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.

[calfoxwc]

@westside-steve said:

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.

[calfoxwc]

@tiamat63 said:

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.

[Westside Steve]

@calfoxwc said:

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

[tiamat63]

@westside-steve said:

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.

[Westside Steve]

@tiamat63 said:

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

[tiamat63]

@westside-steve said:

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? 

[Westside Steve]

@tiamat63 said:

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

[tiamat63]

@westside-steve said:

"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.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[Westside Steve]

@tiamat63 said:

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

[calfoxwc]

@tiamat63 said:

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.

[tiamat63]

@calfoxwc said:

[Tour2ma]

You know Kal is outta bullets when he plays his "-sies" card...

Tourises.... tiaises....

@oldbrownsfan said:

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 yet here you are...

As is Kal...

and Steve...

and Vroombo...

and DieHard...

and etc...

How y'all manage to hold out in the face of such an onslaught of MSM outlets is simply amazing.

And you make it look so easy...

As if all it took was pushing a couple buttons on a remote.

[OldBrownsFan]

@tour2ma said:

You know Kal is outta bullets when he plays his "-sies" card...

Tourises.... tiaises....

And yet here you are...

As is Kal...

and Steve...

and Vroombo...

and DieHard...

and etc...

How y'all manage to hold out in the face of such an onslaught of MSM outlets is simply amazing.

And you make it look so easy...

As if all it took was pushing a couple buttons on a remote.

Yes imagine that I am posting on a political message board. Is there some kind of point that you are making here? Because we can post on the Browns Board that means there is no media bias. Give me a break.

[calfoxwc]

@tour2ma said:

You know Kal is outta bullets when he plays his "-sies" card...

Tourises.... tiaises....

out of...? truth is, Flugels and I were laughing about my use of those retribution taunts in the past, just a few days ago.

So they just came to mind for the fun of it. I never run out of creative ways to bonce back at those deserving, without

foul mouthed crap. It amuses me. That creativity is, you know, a legit sign of keen intellect, profound intuitiveness, brilliant sense of humor, and well-developed sense of BS.

[tiamat63]

I'm not so great that I'm above the occasional fat finger or misspellings.  

But if I'm going to brag about my keen intellect in any one post, you can be damn well sure I'll be proof-reading that same post twice over.

[Westside Steve]

@tiamat63 said:

I'm not so great that I'm above the occasional fat finger or misspellings.  

But if I'm going to brag about my keen intellect in any one post, you can be damn well sure I'll be proof-reading that same post twice over.

Probably no bigger offender in the world of typos speech-to-text glitches Etc than  yours truly. It's especially embarrassing for anybody when calling somebody else an idiot. And before you flip out Tia I am in no way of accusing you of ever having done that. ? you are only quoted because you mentioned proofreading, which I all too often neglect to do, and typos.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

@tiamat63 said:

I'm not so great that I'm above the occasional fat finger or misspellings.  

But if I'm going to brag about my keen intellect in any one post, you can be damn well sure I'll be proof-reading that same post twice over.

and don't forget the " well-developed sense of BS" part. I've worked a lot on it over the years.