Trump threatens broadcaster NBC

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

things that make you go hmmmm...

[PaulS]

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

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?

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

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?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.I don't think anyone has ever said you support the assasination of a Dem. what you did is you you blame the Dems for Scalise and don't blame the Reps. for Gifford when they were both the actions of a deranged person.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...