It's truly amazing. You're still repeating the 2.5 year old lie thinking we didn't know about it? You hadn't kept up on any of the developments on the story since then?
"Based on Morell’s testimony, it is apparent that the Biden campaign played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the 2020 presidential election. Although the statement’s signatories have an unquestioned right to free speech and free association—which we do not dispute—their reference to their national security credentials lent weight to the story and suggested access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans."
If you don't see how that's a massive scandal you are part of the problem
there is no mention of any sort of pressure in that letter. This was before Biden or Blinken were in office. And they could pressure Trump-era people? You need to rewrite your list without the world pressure in it. And from a non-biased source.
And anyway, swaths of the laptop have been altered by lord knows who. YOu want to bet the Russians had nothign to do with any of it? After they sledgehammered another Dem, Hillary by stealing and publicizing her data?
With years of Russian interference like this on behalf of Republicans you want to say RU had nothing to do with the laptop and at the time a pause to make sure was unwise or sinister? Why in the world would you think that? You are appearing wildly naive.
Last week the NY Post ran a story about homeless veterans being kicked out of hotels to make way for asylum seekers—but they were actually men picked up from a local homeless shelter and paid to pretend they were veterans who'd been kicked out of a hotel
Flagpole, you're done here. The Durham Report has sh*tcanned your life's work. You yawn because trying to keep up the act has become too exausting in light of the facts.
Such a load. The Durham Report is a bunch of BS by an outrageously partisan for the absolutely nutso current GOP. This report (now that I've read it) is the most nothingburger political thing I've seen in 10 years.
Trump is a crook. He's corrupt beyond description, and his colluding with Russia before the 2016 election is WAY down the list now of the illegal things he's done. Sorry, but The Trump Tower meeting was colluding with Russia. How is it not? You can say that colluding is not a legal term, but that makes no difference. Trump colluded with Russia. Trump had financial dealings in Russia despite the fact he said he didn't.
People should play poker with Paul Manafort (start at 1:58 if the pasting didn't work properly...just need to watch for a few seconds):
As Russia is accused of hacking Democratic National Committee emails to influence the U.S. presidential elections, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign cha...
YOu want to bet the Russians had nothign to do with any of it?
They need to prove it or GTFO. Especially after years of Democrats lying about "russian interference" or engaging in it themselves. They have not earned that trust.
A New York City hospital employee has been placed on leave after a viral video that appeared to show her attempting to take a rental bike from a group of young Black men garnered millions of views. https://t.co/8UryiG4qCr
If you live in blue America now and a black person tries to steal your bike, you just have to let them. If not, they'll run fake stories about you and get you fired. And even a day after you prove your innocence, they'll STILL RUN HEADLINES LIKE THE ABOVE.
You proud of this agip? Do you ever wonder why people seek alternative media sources? Does this maybe give you a hint as to why?
Four years of Durham resulted in two people's being charged--and acquitted. No other charges are forthcoming. Otherwise: lotta yada, but really nada. So four years of Durham: zip.
[An FBI lawyer pled guilty to cTanging an email, but that offense was uncovered by DOJ IG Michael Horowitz. In other words: Durham's four years was a nothingburger.]
Not only a nothingburger, but it proved nothing. Remember how gleeful Trumpers here and elsewhere were when Durham took up this stupid task? Oh, Democrat heads are going to roll! Such crap.
These Trumpers and the GOP would do well to admit they backed the most crooked man in the history of US National politics, cut bait and try to move on with someone who isn't nearly as criminal. Pure insanity.
Four years of Durham resulted in two people's being charged--and acquitted. No other charges are forthcoming. Otherwise: lotta yada, but really nada. So four years of Durham: zip.
[An FBI lawyer pled guilty to changing an email, but that offense was uncovered by DOJ IG Michael Horowitz. In other words: Durham's four years was a nothingburger.]
The Durham report resulted in at least one big fat sh*tcanning.
Four years of Flagpole's life - sh*tcanned!
Cute, in a pathetic way that you think that and that you believe that Durham report has anything worthwhile to say or that any of it is credible whatsoever. Democrat heads were supposed to roll because of Durham, remember? Ha! Nothingburger. Trumpers are losers.
If you live in blue America now and a black person tries to steal your bike, you just have to let them. If not, they'll run fake stories about you and get you fired. And even a day after you prove your innocence, they'll STILL RUN HEADLINES LIKE THE ABOVE.
You proud of this agip? Do you ever wonder why people seek alternative media sources? Does this maybe give you a hint as to why?
I’m ready and willing eager to challenge bad reporting on all sides. Are you? I don’t hear any right wingers criticize the endless lies from Fox and other right wing sources.
and of course there is a moral difference in that when the mainstream press gets something wrong it’s a mistake and they correct it. Whereas when the right wing press gets something wrong it’s on purpose and they don’t correct it.
If you live in blue America now and a black person tries to steal your bike, you just have to let them. If not, they'll run fake stories about you and get you fired. And even a day after you prove your innocence, they'll STILL RUN HEADLINES LIKE THE ABOVE.
You proud of this agip? Do you ever wonder why people seek alternative media sources? Does this maybe give you a hint as to why?
I’m ready and willing eager to challenge bad reporting on all sides. Are you? I don’t hear any right wingers criticize the endless lies from Fox and other right wing sources.
and of course there is a moral difference in that when the mainstream press gets something wrong it’s a mistake and they correct it. Whereas when the right wing press gets something wrong it’s on purpose and they don’t correct it.
You did not and have not criticized this.
I don't see a correction either. NBC has neglected to correct it. They also pushed out a new story and neglected to include yesterday's information.
How does one determine that a question has an “argumentative answer of no?”
By using common reading comprehension skills and appreciating the context in which posts were made.
This really isn't difficult. They whole exchange is in a few sentences set forth in 3-4 posts over 2 pages, including this one. I'm just wondering why you asked this rhetorical question -- "Do national media outlets usually cover "localized racial hate crimes?"" which is saying that national media outlets do not cover, as I suggested they do, local racial hate crimes. "Why would they?" I believe you also posted. Those are rhetorical questions - affirmative statements framed as inquiries.
But two posts down from that you were admitting, in response to another post, that national media outlets DO cover racial hate crimes in certain instances, but the national media's "double standards" (your words) was justified for unexpressed reasons that you suggested I and "Academic Discussion" weren't bright enough to understand. "I'm hoping some day one of you stumbles into understanding why the double standards exist in the first place" is what I believe you typed.
So I was just wondering why you contradicted yourself within the space of two posts. That's all.
Yes, this is everyone's favorite part of the online argument. Arguing about the argument. Argument autopsy. Since you insist and since I can't help myself, let's break the whole thing down.
El Runkin ponders why the national media isn't covering a story where two black people kill a white person.
I interpret this to be about "liberal media bias" and racial bias in news/crime reporting. "If the races were reversed, this would be all over the national news" type of stuff. However, the race of the individuals are what they are, and so it was never going to be widely covered in the national media, leading to me ask "why would it be?" This question is in regards to this specific crime, not all racialized hate crimes, which doesn't come up until the next post in the chain.
El Runkin responds that it's a racialized hate crime, and therefore one would think it would be important enough to cover nationally. Something like that. I find this general statement to be both challenging and amusing. Obviously, not all racialized hate crimes are treated equally by news outlets. Some are given national attention while others are not. Again, the races of the perps are what they are, so this story was never going to be covered. Had they been reversed, it probably would have been.
My next question was formulated to try to get you to acknowledge this fact. Are crimes like this usually covered? Yes, but only if people of certain races are the victim, which is not the case in this instance. That was what I was looking for, and I actually got it from another poster pretty much right away so it couldn't have been that confusing. I was not, as you interpreted, saying that racialized hate crimes as a whole were never covered nationally. Some are and some aren't. The one that was linked obviously wouldn't be, but I am not insinuating with this question that no racialized hate crimes are covered.
Then you get caught up in this and put a whole bunch of other words in my mouth along the way, like saying that I think the double standard is "justified" and that I think you're not smart enough to understand why the double standard exists. I think you are smart enough, and justified is a weird word to use. I don't think of it as justified or not justified. It's just cause and effect.
Hope this helps. It's been way too long since I've done acid.
I’m ready and willing eager to challenge bad reporting on all sides. Are you? I don’t hear any right wingers criticize the endless lies from Fox and other right wing sources.
and of course there is a moral difference in that when the mainstream press gets something wrong it’s a mistake and they correct it. Whereas when the right wing press gets something wrong it’s on purpose and they don’t correct it.
You did not and have not criticized this.
I don't see a correction either. NBC has neglected to correct it. They also pushed out a new story and neglected to include yesterday's information.
Hear ye
hear ye
i hearby criticize the bad reporting on the bikeshare story.
i also think bill Clinton messed up badly with the intern.
I also think joe is too old
i think the Dems focus way too much on race and not enough on ideals.
I don't see a correction either. NBC has neglected to correct it. They also pushed out a new story and neglected to include yesterday's information.
Hear ye
hear ye
i hearby criticize the bad reporting on the bikeshare story.
i also think bill Clinton messed up badly with the intern.
I also think joe is too old
i think the Dems focus way too much on race and not enough on ideals.
your turn!
Anyway, there probably aren’t any factual errors in the story that require correction. It’s full of journalistic hedges like ‘appears to be’ etc. do you see any factual errors in the nbc story? The fault is in people like us commenting on the news.
i hearby criticize the bad reporting on the bikeshare story.
i also think bill Clinton messed up badly with the intern.
I also think joe is too old
i think the Dems focus way too much on race and not enough on ideals.
your turn!
Anyway, there probably aren’t any factual errors in the story that require correction. It’s full of journalistic hedges like ‘appears to be’ etc. do you see any factual errors in the nbc story? The fault is in people like us commenting on the news.
That's a naive way of looking at media lies. It's been known since yesterday that the woman paid for her bike. NBC knew this, and intentionally chose not to include this information.
Anyway, there probably aren’t any factual errors in the story that require correction. It’s full of journalistic hedges like ‘appears to be’ etc. do you see any factual errors in the nbc story? The fault is in people like us commenting on the news.
That's a naive way of looking at media lies. It's been known since yesterday that the woman paid for her bike. NBC knew this, and intentionally chose not to include this information.
NBC runs a story that while not false and not requiring a correction, probably should not have run, or least told differently. Bad news judgment.
I still criticize it, willingly.
On the other hand.
Fox and all of right wing media run months of intentionally false stories alleging massive election fraud, knowing that the stories were false, and so far Fox has had to pay nearly a billion dollars to make it go away and fire tucker carlson. And there is more paying to come.
But to my knowledge you are unwilling to criticize fox or any right wing media for any of that.
You starting to see the problem here? You are unreasonable.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
By using common reading comprehension skills and appreciating the context in which posts were made.
This really isn't difficult. They whole exchange is in a few sentences set forth in 3-4 posts over 2 pages, including this one. I'm just wondering why you asked this rhetorical question -- "Do national media outlets usually cover "localized racial hate crimes?"" which is saying that national media outlets do not cover, as I suggested they do, local racial hate crimes. "Why would they?" I believe you also posted. Those are rhetorical questions - affirmative statements framed as inquiries.
But two posts down from that you were admitting, in response to another post, that national media outlets DO cover racial hate crimes in certain instances, but the national media's "double standards" (your words) was justified for unexpressed reasons that you suggested I and "Academic Discussion" weren't bright enough to understand. "I'm hoping some day one of you stumbles into understanding why the double standards exist in the first place" is what I believe you typed.
So I was just wondering why you contradicted yourself within the space of two posts. That's all.
Yes, this is everyone's favorite part of the online argument. Arguing about the argument. Argument autopsy. Since you insist and since I can't help myself, let's break the whole thing down.
El Runkin ponders why the national media isn't covering a story where two black people kill a white person.
I interpret this to be about "liberal media bias" and racial bias in news/crime reporting. "If the races were reversed, this would be all over the national news" type of stuff. However, the race of the individuals are what they are, and so it was never going to be widely covered in the national media, leading to me ask "why would it be?" This question is in regards to this specific crime, not all racialized hate crimes, which doesn't come up until the next post in the chain.
El Runkin responds that it's a racialized hate crime, and therefore one would think it would be important enough to cover nationally. Something like that. I find this general statement to be both challenging and amusing. Obviously, not all racialized hate crimes are treated equally by news outlets. Some are given national attention while others are not. Again, the races of the perps are what they are, so this story was never going to be covered. Had they been reversed, it probably would have been.
My next question was formulated to try to get you to acknowledge this fact. Are crimes like this usually covered? Yes, but only if people of certain races are the victim, which is not the case in this instance. That was what I was looking for, and I actually got it from another poster pretty much right away so it couldn't have been that confusing. I was not, as you interpreted, saying that racialized hate crimes as a whole were never covered nationally. Some are and some aren't. The one that was linked obviously wouldn't be, but I am not insinuating with this question that no racialized hate crimes are covered.
Then you get caught up in this and put a whole bunch of other words in my mouth along the way, like saying that I think the double standard is "justified" and that I think you're not smart enough to understand why the double standard exists. I think you are smart enough, and justified is a weird word to use. I don't think of it as justified or not justified. It's just cause and effect.
Hope this helps. It's been way too long since I've done acid.
Blow Hunter: wrote:
El Runkin ponders why the national media isn't covering a story where two black people kill a white person.
I wouldn't say I pondered it. Very few people ponder that anymore. Most of us know why there is what you call a "double standard" in reporting distinct types of alleged hate crimes (even if many won't admit they know why). So I didn't ponder it, I made an observation. You could call it a rhetorical observation.
Blow Hunter: wrote:
I interpret this to be about "liberal media bias" and racial bias in news/crime reporting. "If the races were reversed, this would be all over the national news" type of stuff.
That's a reasonable interpretation of what I was suggesting.
Blow Hunter: wrote:
However, the race of the individuals are what they are, and so it was never going to be widely covered in the national media, leading to me ask "why would it be?"
I agree that it was never going to be covered nationally because of the race of the individuals (black criminals, white victim), but I disagree that your confrontational rhetorical question "why would it be [covered]?" was suggesting that. You weren't agreeing with me (at least not yet).
Blow Hunter: wrote:
El Runkin responds that it's a racialized hate crime, and therefore one would think it would be important enough to cover nationally. Something like that.
No, that's erroneous. As you correctly pointed out above, I was suggesting liberal/woke bias (motives) in media is why it was NOT reported nationally.
Blow Hunter wrote:
I find this general statement to be both challenging and amusing.
I'm sure that things you misread are often challenging and amusing to you.
Blow Hunter: wrote:
Obviously, not all racialized hate crimes are treated equally by news outlets. Some are given national attention while others are not. Again, the races of the perps are what they are, so this story was never going to be covered. Had they been reversed, it probably would have been.
Agreed. That's almost brave of you to admit, as many people would deny that happens. But it does beg the question of why you disagreed with me to begin with. See rhetorical question in Post No. 39054.
Blow Hunter wrote:
My next question was formulated to try to get you to acknowledge this fact. Are crimes like this usually covered? Yes, but only if people of certain races are the victim, which is not the case in this instance
You are saying that you cleverly formulated a question to get me to acknowledge a fact that you previously admit that I had already expressed (acknowledged) to begin with. Makes no sense.
Blow Hunter: wrote:
I was not, as you interpreted, saying that racialized hate crimes as a whole were never covered nationally. Some are and some aren't. The one that was linked obviously wouldn't be, but I am not insinuating with this question that no racialized hate crimes are covered.
You are again internally confused, this time within a single post. You are saying you got me to admit/acknowledge that the national media would not report this because of the race of the individuals ("My next question was formulated to try to get you to acknowledge this fact") while at the same time you alleged that was my point to begin with ("I interpret this to be about "liberal media bias" and racial bias in news/crime reporting").
Blow Hunter wrote:
Hope this helps. It's been way too long since I've done acid.
In my considerable experience, acid is a white man's drug.
