[QUOTE=scottw;1130006]Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There are absolute scumbags on both sides.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

your partisan hate consumes you

Gee, when you put it that way...

You know you have clobbered a liberal in a debate, when they stop responding to the topic and accuse you of hate. That is liberalspeak for "you've got me, and I don't want to talk about this anymore."

Heck, you and I just went at it on gun control, as did Detbuch and I...

Bill Clinton is a serial predator of women, and is a hero of the left.

Is that sentence true or false?

we have plenty of perverts on my side. They are generally hounded from our midst when outed as such...I don't know of a conservative who is a serial abuser of women, who is hailed as a feminist hero.

They (NBC and not NYT) admitted that they didn't run it bc they didn't have proof?

So you want them to run it w/o proof bc Harvey was a liberal?

Your hate will never end.

They killed it bc they didn't have enough proof to run it.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1130032]I'm more then willing to engage you in this debate - but which one:

A) your partisian hate
B) If they killed the story bc Harvey supported liberal causes.

Faux news?

How are their ratings? Who on the right doesn't watch them any more? The evangelicals who voted for the 3x married womanizer, who lies constantly and bragged about assualting woman?

Is this the debate you want to have?

NBC News President Noah Oppenheim is reported to have repeatedly come up with excuses to not run Farrow's story about Weinstein. By July, Farrow and NBC News Investigative Producer Rich McHugh were ordered to take an unusual step before running their story — make sure that it would receive approval from NBC News Chairman Andy Lack after being reviewed by Steve Burke, executive vice president of Comcast and president and CEO of NBCUniversal. This was an incredibly unusual request given NBC's normal protocol.

Still, Farrow steadily accumulated evidence of Weinstein's allegedly predatory behavior. In January, he obtained an on-the-record interview with actress Rose McGowan, discussing her accusations against Weinstein. In March, Farrow had obtained secretly recorded audio footage of Weinstein confessing to having sexually assaulted model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez. In July, Farrow had also scored on-camera interviews with accusers and interviews with former Miramax and Weinstein Co. executives. Finally, as of August, Farrow had filmed, out of his own pocket, an anonymous woman who discussed on camera how she had been raped by Weinstein.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/12/nbc...-story-report/

Pretty much what has been said.

I expect that the "normal" media will flay Murphy - they should. I also expect the media will not cover the Menendez bribery trial much because he is a dem. I expect that SNL will avoid Weinstein and flay Trump.

Would be nice if everyone was held to equal standards

It is pretty amazing. Trump is in the extreme when it comes to ethics and evangelicals seem to love him simply because he's willing to say Marry Christmas in a public place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Spence. You got it wrong. They love him because he oozes racism and bigotry and while he says “America first” they know he also means “Christianity first”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't that what Jim is not doing?

I have yet to see that the NYT hid the story like Jim stated - in fact, they broke it.

NBC has said that the story wasn't buttoned up - and others (on both sides) are criticizing them for not running w/it earlier.

Menendez has been covered extensively in the NYT and I can show you lots of links to it.

SNL skewered Weinstein this past week and said he should be in jail.

Murphy was covered last week and haven't seen anything since.

clearly!


Marry Christmas Spence :lm:

some of you guys really need new shticks......

Your reading comprehension is off. I want their standards of "proof", to be the same for Republicans as it is for Democrats. Today, it's not. Not even close.

The NYT and NBC routinely post stories about Republicans based on a single, un-verified source.

The NYT ran a front-page story that John McCain's adopted black daughter, was actually his biological daughter from an affair. And as far as Trump goes, I remember reading recently that Trump was going to increase our nuclear capacity tenfold, turns out that wasn't true. They will go with any story that makes a Republican look bad, especially Trump.

"Youre hate desire for fairness will never end"

Fixed it for you.

"NBC has said that the story wasn't buttoned up - and others (on both sides) are criticizing them for not running w/it earlier. "

And Salon, not exactly a conservative outlet, said NBC was holding that one story to unusually high standards of verifiability. Then SNL cut their jokes about Weinstein, because Lorne Micheals said "it's a New York thing". what the heck does that mean? Trump used to live in New York, they have no trouble poking fun at him, do they?

As for the NYT, here you go...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyl...XjP/story.html

From the article...

"Sharon Waxman writes that, as a reporter for The New York Times in 2004, she looked into allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein, and the role and responsibilities of a man named Fabrizio Lombardo, who was head of Miramax Italy but had no discernible experience or expertise in film and, according to Waxman’s reporting, was on the payroll merely to help Weinstein procure women.

“After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted,” Waxman writes.

I bet it's all just another vast right-wing conspiracy.

Fauxnews has nothing to do with this. This is about liberals in the media, who are happy to portray Trump as an abuser of women, but who previously bent over backwards to prevent multiple liberals from being outed as such (the Kennedys, Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, etc...). It has nothing to do with me, it has nothing to do with Fauxnews (ha ha ha, that never gets old). It's about liberal hypocrisy, and about your inability, and Spence's inability, and WDMSO's inability, to ever admit your side has ethical lapses, or is ever guilty of hypocrisy. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Try. Making. That. Wrong.

No, it's the opposite of what I am doing. Meaning, you could not be more wrong. I am not engaging in partisan double standards, I am calling out those who do so.

Yes, this is the debate I want. Because most people on my side will admit that Trump, personally, is not a good guy. It's your side, not my side, who refuses to call out the creeps on their side.

I want this debate, because I cannot lose this debate. It would be harder for me to win a debate with someone who is pro-slavery, than to win this debate.

Paul: NBC and the NYT didn't bury anything.

Jim and John R provide evidence that they did.

Paul: Oh, yeah? Well what about Fauxnews, and Jim's all-consuming hate?

Yes, I am truly nervous about this debate.

I got a laugh at the highlighted line - use a story from what 10 years ago. When Fox news covered the Pizzagate story, I didn't see any outrage from you.

And again, pls. show me a link that the NYT "buried the story for years" like you claimed.

Your hypocrisy (how many times have we discussed that :whackin:) in ignoring Faux news has everything to do with this. You constantly ignore 1 side and only discuss the other side because it fits your agenda.

Enought hate to call a woman the C word and Pres. Obama a POS. .

But the double standards is exactly what you constantly do here.

If I remember correctly the story was first created during the Bush McCain primary in one of the southern states when fliers started showing up on people's doors w/the story. It was thought that it was one of that sleazy Republican operative Lee Atwater moves. McCain had been winning some of the primaries bf this and he got trounced in this state.

things that make you go hmmmm...

At least you can see where his hands are in the picture.

I think he was the decoy. Notice neither one of their husbands is around.

Paul -

I used one from ten years ago, and one from two weeks ago. Recently, they also said Trumps chief of staff was about to quit, no truth to that. Again, if you want to deny that the liberal media is out to get Trump, you can say that all day long. Not many people agree with you, just the zealots.

Oh, you don't like the difference between a Hollywood director and POTUS?? OK, let's talk about Bill Clinton. How is he portrayed in the liberal media, compared to Trump? Or Ted Kennedy, for that matter? My side is waging the "war on women", yet Ted Kennedy is the only one with a confirmed kill in that war. And Bill Clinton has some lofty achievements as well. But your side cares about women, and my side is sexist. That makes all kinds of sense.

"SNL ran skits with Harvey"...after first cutting those jokes because "it's a New York thing", and getting all kinds of criticism. Their initial reaction, was to ignore it.

"just 1 person saying that". Matt Damon freely admitted that he called the NYT, at Weinstein's request, to paint the situation in a less disgusting light.

Are you feeling OK? You are willfully ignoring a lot of facts here. I mean, a lot.

"enough to call a woman the c word"...so no woman, has ever earned that description? Not one? Ever?

"and the president a POS". Again, I can give you as many examples as you want, of his acting just like a POS. I can also say Trump is a morally bankrupt jerk. Because unlike you, I can be honest about those on my side.

"Your side voted for Trump". Sure. And your side voted for Hilary, who is as crummy a person as Trump is. Integrity wasn't on the ballot on 2016. It was a choice between 2 morally bankrupt, truly rotten people. One of them, in my opinion, has superior opinions on the things that matter to me. So while I had to plug my nose in the booth, it was an easy choice. As yours was to you.

"Bu the double standards is exactly what you constantly do here".

Name one example. I criticize Republicans all the time. Can you point to one example, where I gave a Republican a pass, for doing the same thing, for which I criticized a Democrat?

Matt Damon responded on Tuesday to claims that Harvey Weinstein asked him to help kill a New York Times story about Weinstein’s history of sexual harassment that was allegedly in the works more than a decade before the bombshell reports published over the past few days.
The Wrap founder Sharon Waxman alleged while she was reporting for the New York Times in 2004, Weinstein requested Damon call her to speak positively about producer Fabrizio Lombardo, who was thought to be involved in setting Weinstein up with women.
In an interview with Deadline on Tuesday, Damon said he was unaware of what Waxman’s story was about when he called. “For the record, I would never, ever, ever try to kill a story like that,” Damon told Deadline. “I just wouldn’t do that. It’s not something I would do, for anybody.”
Waxman has since endorsed Damon’s statement. “He called me briefly, wasn’t informed — nor [should] he have been — [about] investigative aspect of piece,” she wrote on Twitter.
I endorse Matt Damon's statement. He called me briefly,wasn't informed – nor shld he have been – abt investigative aspect of piece. @thewrap https://t.co/kTbOdYY7C8
— Sharon Waxman (@sharonwaxman) October 10, 2017
This comes after the Times dismissed Waxman’s claims that the paper spiked her story because of pressure from Weinstein. “Sharon has now had more than a decade to pursue this story unencumbered by me or any New York Times editor,” Jonathan Landman, a former Times editor, told Politico. “Why, if she had the goods on Weinstein in 2004, has she been unable or unwilling to publish something in the Wrap, where she was in charge? Could it be because she didn’t actually have the goods then, now or in between?”

Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise.

Paul S -

"Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise"

Please be very specific, about what you are saying my hypocrisy is here. You didn't mention any details, naturally.

I presume you accuse me of being happy when Democrats are shot, but angry when Republicans are shot? You have any evidence of that claim, or is it a fabricated cheap shot?

Go back and do a search on those 2 names.

Nobody has to fabricate anything with you.

I did, search, and I guess my search skills aren't up to par with yours. Because I found nothing that would lead anyone to conclude that I support the notion of assassinating democrats.

How about this Paul, you post something I said, which honestly suggests that I like the idea of assassinating democrats...and I will give you $100, and I will send it today.

If I ever stated, or even implied, that I want democrats to be murdered, I apologize sincerely. If I never said any such thing (and I don't believe I did) you might refrain from suggesting that I did.

"Nobody has to fabricate anything with you"

Well, let's see what evidence you have, that this accusation, wasn't a figment of your imagination.

You constantly blame the whole Dem. party for something you don't like (that almost all of us might find wrong or distasteful) and when someone points out examples of the samething done by Reps, you always try saying "it is different bc" and then you try splitting hairs. It is no different.

Ok Paul.

For the record, both sides have jerks, perverts, a-holes, crooks, liars, etc. Neither side has a monopoly on character flaws.

Both sides also have folks that demonize the other side. But if you look at each party at the national level, if you look at the political media types, I do feel that the democrats are far more likely to demonize the other side. I don't watch Foxnews at night anymore, but I'd bet my 401k that if you watched Fox and MSNBC from 8-11, you'd see far more hate on MSNBC, I don't think it would even be close.

And I think that has consequences. For example, why are 95% of politically-motivated riots (if not more), carried out by liberals? Why can liberals say whatever they want on college campuses, but conservatives cannot?

And I'm sorry, but if you take issue with generalizations like "Democrats like to tax and spend", you need to lighten up. I concede that not every single liberal likes to tax and spend. But most support that position. There are stereotypes on both sides that generally, hold up. I'm just too lazy to put a disclaimer in every time I make an observation...