Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said Sunday he has proof that former President Barack Obama "personally asked" the FBI to investigate someone "on behalf of George Soros," the liberal billionaire megadonor.
-
our MSM will NOT cover these stories
And most other MSM news sources
Along with easily found links to The Wall, Business Insider & Fox News.
I'd tell you you're every bit as presumptuous as the left you obsess over. But I know your counter will be "b..bu....but CNNNNNNN"
Along with easily found links to The Wall, Business Insider & Fox News.
I'd tell you you're every bit as presumptuous as the left you obsess over. But I know your counter will be "b..bu....but CNNNNNNN"
Sorry Tiam MSM bias against Trump is well documented and you would be presumptuous to say otherwise.
** btw you do know the Washington Times link you posted is a more conservative leaning newspaper?
-
And proceeds to link a GOP mouth piece. We've spoken of circular logic before and that clearly didn't take.
No. Fucking. Shit. OBF. Your larger media conglomerates have particular targeted audiences hence their coverage. Like any cornerback, the bad ones are obvious and good ones you never hear a peep about. Your observance of this has morphed into outright bitching at this point. We both see the same things but only one of us seems to understand why.
And when the pendulum idiotically swings back the other way, you'll go on about their favorable coverage just highlighting the fact that you, along with most people in 2020 are watching the other side of the fence more than their own yard.
For all the posts and upvotes on these topics, you're treading that fine snowflake line you so despise.
-
And proceeds to link a GOP mouth piece. We've spoken of circular logic before and that clearly didn't take.
No. Fucking. Shit. OBF. Your larger media conglomerates have particular targeted audiences hence their coverage. Like any cornerback, the bad ones are obvious and good ones you never hear a peep about. Your observance of this has morphed into outright bitching at this point. We both see the same things but only one of us seems to understand why.
And when the pendulum idiotically swings back the other way, you'll go on about their favorable coverage just highlighting the fact that you, along with most people in 2020 are watching the other side of the fence more than their own yard.
For all the posts and upvotes on these topics, you're treading that fine snowflake line you so despise.
And proceeds to link a GOP mouth piece. We've spoken of circular logic before and that clearly didn't take.
No. Fucking. Shit. OBF. Your larger media conglomerates have particular targeted audiences hence their coverage. Like any cornerback, the bad ones are obvious and good ones you never hear a peep about. Your observance of this has morphed into outright bitching at this point. We both see the same things but only one of us seems to understand why.
And when the pendulum idiotically swings back the other way, you'll go on about their favorable coverage just highlighting the fact that you, along with most people in 2020 are watching the other side of the fence more than their own yard.
For all the posts and upvotes on these topics, you're treading that fine snowflake line you so despise.
No need for the potty mouth Tiam.
I am not arguing bias against both sides what I am arguing is the power the MSM wields by having so many more media outlets.The power of ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC and PBS far outweighs anything else like FOX.
-
And proceeds to link a GOP mouth piece. We've spoken of circular logic before and that clearly didn't take.
No. Fucking. Shit. OBF. Your larger media conglomerates have particular targeted audiences hence their coverage. Like any cornerback, the bad ones are obvious and good ones you never hear a peep about. Your observance of this has morphed into outright bitching at this point. We both see the same things but only one of us seems to understand why.
And when the pendulum idiotically swings back the other way, you'll go on about their favorable coverage just highlighting the fact that you, along with most people in 2020 are watching the other side of the fence more than their own yard.
For all the posts and upvotes on these topics, you're treading that fine snowflake line you so despise.
No need for the potty mouth Tiam.
I am not arguing bias against both sides what I am arguing is the power the MSM wields by having so many more media outlets.The power of ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC and PBS far outweighs anything else like FOX.
No need for the potty mouth Tiam.
I am not arguing bias against both sides what I am arguing is the power the MSM wields by having so many more media outlets.The power of ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC and PBS fars outweighs anything else like FOX.
Don't be such a snowflake.
Given the separation in popular vote at less than 3 million previous election, it would appear the message, not the volume, effects roughly the same percentage of people.
-
No need for the potty mouth Tiam.
I am not arguing bias against both sides what I am arguing is the power the MSM wields by having so many more media outlets.The power of ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC and PBS fars outweighs anything else like FOX.
Don't be such a snowflake.
Given the separation in popular vote at less than 3 million previous election, it would appear the message, not the volume, effects roughly the same percentage of people.
Don't be such a snowflake.
Given the separation in popular vote at less than 3 million previous election, it would appear the message, not the volume, effects roughly the same percentage of people.
You got to love how the Constitution is the word of God until it bites you in the ass. Not you necessarily but...
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Snowflake? Nah..the colorful language doesn't help you make your point.
I would love to see real journalism but that is dead today. Journalists who held both parties feet to the fire and asked the tough questions for both parties. What we have now are politicians going to friendly media sites knowing they will get softball questions they can knock out of the park.
The late Tim Russert was a great example of good journalist standards of what I am talking about. When he hosted Meet the Press he used the simple formula of asking liberals the questions that conservatives were asking and asking conservatives the questions liberals were asking.That was a really fair way unlike what we have now with a liberal hack like Chuck Todd who now hosts Meet the Press. Russert was a liberal personally but by using his formula he kept his own personal bias out.
-
Don't be such a snowflake.
Given the separation in popular vote at less than 3 million previous election, it would appear the message, not the volume, effects roughly the same percentage of people.
You got to love how the Constitution is the word of God until it bites you in the ass. Not you necessarily but...
WSS
You got to love how the Constitution is the word of God until it bites you in the ass. Not you necessarily but...
WSS
I'm failing to see where you're taking this but something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination.
So I'll just shrug and say "yep"
-
You got to love how the Constitution is the word of God until it bites you in the ass. Not you necessarily but...
WSS
I'm failing to see where you're taking this but something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination.
So I'll just shrug and say "yep"
I'm failing to see where you're taking this but something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination.
So I'll just shrug and say "yep"
Popular vote electoral college "separation in popular votes"
So yep works.
WSS
-
Popular vote electoral college "separation in popular votes"
So yep works.
WSS
I'm still failing to see your greater point. I'm aware of the existence of the EC and its use. Popular vs EC vote isn't in question here nor its merits in deciding Presidency. I'm merely pointing out the differences in vote count at such high levels has become rather minuscule and it would lean towards the idea that these media companies reach their intended audience at a similar mass.
-
Don't be such a snowflake.
Given the separation in popular vote at less than 3 million previous election, it would appear the message, not the volume, effects roughly the same percentage of people.
You got to love how the Constitution is the word of God until it bites you in the ass. Not you necessarily but...
WSS
You got to love how the Constitution is the word of God until it bites you in the ass. Not you necessarily but...
WSS
oh, that is Tiam alright. He gets disagreed with, and he just doesn't melt snowflake wise, he instantly explodes into a tiny hot steam piece of humidity.
We called CNN the "communist news network" years ago. It's far worse now. Msnbc... it's intolerable except to the left - they thrive on the emotional knee jerkness.
-
Popular vote electoral college "separation in popular votes"
So yep works.
WSS
I'm still failing to see your greater point. I'm aware of the existence of the EC and its use. Popular vs EC vote isn't in question here nor its merits in deciding Presidency. I'm merely pointing out the differences in vote count at such high levels has become rather minuscule and it would lean towards the idea that these media companies reach their intended audience at a similar mass.
I'm still failing to see your greater point. I'm aware of the existence of the EC and its use. Popular vs EC vote isn't in question here nor its merits in deciding Presidency. I'm merely pointing out the differences in vote count at such high levels has become rather minuscule and it would lean towards the idea that these media companies reach their intended audience at a similar mass.
well, gosh, too bad we can't go back in time and check with Lincoln and Washington. They only won with media companies reaching their intended mass?
oooooo. scary.
-
You got to love how the Constitution is the word of God until it bites you in the ass. Not you necessarily but...
WSS
oh, that is Tiam alright. He gets disagreed with, and he just doesn't melt snowflake wise, he instantly explodes into a tiny hot steam piece of humidity.
We called CNN the "communist news network" years ago. It's far worse now. Msnbc... it's intolerable except to the left - they thrive on the emotional knee jerkness.
oh, that is Tiam alright. He gets disagreed with, and he just doesn't melt snowflake wise, he instantly explodes into a tiny hot steam piece of humidity.
We called CNN the "communist news network" years ago. It's far worse now. Msnbc... it's intolerable except to the left - they thrive on the emotional knee jerkness.
I didn't even disagree with him. I added the caveat not necessarily you. Oh well.
WSS
-
oh, that is Tiam alright. He gets disagreed with, and he just doesn't melt snowflake wise, he instantly explodes into a tiny hot steam piece of humidity.
We called CNN the "communist news network" years ago. It's far worse now. Msnbc... it's intolerable except to the left - they thrive on the emotional knee jerkness.
I didn't even disagree with him. I added the caveat not necessarily you. Oh well.
WSS
I didn't even disagree with him. I added the caveat not necessarily you. Oh well.
WSS
I'm right here, why don't you clearly explain to the 1st party in the conversation and expand upon your meaning.
And "not necessarily you" is a secondary application of "it can include you".
Or you can be overly vague in your responses which doesn't allow for a proper analysis and thus rebuttal.
-
I didn't even disagree with him. I added the caveat not necessarily you. Oh well.
WSS
I'm right here, why don't you clearly explain to the 1st party in the conversation and expand upon your meaning.
And "not necessarily you" is a secondary application of "it can include you".
Or you can be overly vague in your responses which doesn't allow for a proper analysis and thus rebuttal.
I'm right here, why don't you clearly explain to the 1st party in the conversation and expand upon your meaning.
And "not necessarily you" is a secondary application of "it can include you".
Or you can be overly vague in your responses which doesn't allow for a proper analysis and thus rebuttal.
You brought up the popular vote. I referenced the Constitution. Really had nothing to do with anything else. And I said not necessarily you because I've never heard you Yap about it. For or against.
I think you're reading more into this than there is.
WSS
-
I'm right here, why don't you clearly explain to the 1st party in the conversation and expand upon your meaning.
And "not necessarily you" is a secondary application of "it can include you".
Or you can be overly vague in your responses which doesn't allow for a proper analysis and thus rebuttal.
You brought up the popular vote. I referenced the Constitution. Really had nothing to do with anything else. And I said not necessarily you because I've never heard you Yap about it. For or against.
I think you're reading more into this than there is.
WSS
You brought up the popular vote. I referenced the Constitution. Really had nothing to do with anything else. And I said not necessarily you because I've never heard you Yap about it. For or against.
I think you're reading more into this than there is.
WSS
I'm using the popular vote as a basis to illustrate numbers influenced by media. It's a pretty safe assumption the overwhelming millions of those that vote a particular ticket also subscribe to a particular line of media. Those millions are separated by thin margins at the highest levels. Again, implying that despite the "msm having the station advantage" the voting numbers imply that both reach a similar sized audience.
You then referenced the Constitution. I think you were inferring an EC vs PV debate that I wasn't making, which i felt was pretty clear given the conversation. Again, the popular vote numbers just to show that perhaps the media power divide isn't as large as OBF may perceive being their reach to a similar number of voters (where this matters most)
On the surface I feel like I was talking about Mcdonalds serving Billions and you randomly jumped in and go "yeah, but.... Fillibuster".
Which is cool. It's a term with its own application. I'm just failing to connect the dots on its application to my particular point.
Is any of this jiving?
-
You brought up the popular vote. I referenced the Constitution. Really had nothing to do with anything else. And I said not necessarily you because I've never heard you Yap about it. For or against.
I think you're reading more into this than there is.
WSS
I'm using the popular vote as a basis to illustrate numbers influenced by media. It's a pretty safe assumption the overwhelming millions of those that vote a particular ticket also subscribe to a particular line of media. Those millions are separated by thin margins at the highest levels. Again, implying that despite the "msm having the station advantage" the voting numbers imply that both reach a similar sized audience.
You then referenced the Constitution. I think you were inferring an EC vs PV debate that I wasn't making, which i felt was pretty clear given the conversation. Again, the popular vote numbers just to show that perhaps the media power divide isn't as large as OBF may perceive being their reach to a similar number of voters (where this matters most)
On the surface I feel like I was talking about Mcdonalds serving Billions and you randomly jumped in and go "yeah, but.... Fillibuster".
Which is cool. It's a term with its own application. I'm just failing to connect the dots on its application to my particular point.
Is any of this jiving?
I'm using the popular vote as a basis to illustrate numbers influenced by media. It's a pretty safe assumption the overwhelming millions of those that vote a particular ticket also subscribe to a particular line of media. Those millions are separated by thin margins at the highest levels. Again, implying that despite the "msm having the station advantage" the voting numbers imply that both reach a similar sized audience.
You then referenced the Constitution. I think you were inferring an EC vs PV debate that I wasn't making,
yes hence the line not necessarily you.
which i felt was pretty clear given the conversation. Again, the popular vote numbers just to show that perhaps the media power divide isn't as large as OBF may perceive being their reach to a similar number of voters (where this matters most)
On the surface I feel like I was talking about Mcdonalds serving Billions and you randomly jumped in and go "yeah, but.... Fillibuster".
Which is cool. It's a term with its own application. I'm just failing to connect the dots on its application to my particular point.
Is any of this jiving?
"something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination."
But I have no problem with that. ?
WSS
-
I'm using the popular vote as a basis to illustrate numbers influenced by media. It's a pretty safe assumption the overwhelming millions of those that vote a particular ticket also subscribe to a particular line of media. Those millions are separated by thin margins at the highest levels. Again, implying that despite the "msm having the station advantage" the voting numbers imply that both reach a similar sized audience.
You then referenced the Constitution. I think you were inferring an EC vs PV debate that I wasn't making,
yes hence the line not necessarily you.
which i felt was pretty clear given the conversation. Again, the popular vote numbers just to show that perhaps the media power divide isn't as large as OBF may perceive being their reach to a similar number of voters (where this matters most)
On the surface I feel like I was talking about Mcdonalds serving Billions and you randomly jumped in and go "yeah, but.... Fillibuster".
Which is cool. It's a term with its own application. I'm just failing to connect the dots on its application to my particular point.
Is any of this jiving?
"something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination."
But I have no problem with that. ?
WSS
"something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination."
But I have no problem with that. ?
WSS
Cool. So you jump in to make a general comment about other posters with an open and ominous end but specifically respond to my post in doing so.
Then Cal jumps in, having no real idea what you're talking about, and hits it with the old "suuuuure does". Further proving my point that the guy is desperately searching for validation anywhere he can and still needs his head checked.
Because if you weren't even sure the finality of your comment, then no way he could know.
Ok. Good, solid, groovy. Glad we cleaned that one up. Destination achieved, letdown accomplished. Christ, I wish I could drink right now.
-
-
"something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination."
But I have no problem with that. ?
WSS
Cool. So you jump in to make a general comment about other posters with an open and ominous end but specifically respond to my post in doing so.
Then Cal jumps in, having no real idea what you're talking about, and hits it with the old "suuuuure does". Further proving my point that the guy is desperately searching for validation anywhere he can and still needs his head checked.
Because if you weren't even sure the finality of your comment, then no way he could know.
Ok. Good, solid, groovy. Glad we cleaned that one up. Destination achieved, letdown accomplished. Christ, I wish I could drink right now.
Cool. So you jump in to make a general comment about other posters with an open and ominous end but specifically respond to my post in doing so.
yes
Then Cal jumps in, having no real idea what you're talking about, and hits it with the old "suuuuure does". Further proving my point that the guy is desperately searching for validation anywhere he can and still needs his head checked.
???
Because if you weren't even sure the finality of your comment, then no way he could know.
it's a conspiracy.
Ok. Good, solid, groovy. Glad we cleaned that one up. Destination achieved, letdown accomplished. Christ, I wish I could drink right now.
WSS
-
"something tells me the journey won't be worth the destination."
But I have no problem with that. ?
WSS
Cool. So you jump in to make a general comment about other posters with an open and ominous end but specifically respond to my post in doing so.
Then Cal jumps in, having no real idea what you're talking about, and hits it with the old "suuuuure does". Further proving my point that the guy is desperately searching for validation anywhere he can and still needs his head checked.
Because if you weren't even sure the finality of your comment, then no way he could know.
Ok. Good, solid, groovy. Glad we cleaned that one up. Destination achieved, letdown accomplished. Christ, I wish I could drink right now.
Cool. So you jump in to make a general comment about other posters with an open and ominous end but specifically respond to my post in doing so.Tiamsies
Little Princess Tiamsies throwing a hissy fit:
Then Cal jumps in, having no real idea what you're talking about, and hits it with the old "suuuuure does". Further proving my point that the guy is desperately searching for validation anywhere he can even though he gets me so angry I'm ready to wet my pants.Tiamsies
FIFY
***************************************************
Well, princess, I'm not the one who goes online postal when disagreed with, or responded to without a "heil, princess". That's you.You should stick to your x's and o's, you don't know how to have a reasoned, decent discussion with anyone, princess. Wait...searching for ...validation? You mean I have to get my parking ticket validated by you too? Stick a cork in whichever end your crap is coming out of, pseudo-intellectual princess tiamsies.
****************************************************
Because if you weren't even sure the finality of your comment, then no way he could know. Tiamsies
****************************************************
I've known Steve for a few years now. I don't agree with him all the time, but seeing things based on my own experiences in life, love, career, analytical perspectives of my own - it's easy for me to not agree often - the same holds true for most other posters. Steve's same resources for his perspectives are a lot different. So, it is what it is. LOL
Maybe you could stop going postal, if you'd grow up a bit. Your smart mouth to OBF was just like the riproaring hissy sissy fit you threw on me one time. Uncalled for hostility and totally out of range of normal responses that well-adjusted people have.
ONE TIME - that I politely disagreed with one of your TEN football points in a post, you cursed and threatened me at a tailgate. Really now.
********************************************************
Christ, I wish I could drink right now.Tiamsies
***********************************************************
Alcohol is a depressant, Fake Mr. Know-it-all. Maybe that is the cause of your weird outbursts of unprovoked hostility.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login