eh...... I have went home with worse.
Before any of you smart asses say it, the cow not the man - I don't swing from that side of the plate. lol
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Before any of you smart asses say it, the cow not the man - I don't swing from that side of the plate. lol
I prefer to think that Reid is blind in his right eye because of Karma.Reid couldn't figure out rubberbands and sues.
Too bad it could not have happened a decade earlier.
Former Sen. Harry Reid says exercise device caused career-ending injuries; device maker disputes claims
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...xercise-device-injury-caused-early-retirement
Was former U.S. Sen. Harry Reid a victim of a faulty exercise device -- or of his own failure to learn how to use it properly?
That's what a jury will decide in a trial now underway in Nevada over Reid's lawsuit, in which he claims he took a nasty fall when a TheraBand exercise device slipped from his hands in January 2015.
”I hurt myself really bad,” Reid, 79, who now uses a wheelchair, testified Thursday. “I just knew that I was hurt, and I needed to get some help.
Reid is blind in his right eye since the accident, which he blamed on an “unreasonably dangerous” elastic physical resistance band.
He also claims that because of his injuries his U.S. Senate career was cut short. Reid, a Democrat, retired as Senate minority leader in January 2017 after serving in the Senate for 30 years.
He also has pancreatic cancer.
Replying to lying about Romney's taxes:
Is there a line he wouldn't cross when it comes to political warfare?
"I don't know what that line would be," Reid said.
USA Today Blacklists The Federalist For The Crime Of Getting The Trump-Russia Story Right
When news broke on Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had submitted his report on the Russia-collusion investigation to Attorney General William Barr, and that no further charges would be forthcoming, I penned an op-ed and submitted it to USA Today, which had published my work several times, including as recently as last November.
USA Today first solicited an op-ed from me on my analysis of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony in October 2018. While I typically write for conservative-leaning publications, I purposefully seek out mainstream outlets on occasion, hoping to bring some balance to the news diets of media organizations, which tend to lean left.
Sunday evening, after reviewing my submission, Deputy Editorial Page Editor David Mastio replied via e-mail that the paper would publish it the next day, pending a routine fact check. I noted that I was happy to provide additional sources if needed. I then double-checked all of my supporting references and confirmed that they were solid, but sent on two additional links to congressional documents anyway, thinking they would be quicker to verify than the references I had provided.
Then came a shocker from Mastio: USA Today had instead decided to reject the submission because I cited The Federalist and National Review.
“Going forward, assertions of fact need to be backed up with mainstream media sources or original documents,” Mastio wrote. “Links to National Review or [T]he Federalist (or similar sites) are not reliable.”
Never mind that USA Today just last month published an opinion article that directly cited The Federalist. Never mind that the newspaper has repeatedly publishedarticles that cite analysis from The Federalist and its writers. Never mind that even the publication’s news pages, not just opinion sections, have cited breaking news sourced directly to The Federalist.
And never mind that on the topic of my now-rejected op-ed—how mainstream media ignored the real Trump scandal—The Federalist was one of the only publications in the country that consistently got the story right.
“The entire point of my Op-Ed is that the media ignored the true scandal,” I fired back to Mastio. “And had your fact checkers bothered to look at the articles, they would have discovered that every statement of fact was backed-up with the original sources issued by the government.”
“[T]he articles laid out how the original sources established the facts—something the mainstream media refused to do,” I wrote. “Again, the point of my article.”
Mastio didn’t even bother to suggest the facts I had asserted were false. How could he, when they were accurate? Instead, he snidely dismissed the source, as if the mainstream media organizations that had consistently botched the Trump-Russia story for the last two years were the only publications on earth that can be trusted on the matter.
The irony could not be richer. Within days of Mueller’s report exposing the mainstream media as highly paid scandalmongers, Mastio branded National Review and The Federalist “not reliable.” And the mainstream media’s blind spot was the entire point of my opinion piece!
When news broke on Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had submitted his report on the Russia-collusion investigation to Attorney General William Barr, and that no further charges would be forthcoming, I penned an op-ed and submitted it to USA Today, which had published my work several times, including as recently as last November.
USA Today first solicited an op-ed from me on my analysis of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony in October 2018. While I typically write for conservative-leaning publications, I purposefully seek out mainstream outlets on occasion, hoping to bring some balance to the news diets of media organizations, which tend to lean left.
Sunday evening, after reviewing my submission, Deputy Editorial Page Editor David Mastio replied via e-mail that the paper would publish it the next day, pending a routine fact check. I noted that I was happy to provide additional sources if needed. I then double-checked all of my supporting references and confirmed that they were solid, but sent on two additional links to congressional documents anyway, thinking they would be quicker to verify than the references I had provided.
Then came a shocker from Mastio: USA Today had instead decided to reject the submission because I cited The Federalist and National Review.
“Going forward, assertions of fact need to be backed up with mainstream media sources or original documents,” Mastio wrote. “Links to National Review or [T]he Federalist (or similar sites) are not reliable.”
Never mind that USA Today just last month published an opinion article that directly cited The Federalist. Never mind that the newspaper has repeatedly publishedarticles that cite analysis from The Federalist and its writers. Never mind that even the publication’s news pages, not just opinion sections, have cited breaking news sourced directly to The Federalist.
And never mind that on the topic of my now-rejected op-ed—how mainstream media ignored the real Trump scandal—The Federalist was one of the only publications in the country that consistently got the story right.
“The entire point of my Op-Ed is that the media ignored the true scandal,” I fired back to Mastio. “And had your fact checkers bothered to look at the articles, they would have discovered that every statement of fact was backed-up with the original sources issued by the government.”
“[T]he articles laid out how the original sources established the facts—something the mainstream media refused to do,” I wrote. “Again, the point of my article.”
Mastio didn’t even bother to suggest the facts I had asserted were false. How could he, when they were accurate? Instead, he snidely dismissed the source, as if the mainstream media organizations that had consistently botched the Trump-Russia story for the last two years were the only publications on earth that can be trusted on the matter.
The irony could not be richer. Within days of Mueller’s report exposing the mainstream media as highly paid scandalmongers, Mastio branded National Review and The Federalist “not reliable.” And the mainstream media’s blind spot was the entire point of my opinion piece!
He is one son of a bitch I will never feel sorry for. Call me whatever you want but he is a lying unethical son of a bitch. How any jury could believe a word he says is beyond me. I don't believe you only lie for political purposes. If he had no reservations about telling lies about Romney, I would just assume he is telling lies again.He also has pancreatic cancer.
Replying to lying about Romney's taxes:
Is there a line he wouldn't cross when it comes to political warfare?
"I don't know what that line would be," Reid said.
I've seen this done from time to time.
Will students support socialism if you put it in their terms? Since most haven't earned money, they aren't opposed to you taking it.
But, they do have a gpa. Will they support sharing their gpa with lower gpa students?
It would be interesting if they showed the true socialist kid. A kid, that even after putting it on their terms, that would still be for it.
The follow up question would be " Is your current gpa above 2.5?"
Will students support socialism if you put it in their terms? Since most haven't earned money, they aren't opposed to you taking it.
But, they do have a gpa. Will they support sharing their gpa with lower gpa students?
It would be interesting if they showed the true socialist kid. A kid, that even after putting it on their terms, that would still be for it.
The follow up question would be " Is your current gpa above 2.5?"
WASHINGTON, March 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General William Barr plans to issue a redacted copy of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's nearly 400-page investigative report into Russian interference in the 2016 election by mid-April, he revealed in a letter to lawmakers on Friday.
"Everyone willl soon be able to read it on their own," Barr wrote in the letter to the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House Judiciary committees.
He said he is willing to appear before both committees to testify about Mueller's report on May 1 and May 2.
After reading what Dowd had to say about Mueller's knowledge that Trump wasn't involved for a long time before the witch hunt ended, I'll be happy for he findings to be made public. Some people are going to get more than they asked for.
"Everyone willl soon be able to read it on their own," Barr wrote in the letter to the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House Judiciary committees.
He said he is willing to appear before both committees to testify about Mueller's report on May 1 and May 2.
After reading what Dowd had to say about Mueller's knowledge that Trump wasn't involved for a long time before the witch hunt ended, I'll be happy for he findings to be made public. Some people are going to get more than they asked for.
What I hear constantly around here is that people are only poor due to their own choices. "Anyone can prosper in 2019 America." If that's true it doesn't matter if there are no illegals or 10 million, people are going to make those choices. So which is it, they're poor because of bad decision-making or because illegals make them that way?
Really though it's a moot point. Our current system treats people who show up even if they can't pay. So legal or not we're still left with the two options: save people who can't pay or let them die.
Look, he's beholden to no one & let's everyone in DC know it with his actions & words. And he's the ONLY ONE that would attempt that much less largely succeed. Upsetting that apple cart is the best thing that's happened to this country in the last 50 years at least. The sh!t Dims in general, god Obama, Clintons, & the bureaucracy of the FBI & CIA pulled against him ought to send chills up every one's spines. That's why he's a deity, $ or no $.
I like the memes well enough around here, but you always give me good, thoughtful articles to read, Moe. I really appreciate that, thanks pal!
![[thumb2]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1684387.png "Thumbs Up 2 [thumb2]")
![[banana]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682178.gif "banana [banana]")
![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
T
The hell ya been Moe? Good to see ya.
Well of course he is to you. He opposes everything you stand for.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Taking a break from it all. Lurking here and there.
If you liked the Iran deal, you're going to LOVE this! Trumps selling nuclear technology to the Saudi's. No paying the Middle East not to develop nukes, let's just sell them ours! I forget, which country were 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers from? Oh and ignore the fact that Westinghouse stands to make a fortune supplying the reactors and they just bailed Kushner out of his 1.8 billion financial troubles associated with 666 Fifth Avenue...
Last edited:
Awesome. We're selling energy to saudis now!
Aren't we the #1 oil producer in the world?
Amazing what Trump has done with energy....clean energy. Really setting a great example for the world.
Aren't we the #1 oil producer in the world?
Amazing what Trump has done with energy....clean energy. Really setting a great example for the world.
I guess if people in the middle east are going to have bombs, I'd prefer we sell them to them.
The NSA/CIA has a backdoor into your washing machine, refrigerator, etc. I'm sure if we sold the Saudis a nuclear bomb, the next time they hijack a plane we could just backdoor remote control that plane right over the ocean and detonate.
The NSA/CIA has a backdoor into your washing machine, refrigerator, etc. I'm sure if we sold the Saudis a nuclear bomb, the next time they hijack a plane we could just backdoor remote control that plane right over the ocean and detonate.
No even worse we're selling them the technology so that they can make their own. Isn't there an old saying conservatives love about teaching a man to fish?
We're selling them the ability to make their own, not ours with backdoors. The only backdoor is into Jared Kushner.
Last edited:
Sorry, when you said "No paying the Middle East not to develop nukes, let's just sell them ours!" I though you meant we were selling them our nukes.
I'm pretty anti-SA, but when you say we're selling them nukes, then immediately say we're not selling them nukes, it's tough to take anything you say seriously.
Edit: and this is a perfect example of why no one takes anything you guys say seriously. There are plenty of things to criticize Trump about, but you guys are so disingenuous ALL THE TIME, I just assume everything you say is made up.
You say we're selling them nukes.
I sarcastically say great, I'd prefer we just sell them nukes.
Then you say we aren't actually selling them nukes.
Well OK then, that was easy. And it just makes me think everything you're saying about Kushner is also made up.
That's muh Russia in a nutshell. Accuse Trump of doing something that's totally false, then move on to the next made up topic once the shelf life runs out.
I'm pretty anti-SA, but when you say we're selling them nukes, then immediately say we're not selling them nukes, it's tough to take anything you say seriously.
Edit: and this is a perfect example of why no one takes anything you guys say seriously. There are plenty of things to criticize Trump about, but you guys are so disingenuous ALL THE TIME, I just assume everything you say is made up.
You say we're selling them nukes.
I sarcastically say great, I'd prefer we just sell them nukes.
Then you say we aren't actually selling them nukes.
Well OK then, that was easy. And it just makes me think everything you're saying about Kushner is also made up.
That's muh Russia in a nutshell. Accuse Trump of doing something that's totally false, then move on to the next made up topic once the shelf life runs out.
Yeah it's definitely my fault you're too lazy to follow the news or just read a linked article. Dang liberals and their readin'.
Well said. When Trump announced for president I was not immediately in his camp. I was skeptical. But as the months went by and I saw the attacks on everything he said or did I began to think maybe he is stirring up a pot that needs to be stirred. So I voted for him with much enthusiasm and pride. Then when they started with the Russian hoax that sealed the deal for me. Now I am one of his ardent followers and will be attending every rally around here for his re-election. He is very popular where I live and we are going to have a good times getting him re-elected. Plus we will be eating a lot of good food. In a few weeks we have a good ole fashioned Re-Elect Trump Florida BBQ complete with gator meat, swamp cabbage and hog meat BBQ. Then a big ole fish fry as the boys bring in the bass. Gonna be fun y'all.
Trump 2020
Well I assumed you'd summarized the article in your post, not just made up a bunch of shit.
You loved and passionately defended the Iran deal, a country has been backing terrorism throughout the ME and is backed by Russia. Much much worse alliance than SA. Silly. Are you in school or work in academia? Has to be one.
Someone is nipping Biden in the bud. HRC v3?
What’s sad is the US sends China “recyclables”, we pay them to take our trash to “ recycle”. That shit is getting straight burned or dumped, but lefties get to feel good and think they’re saving the planet.
I read it.
First paragraph, last sentence - according to a copy of a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.
Third paragraph, last sentence - a source with knowledge of the agreements said on condition of anonymity.
It's entirety is based on an anonymous document and an anonymous source. You guys, and the media, have lost all credibility after collusion delusion for two straight years. Matter of fact, most of you deserve to be shunned and are unworthy of a response. Either way, provide receipts, names the source or piss off with your make believe fantasy land b.s.. It's that simple from this point forward.
When Vox comes out against Biden, you know he's f**ked.
Lucy Flores isn’t alone. Joe Biden’s got a long history of touching women inappropriately.
The media gave Biden a pass for years. It won’t in 2020.
Link
Lucy Flores isn’t alone. Joe Biden’s got a long history of touching women inappropriately.
The media gave Biden a pass for years. It won’t in 2020.
Link
That’s the dumbest crap I’ve read this week. We are stupid as hell.
It’s true, that’s what’s so stupid about all this “ green” bullshit. It’s all a work, to make people think they’re actually doing something to feel good.
