Trump threatens broadcaster NBC

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The difference is, if Murphy was a Democrat, he might have survived this, like Bill Clinton did. There are absolute scumbags on both sides. You get a lot more wiggle room to be a scumbag, on the left.

your partisan hate consumes you

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your partisan hate consumes you

I've said that to him many times here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

After NBC and the NYT buried it for years. You forgot that part. Honest mistake I'm sure.

Do you have any proof of that? Please post up a story cuz I'd be interesting to read that. The New York Times is the one who broke the story along with the New Yorker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There are absolute scumbags on both sides.



Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

your partisan hate consumes you

[QUOTE=PaulS;1130001]

I've said that to him many times here

[wdmso]

funny thing most here could not have picked Harvey Weinstein out of a photo line up 2 weeks ago including myself ... but the usual suspects whom's email box were suddenly filled with talking point and marching orders highjacked a thread about trump and NBC and made it about the media and Liberals

media covered it up for years and liberal politicians (like Hillary for example)

or That’s the liberal way. or Democrat, he might have survived this, like Bill Clinton Hillary was even mentioned .. its comical

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you have any proof of that? Please post up a story cuz I'd be interesting to read that. The New York Times is the one who broke the story along with the New Yorker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/medi...dia/index.html

""I will say that over many years, many news organizations have circled this story and faced a great deal of pressure in doing so," Farrow said during an appearance on MSNBC on Tuesday night."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/medi...dia/index.html

""I will say that over many years, many news organizations have circled this story and faced a great deal of pressure in doing so," Farrow said during an appearance on MSNBC on Tuesday night."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So that is it? Someone said the New York Times was shown a story 12 years ago and the editors said they can't even recall it. You're reaching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

... but the usual suspects whom's email box were suddenly filled with talking point and marching orders

I've honestly never received a single talking point or marching order in my email....maybe Jim?...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you have any proof of that? Please post up a story cuz I'd be interesting to read that. The New York Times is the one who broke the story along with the New Yorker
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are both admitting it, how is that for proof? They claim that there wasn't quite enough verifiability. That didn't stop the NYT from running a story that John McCain's adopted black daughter, is his biological daughter from an affair.

The liberal media's requirement for verifiability, depends on whose ox is getting gored.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So that is it? Someone said the New York Times was shown a story 12 years ago and the editors said they can't even recall it. You're reaching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just google it for Gods sake, we're not making it up, it's everywhere. Here, Salon for Christ's sake, more liberal than NBC, calls out NBC for burying it.

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

[Jim in CT]

[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

Originally Posted by PaulS

I've said that to him many times here

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your partisan hate consumes you

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

They are both admitting it, how is that for proof? They claim that there wasn't quite enough verifiability. That didn't stop the NYT from running a story that John McCain's adopted black daughter, is his biological daughter from an affair.

The liberal media's requirement for verifiability, depends on whose ox is getting gored.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Just google it for Gods sake, we're not making it up, it's everywhere. Here, Salon for Christ's sake, more liberal than NBC, calls out NBC for burying it.

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

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

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1130032]

Originally Posted by scottw

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...

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

Youre hate will never end.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnR

[I]
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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

clearly!


Marry Christmas Spence

[scottw]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

Youre hate will never end.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

"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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Isn't that what Jim is not doing?

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.So you use an example from what 10 years ago?

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.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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?Do I have to explain the difference bt a Hollywood director and the Pres. of the US to you?

SNL ran skits w/Harvey this week including say he should be in jail - you are reading last week's news when they tried out some jokes that fell flat and they thought the audience didn't know who he was so they cut them.

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.And the editor for the Times said he could not even remember being approached for the story. You're ignoring that they BROKE the story.

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.

Your hypocrisy (how many times have we discussed that ) 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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.But "your" side voted for him enough to put him in the Presidency. They had plenty of other choices.

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.That is no evidence - it is just 1 person saying that. So that is no evidence that the NYT "buried the story for years" like you stated or that they "admitted" they buried it.

Paul: Oh, yeah? Well what about Fauxnews, and Jim's all-consuming hate?Yes, a constant theme here - your hate.

Yes, I am truly nervous about this debate.

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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