprised if when ever he starts to fall out of the news for more than an hour or two, Steve Banon goes and leaks information to the media to create false controversies. I'm sure the media will stop caring about the London attacks by noon tomorrow.
To maintain their continuous converge of Trump, the mainstream media has resorted to name calling, it's that bad.
Edit: Only linking to reddit to avoid directly linking to it.
Wow. The media is seriously evil (on all sides.)
In 2015: 38,422 people died from terrorist attacks and 43,495 people were injured, in 14,806 separate incidents (over 40 incidents per day.)
7 people die in the UK and everybody freaks out.
All of sudden it's a problem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_terrorist_incidents_by_country
I hope you guys can keep your shit together when you hear that there were approximately 15,750 homicides in the last year in the US alone.
Eight days ago, this libtard Jeremy Joseph Christian did a dastardly act, and the story quickly got reported as being an example of a Trump supporter gone wild.. but shortly after, it was found that this guy was NOT a Trump supporter, but was actually a supporter of loopy Jill Stein and commie Bernie Sanders. Once that was discovered, the story about this attack got snuffed out and extinguished from the internet as if it never occurred. Typical!
"Jeremy Joseph Christian, the 35-year-old Portland white supremacist who murdered two men and left another critically wounded in a knife attack while yelling anti-Muslim slurs at two women on Friday, has been painted by the mainstream media as a “right-wing extremist,” but posts on his Facebook page indicate he was a supporter of socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
According to screen captures of his Facebook page obtained by Buzzfeed, Christian was not a Trump supporter, as many media outlets claimed, but was a supporter of the idea of a Sanders/Stein ticket."
You're suggesting that he was liberal, which is a little unclear, but it seems that he was not. He said he was "declared sane in federal court", there's pictures and video of him at Trump rallies, was "registered libertarian", was a "nihilist", and liked Bernie Sanders and Breitbart. To me, I would question the judges decision, as many of the things this person has suggested are rather conflicting. He was also strongly against Hillary Clinton. Pretty much the only thing that can be established from any of this, is that guy was a little bit "all over the place."
"Snuffed out": You can not delete anything off the internet, especially news. He was arraigned in court and it was reported by hundreds of media outlets. Do you expect the media to do daily updates or something? "Today Jeremy, who stabbed two men to death, sat in his cell and took a nap, while waiting for his trial" … Edit: I'm talking legitimate news, like APnews/Reuters, everything else is sensationalist infotainment - "stories about the news." The MSM takes stories from sources like the AP and 'produces a product', which is media in an 'entertaining format.' Then people go argue on the internet about it in the same way people argue about the outcome of WWE wrestling matches. Since I have incite into media production, I find it completely ridiculous, that people ingest this information, then show up rallies or protests to basically have "Batman vs Superman" wars. Batman wins, okay? Go home and do something productive ...
As far as evaluating his political alignment, any media outlet can cherry pick any citation they want: he showed up for trump rallies, was anti clinton, claimed to support a nonexistent sanders/stein 2017 (...?!?) ticket, claimed he was a registered libertarian, he was an antisemite, against circumcision, didn't seem to understand christianity, claimed he wasn't a fascist, was pro nazi, said he wasn't here for "anybody" at a trump rally after proclaiming that he was a "nihilist" (wikipedia: a person who believes life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles), and claimed he was the "dude who promoted shooting anyone who tries to disarm you" as if he was the first person to think of that or something.
No political stand is required: If he believes life is meaningless, great, then he should be completely fine with the death penalty. He murdered two people, I'm fine with it.
Feminism is merely the belief that women and men are equal. I wouldn't compare it to using public money to religiously indoctrinate children, which is what DeVos supports.
The concept that men are equal to women is ludicrous. They are different. Not necessarily greater or worse.
In mathematical terms.. "8" is not equal to "0" (or if a virgin "o")For thick libtards.. the 8 represents balls and the 0 a vagina.
Everyone is unique. To label everyone as being equal is a scary concept.. like being treated like a mixed mélange of ground beef.
It's fascinating how libtard groups are always calling for "equality". If that is true, why are their feminist groups, black groups, Asian groups, every other minority groups, every special interest groups. All of these "groups" should be combined as ONE group if they really want to be treated as "equals".
I'm not sure I understand your "math."
Could you build a data model and render it with linear regression?
Actually, YouTube has plenty of excellent videos on countless topics.
Without YouTube, we wouldn't have the raw footage of Mouldylocks and the fight. Liberal media spun her to be a total victim and ignored her FB page and countless other bits of info that showed she was no victim, but an instigator.
We also got to see how 4Chan proved the guy with the bike lock was Eric Canton.
We also get to see the lunacy of liberals. I love the Tucker Carlson interviews.
There's also videos proving the Earth is flat, ghosts are real, and proof aliens exist.
Regarding Eric Canton, I hope the police have actual evidence because the technique the 4chan guys "invented" is not admissible as evidence in court and that's a really nasty setup for civil cases. That might be a valid technique to identify the suspect but if they don't have hard evidence then he's going to walk. To me, it looks like him, so if the police got a warrant, and found the bike lock, tested it, and found there to be blood traces on it, okay great, put him in jail. But, if he gets cleared in court this could backfire badly. I hope that's something the 4chan users who are playing "pretend police officers" thought about, if he's found innocent that's an extremely strong case for defamation.
As far as 4chan itself, there's literally people having conversations on there right now, asking whether they should go have sex with a horse or not. There's zero credibility there.
Tucker Carlson: A clever individual obviously, but the organization him and his former college room founded, Daily Caller, was recently called out for a tax evasion scheme that reveals how the site is funded by donations from political organizations. Typically, an advertiser can contribute to media legally and the FCC has setup rules which regulate this native media. In the case of native media, the publisher is always left with the option to exclude the media. As an example: if I am a politician that is against marijuana legalization, I can contract local news outlets to run stories about the destructive effects of marijuana on teenagers and since no product or service is being endorsed, no indication of an advertorial or sponsored content is required.
The Daily Caller scheme works around all of that by having a non-profit organization offer the media to the for profit corporation for consideration. So the scheme regarding both tax laws and compliance with FCC regulations is definitely very smart, but they lose all credibility, it's as fake as fake news could get. Even in their own tax filing, this is their mission statement: "to train up-and-coming reporters and editors, to carry out investigative reporting, and to perform deep policy reporting with a purpose of consumer awareness and education." So the organization is training their staff and there's no expectation of accuracy, since they are not "professional", which helps shield the organization from civil cases in the situation where they are sued for publishing false information about an individual or organization.
Fox works around this expectation in a different way, since it's a broadcasting company, and the "Fox News" brand makes no claims that any of it's shows are "News", so there should be little confusion in court about whether or not the network has any duty to be accurate. The shows and published schedules are clearly titled and accurately describe what the shows are, so even to viewers, there should be no confusion about the fact that all of the shows are opinions or stories. Stories come in two varieties, fiction and non fiction, and they never disclose which. This is why Seth Rich's family members have little to no legal recourse against Sean Hannity's opinion about their son. There is a lot of internet folklore around Fox's "Right To Lie" case which they won, but the reality is, the "Fox News" brand is not really legally exposed in a situation where the facts are unclear or they are expressing their opinion.
I'm not suggesting the brand is "fake news" because the reality is, it's not even news in the first place, or at least, they don't claim it is. So no disclosure of opinion is needed, which makes it a great network for somebody like Tucker Carlson to be involved with. I would watch the show, but I already know it's just his opinion and it's a show for the purpose of entertainment. He could claim that Obama is a vampire who eats the fetuses of unborn babies and if I wanted to read or watch random opinions, there's plenty of entertainment, in the comment sections of everything ever linked to off drudgereport.com . Also, I'm not sure it Tucker will last on Fox, since I'm not sure if he's capable of pulling off some of the theatrics of somebody like Glenn Beck; the bit where he poured 'gasoline' all over his co-host was hysterical.
The dictionary definition says that, but in practice feminists want special rights.
Also notice how liberals love the dictionary definition of feminism, but hate it for racism, sexism, etc, etc, etc . That's the dictionary fallacy.
Depending on what we are talking about, even the dictionary definition doesn't make sense to me.
Should all people be self sufficient within reason: Of course. I don't expect anybody to do their taxes then show up at the IRS to process their return, obviously, that's not reasonable.
Should boys be taught that they are the same as girls? I don't think so. Obviously there is a difference. Should men be taught to respect women, I think so.
The NYT article loosely suggests for parents to teach boys as if they are girls. I'm okay with the dictionary definition of feminism, but what they are suggesting seems a bit strange to me. What the article is suggesting is a little bit over the line of equality and a little bit 'gender blending'.
I know you probably won't believe me, but I really am extremely strongly against abortion unless it's a serious medical issue or rape (in which case it should be dealt with by professionals, immediately after the incident) but when this conversation goes beyond understanding ones own sex and sexuality, this dialog gets kind of weird to me.
The Devos thing is insane though, I understand that people believe what they want to, and I'm very confused as why I'm now going to be paying for children to learn concepts that have been proven to be antiquated.
I should be able to opt out of paying for children to be brainwashed by nonsense, just because that's what their parents want.
The mountain of known facts is already out there, so when will an Independent Counsel be chosen to investigate the collusion between the Clintons and Russia?
How can libtards sleep at night knowing that the Clintons were colluding with those bad 'ol Russians who used to be communists 26 years ago?
That's an interesting round up of "facts" that have been debunked multiple times. There were discussions across the internet and across multiple law enforcement agencies about all of them and if any of it were actual true, the people involved, in many cases, would actually be in jail right now.
I didn't vote for Hillary and certainly don't support criminal behavior, so if you have something new to add to the conversation, I would love to hear it, but the video you linked is spam and propaganda. I wish it was true, but sorry, it isn't.
Edit: the only thing that I heard that was even close to factual was the uranium deal, which honestly, that characterization of what happened is incredibly misleading.
Also, why are you getting your information from youtube? Anybody can post videos to youtube and manipulate the view count. There are dozens of complete hack companies that sell fake youtube views as a service. I can buy 10k fake views for 5$.
Did you glance at their channel page? It looks like a child created it…
Feminism is merely the belief that women and men are equal. I wouldn't compare it to using public money to religiously indoctrinate children, which is what DeVos supports.
It's not taught in any way shape or form in US public schools, as far as I am aware.
This is a pretty interesting article I read in the NYT.
Seeing as this is an gay site, how do you feel about parents raising "feminist boys" ?
Personally, I feel that society has a responsibility to teach children about reality, rather than fictional stories told by people hundreds or thousands of years ago, that have been passed down through the generations as factual. Obviously people like Betsy Devos would probably rather have children be offered the opportunity to be taught the about the spirituality of the Heavens Gate cult, if that's what parents want for their children.
I don't know if I specifically support teaching boys to become feminists, but does the education system itself have a responsibility to teach feminism to all children?
The current administration seems to support "school choice", which to me, just seems like a cash grab to privatize public institutions. If there is a push to teach children alternate realities in the private education system, should there be an opposite push back to start teaching children about concepts like equality, critical thinking, and sustainability? Or should the public education system continue to prepare children for a work place environment?
I guess the main issue here is: It's obvious to me that the current administration will not make any effort to stop discrimination of students, so if LGBTQ students or students from LGBTQ families are not allowed to enter private school, should the public education system step up and teach acceptance to diversity?
I'm also a little bit uncomfortable with tax payer money going to teach children about things that have been proven to be factually untrue, but society is too political correct to call these people out on their own illogical and incorrect beliefs. To me, it's completely ridiculous when people tell LGBTQ people that they are "going to go to hell" or something else equally distorted and misguided. Depending on which version of the bible they believe and depending on which person wrote it, homosexuality may or may not even be mentioned. There's also so many things in the bible which people completely ignore, so it's nothing more than individual people allowing their personal beliefs to dictate what they believe, about their own religion. Which is most likely based upon somebody else's opinion, since they have likely spent little to no time actually researching it for themselves and just believe what somebody else 'taught them.' Often times, the teaches are false profits, as it is well established, but infrequently discussed, that most religious texts, have the historical accuracy of a comic book.
I honestly believe that teaching or raising boys to be feminists is nonsense, but the reality is, that seems to be the goal of the current administration anyways; to allow parents the choice to teach their children nonsense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/upshot/how-to-raise-a-feminist-son.html
You seriously don't see that giant picture in this thread? You need to check your settings. Look for the post dated 6 March @ 19:32.
WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES; is what the newspaper headline is for the story the day after the internet article is dated.
If you could see the picture, you'd know the article headline isn't the same as the internet article headline even though they both seem to be the same story.
The article says it's unclear how much of the data and investigation is about Trump and his campaign.
If the article was about Hillary's associates, then you would be screaming for blood. You'd be claiming it was about getting at her.
Alright dude. I quit. I'm not going to sit here and be trolled by the moderator of any site, especially this one. I've told you multiple times now that I'm not a liberal and I'm not a Hillary supporter.
I'm not going to be insulted by some random person online. If I wanted that, I could easily go hit up the comment section of any un-moderated site.
As far as that article goes. Ok, you're still wrong… You read it wrong, you are responsible for that, that's not my problem.
You are suggesting that Trump tweeted about what Michael S. Schmidt wrote, the problem with that is, he never stated that Trump was wire tapped and you even admitted that. And that's certainly not what Trump tweeted about, since the dates don't even close to match. What you did there is totally dishonest.
It's apparent to me, that somebody has made a big mistake about who they have moderating this forum.
As far as the image goes:
Aren't hot-linked images not allowed?
It's completely obvious you only enforce the rules when people are saying things you personally don't want to read.
The resource at “https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6QST8PWUAA_NHD.jpg” was blocked because tracking protection is enabled. 1 index.php
Yeah I really want twitter reading my cookies while I'm on this site…
Edit: You do realize how epically stupid that is right?… They can literally tie your user name here to your real twitter account and if you phone verified your twitter, they can tie your account here to you. This isn't some paranoid rant, I actually know how the tracking cookies work. If you could see that picture, you probably outed yourself in the data. Since you don't need an account to read the forum, they can just match it up via the timestamps. This is really bad since the site prints the seconds and if it syncs with an NTP server, it's probably accurate within a second. So, there will be a matching time stamp on the site when the user posts the image, in the log and on this forum, with a log of the unique ID being read, matching the time stamps. The site does use HTTPS, so the referrer isn't passed to twitter, but they can just Google the image and figure out that you're a pirate…
Have a great time with the vomit you spew all over this forum.
Why are you fixated on the articles Michael S Schmidt did for the Wall Street Journal?
I said the articles he did for the NY Times. Look at the picture of the NY Times cover posted in this thread. Jan 20, 2017 and the first name in the by line is Michael S Schmidt.
My fixation has absolutely nothing to do with Michael S Schmidt.
I can't figure out if you're confused, are trolling me, or both…
There is no NY Times cover posted in this thread …
I went through every single link twice ...
This is the article you are describing and it explicitly says "TRUMP ASSOCIATES" ... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html
You're sitting here telling me to do my own research when you don't even know what you are talking about…
Did you look at that picture of the NY Times front page?
Michael S Schmidt co-wrote that article, which was published on Jan 20, 2017.
Michael S Schmidt wrote the article criticizing Trump for claiming he was being wiretapped with no evidence.
In which article was MSS being totally dishonest?
You are the one being totally dishonest…
Those are two separate reports about two different people/persons and they are both accurate.
Did you miss that critical detail and were unintentionally conflating the two issues?
Somebody brought this important point up about the entire Russia issue, if they didn't do anything wrong, then why do they keep lying about it?!?
I don't recall ISIS invading Saudi territory and taking over their registries and passport offices.
Even al-Assad supports this ban.
You're making it sound like fake passports are something that is limited to Syria.
Oh boy. Who cares what Assad has to say …
What would you do differently?
Uh, it should apply to all of the countries that have terrorists …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index
Note: That the index does indicate where the attackers originated from, either way, there's definitely a few missing. About a dozen.
But he's not banning Muslims.
What kind of "Muslim ban" leaves out 90% of Muslims in the world and potentially affects 3-4 million Christians?
He said it was a Muslim ban before… How is attempt two that much different?
Democrats cannot admit their opposition is doing things right, so they will try to challenge it based on lies – and fail.
FBI is investigating 300 refugees for links to ISIS -- not vetted properly.
I'm not a Democrat, I just think Donald is a joke.
"We Need Clean Water" -Donald Trump
Then he wants to kill the clean water rule…
I could go on for hours … He's a pathological liar and anybody who voted for him should be angry that they got lied to.
But nope, the Trump fans just keep cheering for him as he hands the government over to corporations.
We know this is fake because if this actually happened the Trump scandals would have been much more damaging.
This is a situation where we have a crazy man who sits on the couch watching cable news all day. He hears a small piece of information and then can't stop ranting about it. Then he declares that all news is fake but still continues to believe that one thing he heard today. My elderly dad has been doing the same thing for a few years now.
Be fair now, he obviously doesn't sit on the couch watching cable news all day, he spends a lot of his time flying to his vacation getaway and golfing as well.