Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. I think you might be retarded. Honestly. Your analogies are completely worthless. Sandusky and Hitler? I very clearly said that taking the word of Trump or Melania or one of his closest allies was not relevant because they will always defend him. I am saying there were many people in the room during the supposed comments, including people that have been extremely critical of Trump. Why weren't they interviewed for the article? They should have been if the Atlantic had any integrity. An appropriate analogy would be if Biden was meeting with 10 senators on something and Fox or Breitbart or even the Atlantic published an article that said four people at the meeting anonymously told a reporter that Biden said that black people who dont vote for him were uncle toms. Hundreds of outlets then repeated the claim. Then someone from Bidens camp denies it. Then Lindsay Graham (no fan of Biden) comes out and says he was one of the senators in the meeting and Biden never said any such thing. And then 6 other people that were at the meeting said the same thing on the record- that Biden never said such a thing. Who are you going to believe? I mean Biden did have the "you aint black comment" and he did author the crime bill that devastated the black community and he did say that if we use busing for school integration that his own children would "grow up in a racial jungle" and his own VP accused him of being racist in a national debate and he did co author legislation with Jesse Helms to combat school integration and he did ask a black reporter if he was a "junkie" and he did say the black community was not diverse (with notable exceptions) and so on. Every one of those examples is true. They could be taken out of context, but they are all true. So if i said well because Biden said and did all of those things I believe the story- then I would be a hypocrite. But I would never say that. I would say Fox/Brietbart/Atlantic did a horrible job of journalism with the story because they purposefully ignored on record denials of the story by people at the meeting that were not sympathetic to Biden. Journalism would be using both the anonymous quotes and the on the record quotes and letting the reader decide. As for Michelle Obama, I have never posted anything about her that I can recall and certainly not something about her trip costs. Your delusional.
  2. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/21/the-atlantic-finally-admits-its-police-abolition-piece-is-based-on-a-false-narrative/ https://www.kusi.com/breitbart-news-editor-in-chief-calls-out-the-atlantic-for-publishing-false-story-about-president-trump/ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/04/whs_mcenany_atlantic_report_on_trump_has_been_categorically_debunked_by_witnesses_clearly_fake_news.html https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/ The reason i suggested you google the articles yourself is to get the scope of the issue. The Atlantic story by Derecka Purnell was shared by hundreds of other outlets. The whole narrative was a lie. No one cared. The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking. They didn't do any. And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own. All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic. Same with the Matt Gaetz story. Atlantic reporter tweets a story about Gaetz and a supposed conversation with Trump. Hundreds of outlets run with the story. It wasnt true at all. Gaetz was talking to Ron Desantis not Trump. No retraction from the Atlantic or the guy who made the tweet. No reprimand. I am not naive that this only occurs by one side of journalism. I am sure it happens by most of them. Trump lies. All politicians lie. From 100 years ago until today. We need journalists to be the arbiter of the truth. They are not. This is not a Trump issue. There will be Dems in the white house again and when it happens to them it will be just as big of an issue.
  3. That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read. Congrats. Michelle Obama? What are you talking about?
  4. Well I certainly never said Trump is in anyway trustworthy and I never even remotely made that argument. I think he is an immoral and abhorrent person and I wish someone else was potus. I would really rather that person not be Biden but he is going to be the choice. What exactly do you want me to cite? The July Atlantic article that was lies? Just google “Atlantic Derecka Purnell”. It’s an easy find. Same with the 21 folks on record that deny the Atlantic story. Google is pretty easy to use. There are many sources. While you are at it, google “Atlantic Gaetz tweet dozere “. Another great example of the Atlantic doing a bang up job of fact checking. Atlantic reporter tweets a supposed scoop. It gets picked up by dozens of media outlets. It is later determined to not be true. No one cares and the Atlantic never corrected the issue. Look, believe whatever you want. if you want me to agree with you that I wish the president was more truthful and less of an ass then I am happy to agree. My post was about the media. How many examples of lying and misreporting by the media do you need to agree that there is very little integrity left. As a person or an organization you are either principled or not. Trump is most definitely not. Allowing yourself to lose your own principles because someone else is not principled is your fault not theirs.
  5. Interesting. So since, you claim, Biden only said it 2 years ago (which is already stupid because the quote I used is from July 2019 which is 14 months ago but you knew your response was going to be so fucking lame that you had to exaggerate it) then it doesn't matter if he meant it or not? High bar but typical. What exactly is your point? You were curious if Biden said it "yesterday" as if that would be different from him saying it throughout the campaign? I am pretty sure Trump said he would get out of the wars during his first campaign and he obviously didn't. How is it any different? The guys that immediately preceded Trump said the same thing and vowed to do the same thing and didn't either. That was the point. Plus, that was just the quote I found in a 30 second search. It is pretty hard to get current quotes from Biden since he rarely talks and even more rarely responds to questions. But the platform he pledged to uphold at the DNC a mere 3 weeks ago said he would end the current wars. Is 3 weeks current enough?
  6. This is the main reason I wanted to post on this topic. This current story is a microcosm of what is wrong with political journalism today. This is NOT a defense of Trump. He very well may have said what the Atlantic accuses him of. My personal guess is that there is a kernel of truth in the reporting but that the anonymous quotes were put into a context to be seen in the worst possible light and the author is conflating comments Trump may have said about VOLUNTEERS in the Vietnam war and war veterans from WWI and WWII. But this is the issue with political journalism. First, the Atlantic certainly may have been fanatical about fact checking in the past but times change, and viewership changes, and subscriptions change, and money changes, and competition increases and the chase to be first is heightened and, as a result, the values that we attributed to a magazine like the Atlantic previously may not exist now. Case in point, the Atlantic published an article from a woman in July of 2020 about her experience with a police shooting that, she claimed, caused her to become a police "abolitionist". She claimed she was at a public park gym with her sister and that a cop burst in and shot a black "boy" for not signing into the gym register book. She also claimed that the cop suffered no consequences. In fact, the "boy" who was shot was over 18 (was the shooters cousin and the dispute had nothing at all to do with registering in the gym book) and the "cop" was actually an independent park security guard and the security guard was arrested. So every main point in her story (child shot for no reason, cop did shooting, no repercussions to cop) were outright lies. The Atlantic did not "fact check" anything. And to make matters worse, an editor for the Atlantic tweeted the story under the Atlantic banner. The only reason I found this story was I googled the Atlantic and any recent retractions/corrections because I was curious. And I do not think this is specific to the Atlantic. It seems to be in all forms of political journalism from both the right and left. Hell, the head of the FBI (Comey) said in open congressional hearings that a recent story at the time from the NYT was a lie. That story, shockingly, was also a hit piece on Trump that relied entirely on anonymous sources. Again, not meant as a defense of Trump but as an indictment on political journalism. Now I do not think that Goldberg simply made up the quotes/sources he used in the report. But this is the problem with journalism. If we stipulate that Goldberg did in fact have sources who told him a variation of the story he wrote, then what is the role of the Atlantic as a "fact checker". I do understand the need for anonymous sources but, the reporter has to try and corroborate the source. And when no one is willing to go on record, then all you have to go on is the anonymous sources. However, in this particular story, there were multiple people present when the supposed quotes by Trump were made and plenty of those folks were willing to go on the record and they were neither contacted by Goldberg nor used in the story. Some sources, like Melania, would make no sense to even ask because they would never go against the potus but Bolton was there and said it didnt happen (no fan of trump) and Kelly's aid was there and said it didn't happen and said Kelly would have never let it stand if he did hear it (I actually applaud Kelly for taking a principled stand to not comment on a sitting president, for or against, and will say that it is highly, highly unlikely that Kelly's aid would tell a different story than Kelly). In fact, 21 different people that were present have gone on the record publicly that the quotes never happened. The Atlantic absolutely had a journalistic duty to talk to the other people present. IMO, the only way the Atlantic can be considered non-biased and have any journalistic integrity, they should have presented both sides, one group willing to go on the record and one not willing to, and let the reader decide. That is the true role of political journalism.
  7. Hilarious that this post received so many likes. Biden on the campaign trail right now "Acknowledging those forces, Biden promised to “end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East” and terminate U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war. " So, yes, Biden is saying exactly that. Further, Biden/Obama in 2010 or so said that all troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Biden was incensed that anyone would suggest it would not happen. "We're starting it in July of 2011, and we're going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014," Biden said on NBC in December 2010." Obama had at least 3 different "end the war in Afghanistan" promises during his tenure and we are still there. Obama spent $866B on "war related initiatives" during his tenure (compared to $816B under Bush) even though he pledged every chance he could that he would end the high cost of war that was crippling americans. Trump is, indeed, an idiot. I don't believe him and I didn't believe Obama when he said it and I don't believe Biden when he says it.
  8. Nope. But the defense contractors collectively donate $100s of millions annually to the people that do.
  9. sheeeit

    High

    I am high. Thread is not delivering.
  10. Lulz. Zipper merging. This may work fine in theory or if people start it early but not in the situations I’m talking about. There are state laws about late merging. If the right lane is at a standstill and you blow by 50 cars to get to the front of the line then you are an asshole. You going by me to try and merge late when no one is moving just fucks things up worse.
  11. I may have posted this previously but it doesn’t matter because he bothers me so much but, Howie Mandel ? regarding traffic, it boils me when people don’t merge when they should and race down a long line of cars and wedge their way in at the front. My wife is convinced that I’m going to get shot someday but I always pull over into the open lane and then keep my pace exactly even with the car on my right so that I block anyone from racing up to the front of the line. It is hilarious, at least to me, how furious people get when I do this.
  12. Not really. That tweet is pretty misleading. The are comparing Biden% on 8/10 ish with Clinton% on 11/16. While I still think Biden will win, I do not think it is a slam dunk as so many here do. Consider the following that shows poll averages for Trump and Clinton on this date (8/11 ish) in 2016: Ohio C +2, Final T +8 Florida C+2, Final T +1.2 Penn C +9, Final T +.7 Wisc C +9.4, Final T +.7 Texas C +2, Final T +9 NC C +2. Final T +4 Michigan C +8, Final T +.3 Surely, Biden will not make the same mistakes Hillary did but you just never know in these things. Lots of time left. Polls are really fairly meaningless at this point. Amazing how much they moved though in 2016 in some of these states. Also still amazing how close it was in the end in Mich, Penn and Wisc. Interestingly, in the RCP average poll, Trump never closed the gap in Michigan and Wisconsin literally until election day. Clinton was up 6% the last week of polls in both states. Crazy. It seems doubtful Trump hits all these again.
  13. I agree with a lot of your post and think it actually is representative of what politics, in general, and this board (cloak room), in particular, have devolved into. Even in your criticism of the media you still make a point to say that the picture of the boy suggests he is "entitled". How? Based on what? The fact he is white? Maga hat? We have been told, repeatedly, that maga folks are dumb white trash. He is wearing a $10 down jacket and has a bad haircut. What, at all, suggests he is entitled by his picture? And it is not just you but many on here: These are, presumably, grown people that are lashing out at a 16 or so year old kid with absolutely no basis in fact. I would say shame on them but these people have no shame. I certainly get it that 95% of the people on here are against this kids political leanings (as much as an 16 year old has actual informed political beliefs). But he was just a random kid that did nothing wrong and nothing that is not absolute common behavior for teen boys. If anything, he was pretty darn restrained. But why "entitled, spoiled and rich"? I was curious so I did a little googling. Ted Sandmann, father, is a sales manager at a specialty truck body manufacturing plant. Not exactly a hedge fund manager. The median household income for the country is about $62,000. Median household income for his community in Park Hills, Kentucky is $53,000. He attends a private catholic school (which no one knew based on his picture) which has low tuition and provides scholarships and tuition assistance to any catholic kid in the area. Of course you would as would almost everyone on here. You would do it for he money and for the damage done. As everyone here knows, anytime you apply for college or for a job or almost anything, the people looking are going to search your name. The things being said about this kid were horrible. There should be zero question that his future would have been harmed considerably if the attacks against him went unchallenged. Of course you, personally, would not snuggle up to maga. But that is just because of your beliefs. If FOX or OAN would have been the ones that were sued and AOC or Biden or Michelle Obama reached out to you, especially at 16, I have no doubt that you would have easily been swept up in the hype. Anyone would. Thats just human nature. Lastly, I really do not see how the kids look shitty. They look exactly like kids have looked since forever. And as for the "great " newspaper, I might say a formerly great newspaper. The number of corrections and retractions have increased exponentially in the last 10 years. And not just the Post. All media.
  14. Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding. You say you were just talking about the van guy. Fair enough. I was confused by the following: "Unidentified federal agents deployed into cities against their will to arrest people without probable cause, criminal charges, or a record of their detention is definitely on the that spectrum, jokes aside." "BUT, people have been getting arrested just for standing NEAR someone else who did that." "The feds are arresting people to interrogate them for info about the person they were standing next to." "People have been getting illegally arrested for the act of being outside," "Look, I'm not saying that the protesters are uniformly peaceful. I am saying that the feds are using the actions of a few people to justify collective punishment against that group" "Extrajudicial arrests by unmarked irregular military forces is a fucking notable current event, " "Guys, collective punishment is TOTALLY in alignment with the values of a democratic republic, GAWRSH! If you don't want to get brutalized by the police, just don't go exercise your right to free speech and assembly, and they won't arrest you in violation of the 4th amendment" I thought "people", "group", "arrests" and "collective punishment" were plural terms. My bad.
  15. Cats and dogs living together! I actually agree with this completely. I think it was wrong to send in the feds. I don't think it was illegal but I think it was wrong.
  16. LOL. I love the cloakroom sometimes. Maybe Baba is a liar. What is not in question is you being a liar. And the irony is fantastic that you called out another poster for lying by lying yourself. I truly did laugh out loud, which is always fun. Your direct quote once again: "Peaceful protests resumed nationwide. Today is July 28. The feds arrived in Portland in early July in order to attack peaceful protests. They did not arrive in response to anything you posted, all of which occurred 2 months prior." Just bizarre. In the 3 days leading up to the feds arrival, riots had been declared twice. If someone else (this is my last response to you) wants to have a debate on the merits of declaring something a riot, that would be a good debate. But the law is very clear right now.
  17. I truly hope you are just pretending to be a lawyer. I specifically agreed that the arrest of the dude in the van was bad. Are really that stupid? The case you cited has absolutely nothing to do with people currently at a protest being detained or arrested. Maybe you are channeling George Costanza who always wanted to pretend to be an architect and always wanted to pretend to be a lawyer. You posted, multiple times, that people getting detained at a protest was unconstitutional and illegal. I merely pointed out that you are dead wrong on the constitutionality and legality of those detentions and arrests. Read any of the reports from all media. In the cases of people being detained and/or arrested (again with the exception of the dude in the van) the police acted legally. Once any type of violence occurs- breaking glass windows/doors, starting fires, using fireworks, throwing bottles etc- the cops have the legal right to call the protests riots and unlawful assemblies. They did that. They announced it over loud speakers. They waited for people to disperse and, when they didn't, they legally cleared them out. I do not like what is happening on either side of the protests. I am not making a judgement on the morality of the situation. I can see good arguments on both sides. Protesters going too far and law going to far. But the law folks did it legally under our current laws.
  18. Lulz. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/portland-protests-continue-thursday-after-police-contract-vote-calls-for-change.html Portland police declared protests "riots" on the day before the feds arrived and the day the feds arrived.
  19. This is such a weird and interesting topic. Especially from the lawyers that selectively cite the law. Dude getting arrested by the van, definite problem and he most likely had his rights broken and should get some justice. But, it is hard to even have a debate when people keep making obvious lies about the law, especially when they claim to be lawyers. This is just not true at all. To be clear, I am not saying what the cops/feds are doing is right, I am saying that it is legal (with the caveat of the case I cited above with the van). Just standing in a protest actually can be grounds for being detained or arrested in many instances and the case law is unambiguous. Just off the top of my head you have the following: 1) As soon as a protest becomes violent or dangerous, the police can clear the area and arrest those involved. This one has some grey area to it and "violent and dangerous" are subjective terms but, legally speaking, the police can act, including detaining. 2) Once the cops declare a protest dangerous, they can legally declare it an unlawful assembly. They have to announce it, but once announced, if you do not leave, you can be detained and arrested legally. 3) Curfew- Portland is and has been under a curfew at different times. 8 pm. I do not know the exact dates of the curfews and how they correspond to arrests. Again, not claiming an action is right or wrong morally, but legally you can be detained and arrested for violating a state imposed curfew. At almost all times in the Portland saga, one or more of these scenarios existed. Perhaps the law should be changed, but it is current law. So yes, if you are just hanging out in a protest that has turned violent or dangerous or that the police have determined is unlawful assembly, you can legally be detained and arrested.
  20. I get your point and agree to some extent that it is a fine line. However, imo only, the caveat is his finger on the trigger and him approaching the car. Lets take a situation where someone is sitting in their car and, for whatever reason, the car can't move. If some stranger is approaching with their finger on the trigger of their rifle, I would never fault the driver of the car for shooting them. However, if the gun/rifle were holstered or slung over their back, the situation would be different. But when you put your finger on the trigger, there is no grey area imo.
  21. Agreed. Some films are just better at the theater. I like going but only seem to find 3-4 movies a year I am into.
  22. Watched this again a few nights ago. Thought about this old thread. The only explanation I can find for the $60K total is that at one point Mike tells KGB to feel free to reload at anytime. Presumably KGB took out another $20K. In the last hand, Mike had KGB covered but not by that much. I'm guessing the stacks were around $33K to $27K or so. If Mike loses the hand he is not out obviously but down to $6K and he owes $15K to KGB and KGB would have a huge stack advantage. Great flick. And Petra looked just as good.
  23. That was fully addressed above. I was responding to a specific post. In short, there is no greater risk to school staff than any other profession. We still have regular bus drivers going to work. We still have almost all businesses open for work.
  24. Ok. It is very easy for people to disagree on this subject. Currently, the best available science says kids rarely transmit the virus. Virtually every pediatric association is recommending schools opening. I feel pretty certain these pediatricians understand the need to keep the spread down but, based on the actual science, they say the risk of the virus spreading or causing greater harm is very low. I get you now on the articles. Yes the headline said Florida so I went to the source data and found the specific rate for Miami-Dade so I could compare it to the other headline.
×
×
  • Create New...