WSS

I think there is probably a conscious decision not to go ballistic on some of those stories and vice versa for other ones.

I haven't looked into the Atlanta one.

WSS

@gftchris said:

Anybody know anything about this terrorist attack in Atlanta that Sean Spicer keeps going on about? Because lots of people are saying no such thing happened, and he's said it more than once, more than a slip of the ton

There's nothing on Trump's "you didn't cover these terrorist attacks" list (which includes Orlando, Paris and Berlin among others).

The last terrorist attack in Atlanta was apparently before the Olympics, in 1996. By a radical right winger protesting abortion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/09/spicer-claims-he-clearly-meant-orlando-after-citing-mystery-atlanta-terror-attack-three-times/?utm_term=.dd943504c305

Btw people use words like "clearly" when they know they are bullshitting you and want to make you feel stupid if you challenge the claim.

I don’t think you have to look any further than the families of the Boston Marathon, in Atlanta, in San Bernardino to ask if we can go further

Too many of these cases that have happened, whether you’re talking about San Bernardino, Atlanta, they’ve happened, Boston

What do we say to the family that loses somebody over a terroristic, to whether it’s Atlanta or San Bernardino or the Boston bomber?

There's nothing on Trump's "you didn't cover these terrorist attacks" list (which includes Orlando, Paris and Berlin among others).

The last terrorist attack in Atlanta was apparently before the Olympics, in 1996. By a radical right winger protesting abortion.

@gftchris said:

I think it's hilarious. That's such an asshole thing for him to say, but man, I hate the media enough that I can enjoy it. They're reaping what they've sown. Without the toxic media, Trump never would have stood a chance at the presidency, and he played them like a fiddle.

@westside-steve said:

I claim self-defense from stupid stuff that personal attackers say because

they think they can dominate the board that way. And, so everybody knows,

Steve is a friend of mine, and (don't tell him this)... but I don't read most of them myself.

Ignore me. But when you say really stupid stuff, I'll post them because just the titles

of the links show you liberal muddobbers are throwing false narratives around like

a food fight. You lost the election. You are pissy and you be angry. Have a nice day.,

B. Every time, in the past, liberals lose, they get mad, and try despeately to control the narrative.

Stop the lying and maneuvering. You won't though, because your attack mode

comes off as an unfunny SNL crap.

C. I wish you liberals would stop the changing of subjects out of spite, the name calling, that

even osiris did because I contradicted him, the attacking of any subject you didn't start,

and don't politically like. It doesn't bother me, but it also clutters up the board.

D. I'm good at truces, but it takes two sides. But like in Congress, when they aren't in control,

they demand bi-partisanship. But when they are, they arrogantly go "for the jugular"

and laugh. Case in point - Hairy Reid, that ass, changed the rules and they

went for the nuclear option, after warning the reps in the past to not go there,

it would be bad for the workings of Congress.

Of course, now, they don't want the reps to use the nuclear option...

E. Everybody should be able to come to this board and just be whatever politics they want.

I don't get into it with people that don't start it with me.

F. The left goes after conservative opinion posters with personal insults. That is a glaring

part of their totally emotionally-based way of looking at the world. The first time you

disagree with them, they go apecrap and get angry and start the belligerent garbage

at a person, or the person's family, etc etc.

G. Just like the election, starting antagonisms because you lose the election, lose the "argument"

should tell you that elections have consequences.

H. I remember some terrific posters on this board who were conservative who just left

because of the antagonistic garbage. So, it just amuses me that the people

who won't respect other's views when they don't share them, that they

try to quelch those views, even to try to get someone banned for no good reason.

I. I post my dumb "walls" of lins to show antagonist false narratives for what they are.

The left doesn't get to own the board, which they always want to do. They don't

get to censor. What's kinda funny, is that I never used to do the links posting,

but antagonisct asswipe liberals bitched that they were right, and I couldn't even

provide a link to contest their contentions. So, when the occasion was valid imho,

I started with a whole bunch of links and they STFU. haha.

J. This leftwing attack mode screws up this board. So does angry insults, including

mine, in response. The constant smart ass one liners from the woodpecker

are pretty notorious, screw up the works, but liberals don't care about that.

Anything goes if it fits THEIR narrative.

K. Back in the day, certain libs went nuts over being disagreed with. They got mad.

The libs wanted to have "serious discussions" about mmgw and elections etc...

until they lost an election, or they were wrong, and you civily tried to explain

why you disagreed. And just like osiris, it's immediate hell week, personal

insults, blah blah blah.

L. The left thrives on false narratives. Now, you can't discuss anything bad about obamao

or the left without antagonistic personal crap being thrown everywhere. If you want that,

hey, I'm good at it. But I would rather not have that, it takes two.

But seriously? A kid gets beaten up for wearing a Trump hat, and you bash the hell

out of the story in attack mode? How is anybody supposed to have that genuine

conservation about politics?

M. The libs are fine with a bunch of crap as long as it's THEIR crap. haha. that's funny.

Because they get it back, and it's whining about banning, censoring, links,

"oh, poor us, our statements get lost in the translation because of Cal's links"

How many times has interpersonal antagonism from the left completely

ruined threads?

N. Now go and have a nice day.

@gftchris said:

I have him on ignore - as it seems a lot of people do now - but it still clogs things up. You get half as many actual replies, and interesting threads as you should per page. Makes fluid conversation difficult.

Yeah I think I'm gonna hop back on the ignore train too

@osiris said:

This is why you have to look at polling from multiple sources asking the same or similar questions and take the results in aggregate.

The Heritage Foundation is the only source I need.

@westside-steve said:

I have him on ignore - as it seems a lot of people do now - but it still clogs things up. You get half as many actual replies, and interesting threads as you should per page. Makes fluid conversation difficult.

@gftchris said:

Steve - from a moderation standpoint at what point do we politely ask cal to refrain from cluttering up the forum by just dumping a seemingly incessant torrent of google searches?

My personal take?

I would just skip reading them. That should be fairly simple and not take a big chunk out of your day.

Frankly, while Cal is a friend of mine (and don't tell him this) but I don't read 99% of them.

WSS

@gftchris said:

One more reason why I put him on ignore. I only wish the ignore feature on this board was a true ignore where you couldn't even see that the person posted. I don't condone censorship but I would like the ability to have a true ignore feature on the board.

@osiris said:

hmmm. no wonder the House tends to be demowhackic?

@osiris said:

Final vote tallies from the November 8 election show that Democrat Hillary Clinton out-polled President-elect Donald Trump by 2.8 million votes while losing the contest by a wide margin in the all-important Electoral College.

Her upper hand with voters, however, came down to performances in New York and California that were far stronger than necessary.

Clinton won California by 4.2 million and took New York by more than 1.6 million. The combined 5.8 million-vote advantage in just those two states was more than twice the size of her overall edge nationwide.

When the dust settled, she lost the rest of the country by 3 million votes.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4055182/Final-tally-shows-Trump-lost-popular-vote-2-8-million-BEAT-Clinton-3-million-votes-outside-California-New-York.html#ixzz4Xv0GVZDq

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook