Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Well, this post isn't exactly gloating, but let's call it a warm-up.

(I'm trying to walk the delicate line between schadenfreude and jinxing the outcome. :) )

Well...

Just one more...

:) 

 

I have never seen Bill Maher land so many duds with his own audience as in this monologue. He only started getting real applause after he went general and snarky rather than specific and snarky. And toward the end, he landed a few of his standard put-down zingers and the audience liked those. But they were not that many and he did not get his audience lathered up the way he normally does.

His panic about the left losing power is too real. He doesn't transmit a solution well in emotional terms. It sounds like he's begging. He sounds like a teenager with a hard crush on a girl who just told him she isn't into him anymore.

As a reality check, this gives me a lot of hope about the American sense of life (to use Rand's term). He might be a total dork, but, from the reactions to his monologue, his own audience--Americans--doesn't buy his Chicken Little, "The sky is falling FOR REAL this time!" routine. They know President Trump is not Hitler and I think they were a bit embarrassed watching their favorite comedian disintegrate into lame-ass unfunny puns and one-liners.

But there was a funny part. Hilarious actually if you step back.  It's watching Chicken Little Bill Maher lay an egg.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robocall 2 ...

On 10/25/2018 at 12:06 PM, william.scherk said:
Quote

I listened to part of their recent podcast (on Bitchute) to see what they were about and this is another staged bullshit fake-out. The guy started preaching that we need to abolish freedom of the press and put the all the press under government control.

Road to Power on Bitchute ... has a few videos. I choose to embed here the earliest one at that account (their latest is here).

ROBOCALLS2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

Quoting from The Hill that you quoted:

"The Robocall was APPARENTLY funded..." blah blah blah...

Now that the news article has duly covered its due ass (apparently), it can do the other stuff you highlighted in yellow: VILE and RACIST and ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING

The purpose of this, of course, it to take a conjecture--that is, nothing but a guess--and dress it up as a fact without anyone noticing so that the adjectives of sliminess can be aimed at it and, by misdirection, land on President Trump and Trump supporters.

It's bullshit.

But even more important is importance itself.

If this Road to Power guy is real, he's not worth paying attention to. And people don't. White power people in America are pathetically small in number (only a few hundred ever show up in public demonstrations). 

And if he is a ruse by the left (which I believe he is), he's not worth paying attention to. The only people who do tend to be on the left trying to make a thing out of him. Whoopie! Racist racist racist... squawk!!!...

:) 

And the beat goes on... and the beat goes on...

:)

The problem with polished shit is that it still stinks as bad as raw shit. There's no way to make this dude important to anyone anywhere regarding the midterms. Not one thing he says or does changes anything in practical terms.

Well... I guess it makes people who like to virtue signal feel good when they bash him and finger wag...

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m thinking that if the number of white people that the left accuses constantly of being racist were actually racist there would not be anyone other than white people in America.  It does get old being called a racist when you truly are not just because you have a different point of view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

I’m thinking that if the number of white people that the left accuses constantly of being racist were actually racist there would not be anyone other than white people in America.  It does get old being called a racist when you truly are not just because you have a different point of view.

Unfortunately, groups that fight racism like in advertising, never seem to succeed, unless it is racism against black people. There can be a commercial with multiple darker skinned humans and not one white and there is no outcry. But we will always hear about how twenty or fifty years ago there were no ads with blacks unless it was in Ebony Magazine and there is truth to that. And don't forget what went on in 1860~ Recently Downton Abbey was cajoled into adding a black actor into the cast even though 1920's England was stratified by class and color. Oddly, the black guy's character understood the situation better than many upper class whites.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...

People haven't even voted yet.

MSNBC Puts Florida Governor Race Vote-Total Graphic Onscreen A Wee Bit Early

Here's the graphic:

msnbc-florida-governors-race.jpg?w=446&h

I know they like to be fake news, but they don't have to try that hard.

From the article:

Quote

It’s the kind of goof that the folks who scream about “fake news” likely will scream about.

I'm not screaming. I'm laughing at those dorks...

LOL...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I skipped One America News Network's coverage last night since Bill Mitchell wasn't hosting. Here's their reprint from Reuters with a good fake news-ish headline; is it the tone or the focus that makes this a good bad example of media selectivity?

Defiant Trump blames media, fellow Republicans for House losses

Quote

November 7, 2018

By Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The day after his party lost its lock on the Congress, U.S. President Donald Trump walked into a White House press conference with combative words, name-checking Republicans who he blamed for losing their seats and lashing out at reporters who challenged his assertions.

Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives to Democrats, but Trump shrugged that off.

During a raucous news conference that lasted close to 90 minutes, he cast Tuesday’s congressional election results as “very close to complete victory” for Republicans and said he could negotiate easier on some issues with Democrats, anyway.

Some reporters pushed him on whether his campaign rhetoric on migrants from central America was divisive – and on developments in a federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and any coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

Trump aggressively pushed back.

“CNN should be ashamed of itself, having you working for them,” Trump told CNN correspondent Jim Acosta. “You are a rude, terrible person.”

A White House staffer grabbed and pulled the microphone while Acosta held it in his hands. [...]

Trump took the rare step of mocking Republican candidates who kept their distance from him during the campaign because of concerns that his divisive messages on immigration would turn off voters.

“Carlos Curbelo, Mike Coffman – too bad, Mike,” he said, referring to losing Republican congressmen in Florida and Colorado contests.

He scorned Utah’s Mia Love and Virginia’s Barbara Comstock. “Mia Love gave me no love,” he said. “And Barbara Comstock was another one. I mean, I think she could have won that race, but she didn’t want to have any embrace.”

Acosta posted to Twitter last hour that he was denied entry to the White House property (for his 8 pm whoopee, presumably), and all the ruffled feathers and clucking that can be imagined will commence.

Plenty of pushback to the notion that Acosta accosted or assaulted a staffer who grabbed 'the mic' ... and plenty saying he got what he deserves for 'attacks on the President.' I think if I had a day when the President looked at me and called me an N.M.E of the American people, and then I get shut out of my preferred public property for my 8 pm show, I'd have a rethink.  A sauna.  A day without furrowed brows journalizing into a camera.

In the meantime, I guess, hoopla, whoopee, clucking, feathers, "War Talk" from the executive ... for about the length of Acosta's pulled pass remaining pulled.

What seems to be overtaking the Tsk Tsk-er cluck volume in the media realms is the supposedly checkered and biased past of the newly 'revealed' Acting Attorney-General, who may be imagining he has powers conferred to him by Trump. Since the guy, Whitaker, has been open about his hostility to Comey and the Mueller inquiry, on record, he'd be a great Trump loyalist. This aspect will I bet cause a lot of feathers and whoopee in the next few days. A taint of bias could dog him and hobble his actions.

The saddest word I used today on Twitter was lèse-majesté.  The principle is being invoked with Acosta and that was just so weird to me.

A treat for me later on, and maybe for you all. Bill Mitchell gave a 100% guarantee that there would be a Trump majority in the House. In this item, I expect he will smile his way out of his guarantee in an entertaining and encouraging way.  I will be on the listen for QAnon allusions.

It is interesting how all precincts can be reporting but not all votes counted, as in CA-48. That is why, I guess, most of the final calls have yet to be made. I cannot hundred percent guarantee my guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the entire presser.

Imagine those journalists, especially Acosta, acting like that with the Queen of England. Or Putin. Or Maduro. Or Macron. Or, hell, even Trudeau. (How's that for a random selection? :) But any other country in the world will do.)

They wouldn't. And, in some countries, they would have been shot.

The point is they were not acting like journalists before a head of state. One guy I heard (Bongino) said they were not asking questions to get information, but instead executing a cross-examination to get a confession. And from what I saw, they were in bad cop mode.

Frankly, I loved how President Trump handled it. This was a master class in crowd control. You go after the ring-leaders, one-on-one, one-by-one, and get them to stand down as you exert your authority. Soon (not too long after President Trump dealt with April Ryan's monkeyshines) the entire crowd was under control and acting more like a press conference.

I have no sympathy for Acosta losing his credentials. In fact, I'm glad to see it. He was heckling, not asking questions.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I saw the entire presser.

Lefties are sticking to their Narrative™ and calling the presser another of Trump's temper tantrum meltdowns. Watch it again. Trump is calm and cool, and, actually, much too tolerant. He answers the questions, and then answers them again when Accoster refuses to listen to the answers.

 

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Imagine those journalists, especially Acosta, acting like that with the Queen of England. Or Putin. Or Maduro. Or Macron. Or, hell, even Trudeau. (How's that for a random selection? :) But any other country in the world will do.)

And they dared not act that way with Savior Obama. He cracked the whip, and, being ideological kin, they were very careful in how they complained or challenged his whippings of them. In comparison to past presidents, Obama included, Trump has been very lenient, and intentionally so, I think. As Jon Stewart said, he's playing them for fools via their egos.

 

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They wouldn't. And, in some countries, they would have been shot.

Oh, so you're saying that they should be shot, huh? Huh? I knew it! Authoritarian! Nazi!!!

 

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The point is they were not acting like journalists before a head of state. One guy I heard (Bongino) said they were not asking questions to get information, but instead executing a cross-examination to get a confession. And from what I saw, they were in bad cop mode.

Yeah, or cheap lawyer mode. Badgering the witness. Rapid fire questions, condescension, "you can't be serious" attitude, not listening to or accepting answers, nitpicking, immediately jumping to the next subject of attack as soon as the last one failed, inserting phrases such as "But as you know, Mr. President," followed by an opinion presented as an irrefutable fact, but with which the president does not agree, etc. In other words, trashy activist tactics which lend credibility to Trumps accusations of fake news.

 

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have no sympathy for Acosta losing his credentials. In fact, I'm glad to see it. He was heckling, not asking questions.

I have yet to see anyone on the left take issue with Acosta's pushing away/slow karate chop of the female staffer who was trying to take away the microphone. It's yet more evidence, I guess, that the left finds it perfectly acceptable for leftist men to get physical with women. "Bitch had it coming, she was asking for it being a Republican," is apparently their mindset.

J

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re "Acosta's pushing away/slow karate chop of the female staffer ..."

White House press secretary uses fake Infowars video to justify banning CNN reporter

Quote

By Aaron Rupar Nov 8, 2018, 9:10am EST

[...]

Press secretary Sarah Sanders shared an altered video on Wednesday evening that appears to have originated with far-right conspiracy site Infowars to justify banning CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House after a tense exchange with President Donald Trump.

[...]

Later in the day, Sanders posted a string of tweets in which she accused Acosta of “placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern.”

When Trump insulted Acosta at the press conference, a White House intern approached him and tried to physically remove a microphone from his hands. Their arms touched as the woman reached across Acosta’s body to grab the microphone he was holding in his hand.

Looking back at the video, it does not in fact show Acosta “placing his hands” on the woman. But about 90 minutes after she posted her string of tweets, Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson tweeted out a video of the incident that was doctored to make it look like Acosta chopped the woman’s arm with his hand.

Less than an hour later, Sanders tweeted out the doctored video, writing, “We will not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video.”

Comparing the actual footage of the news conference with the Watson/Sanders videos clearly shows that the latter has been manipulated.

[...]

Who is manipulating who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is plain for all to see that Acosta violated the young woman, the President of the United States and the American people.

He was a guest. He had no right of any sort to be there, but was present at the pleasure of the President.

He was told his turn was over. He was told multiple times to stop.

He used physical force on White House staff to defy the President.

He will be lucky if losing his credentials is the only consequence he faces.

The country is changing. Scum like Acosta will not be tolerated like in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Who is manipulating who?

William,

The crony corporatist media of course. And it's manipulating everyone who is not crony corporatist media or at least an elitist.

They don't care much about Acosta. They care a shit load more about the fact that an Infowars video was used by Sarah Sanders.

Infowars cuts into their bottom line and their gatekeeping power.

As to truth, Acosta's misbehavior, exaggerations, free speech, respecting the office of the presidency, etc. etc. etc., those are all minor details to them.

(Apropos, Rush Limbaugh believes CNN--for a long time--has been trying to get someone like Acosta banned from the White House press as that will give CNN a victimization story to run forever.)

The real problem right now for the crony corporatist media is the proof that they have not eradicated the relevance of Infowars as the symbol of alt media success.

The fake news mainstream media wants a monopoly or cartel and it pisses them to the gills they can't get it, especially when they get some small wins.

So they manipulate public perception as much as they can get away with.

And good people, bad people, some smart people and outright gullible fools fall for it.

And when that happens:

Ka Ching!

More unearned money and power flows to the insider top...

As the public gets screwed once again...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

It is plain for all to see that Acosta violated the young woman, the President of the United States and the American people.

He was a guest. He had no right of any sort to be there, but was present at the pleasure of the President.

He was told his turn was over. He was told multiple times to stop.

He used physical force on White House staff to defy the President.

He will be lucky if losing his credentials is the only consequence he faces.

The country is changing. Scum like Acosta will not be tolerated like in the past.

Well said, Jon.

Jonathan wrote: I have yet to see anyone on the left take issue with Acosta's pushing away/slow karate chop of the female staffer who was trying to take away the microphone. It's yet more evidence, I guess, that the left finds it perfectly acceptable for leftist men to get physical with women. "Bitch had it coming, she was asking for it being a Republican," is apparently their mindset. end quote

That did stink. I think the female staffer was checking with the President as to what to do. “Oh, speak to me with your eyes my Captain, my Captain” She was cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Re "Acosta's pushing away/slow karate chop of the female staffer ..."

White House press secretary uses fake Infowars video to justify banning CNN reporter

Who is manipulating who?

Heh. Apparently YOU are being manipulated. And very easily.

Take a closer look. You have imaging software, don't you, Billy? And some rudimentary abilities with geometry? Well. Do some basic measuring and comparing.

First, in the side by side comparisons, are they the same camera source, or are they shot from different cameras/different angles? How might one decide? What visual evidence would support same camera and angle versus different cameras and angles?

If they're different angles (hint: they ARE), how might that affect one's ability to judge distances and juxtapositions of people and objects? Might such differences possibly fool viewers, including Aymann Ismail, the novice visual analyst that you've chosen to present as having made a discovery worthy of attention rather than having revealed himself to be laughably mistaken?

Second, scale can play a role in confusing people, like Aymann Ismail, who don't have any experience in visual analysis. Billy, use your software to match the scale in both videos.

Third, you seem to be trusting visual analysis novice Ismail's ability to sync two separate videos of the same event. Review the videos, and demonstrate that he was capable of successfully syncing them, versus that he erred due to not understanding that he was actually dealing with two separate sources, and thus made false assumptions when establishing his metrics for comparing timing and distances.

I would imagine that, like almost everyone, Billy, you've seen movies in which fictional characters appear to fight when they're not really fighting in reality. Yes? An actor will throw what appears, from one angle, to be a punch that makes contact at a certain point in time, but, in reality, the actors were merely pretending to fight, and the punch never made contact, and that lack of contact would be visible from a different camera angle. You understand the principle that I'm describing here, right? It's the principle of 3D entities being represented in 2D, and the fact that the removal of that third dimension can confuse or fool people, especially visual novices like Aymann Ismail.

Okay, well the same idea is true of incidents in reality in which contact is made. From one angle, contact may appear to have been made at a certain moment in time, where another angle reveals that contact had not yet been made. Someone's unknowingly using two separate angles while believing that he's only using one angle, and then pointing out that there is a discrepancy between the appearance of moments of contact between two different angles is ridiculous. That's what's happened here.

But don't feel too bad, Billy. You're not the only one who leapt without looking. Members of the leftist activist press, like the source that you cited, jumped right on it as well. They're very excited about their theory, and they believe that it's an established fact, settled science, you might say.

Y'all are much quicker to believe nonsense conspiracy theories than right-wingers.

J

P.S. How does it feel? I really don't experience the need to believe in such things. I don't know the feeling. What's it like, now that you've done it after Tee Hee Heeing for so long about Others™ doing it? And, what's next? Own up to it, admit to your error, or dig in your heels? Maybe go right back to being non-responsive?

P.P.S. That's two misfired Tee Hee Hees of yours in row against me. Maybe next time think before getting all sassy?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Well said, Jon.

Jonathan wrote: I have yet to see anyone on the left take issue with Acosta's pushing away/slow karate chop of the female staffer who was trying to take away the microphone. It's yet more evidence, I guess, that the left finds it perfectly acceptable for leftist men to get physical with women. "Bitch had it coming, she was asking for it being a Republican," is apparently their mindset. end quote

 

 

That did stink. I think the female staffer was checking with the President as to what to do. “Oh, speak to me with your eyes my Captain, my Captain” She was cool.

 

 

Thank you.

I hope she and all her colleagues get some hand-to-hand training soon. It would have been so great to see her casually pinch his wrist and him drop that mic with a high-pitched wimper of pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Heh. Apparently YOU are being manipulated. And very easily.

Take a closer look. You have imaging software, don't you, Billy? And some rudimentary abilities with geometry? Well. Do some basic measuring and comparing.

First, in the side by side comparisons, are they the same camera source, or are they shot from different cameras/different angles? How might one decide? What visual evidence would support same camera and angle versus different cameras and angles?

If they're different angles (hint: they ARE), how might that affect one's ability to judge distances and juxtapositions of people and objects? Might such differences possibly fool viewers, including Aymann Ismail, the novice visual analyst that you've chosen to present as having made a discovery worthy of attention rather than having revealed himself to be laughably mistaken?

Second, scale can play a role in confusing people, like Aymann Ismail, who don't have any experience in visual analysis. Billy, use your software to match the scale in both videos.

Third, you seem to be trusting visual analysis novice Ismail's ability to sync two separate videos of the same event. Review the videos, and demonstrate that he was capable of successfully syncing them, versus that he erred due to not understanding that he was actually dealing with two separate sources, and thus made false assumptions when establishing his metrics for comparing timing and distances.

I would imagine that, like almost everyone, Billy, you've seen movies in which fictional characters appear to fight when they're not really fighting in reality. Yes? An actor will throw what appears, from one angle, to be a punch that makes contact at a certain point in time, but, in reality, the actors were merely pretending to fight, and the punch never made contact, and that lack of contact would be visible from a different camera angle. You understand the principle that I'm describing here, right? It's the principle of 3D entities being represented in 2D, and the fact that the removal of that third dimension can confuse or fool people, especially visual novices like Aymann Ismail.

Okay, well the same idea is true of incidents in reality in which contact is made. From one angle, contact may appear to have been made at a certain moment in time, where another angle reveals that contact had not yet been made. Someone's unknowingly using two separate angles while believing that he's only using one angle, and then pointing out that there is a discrepancy between the appearance of moments of contact between two different angles is ridiculous. That's what's happened here.

But don't feel too bad, Billy. You're not the only one who leapt without looking. Members of the leftists activist press, like the source that you cited, jumped right on it as well. They're very excited about their theory, and they believe that it's an established fact, settled science, you might say.

Y'all are much quicker to believe nonsense conspiracy theories than right-wingers.

J

P.S. How does it feel? I really don't experience the need to believe in such things. I don't know the feeling. What's it like, now that you've done it after Tee Hee Heeing for so long about Others™ doing it? And, what's next? Own up to it, admit to your error, or dig in your heels? Maybe go right back to being non-responsive?

P.P.S. That's two misfired Tee Hee Hees of yours in row against me. Maybe next time think before getting all sassy?

Billyboy’s not being manipulated, he’s being dishonest.

Quicker to believe and loooooonger to believe. Muh Russia!!, Anyone?

What’s next appears to be announcing a new ARI announcement, over on his blog, where he can censor the conversation. Certainly he isn’t going to own up to anything. He seems long ago to have abandoned even trying for the appearance of being here in good faith for genuine discussion.

He likes being called sassy, don’t give it to him. Especially do not call him a sassy little bitch.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Billyboy’s not being manipulated, he’s being dishonest.

Quicker to believe and loooooonger to believe. Muh Russia!!, Anyone?

What’s next appears to be announcing a new ARI announcement, over on his blog, where he can censor the conversation. Certainly he isn’t going to own up to anything. He seems long ago to have abandoned even trying for the appearance of being here in good faith for genuine discussion.

He likes being called sassy, don’t give it to him. Especially do not call him a sassy little bitch.

Billy's playing. We're all exchanging views and pushing some buttons here and there. All in good fun.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy!

Now there's another "expert" authority who is taking the position that the video that Sanders posted has been "doctored":

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/ct-jim-acosta-video-cnn-20181108-story.html

https://www.apnews.com/c575bd1cc3b1456cb3057ef670c7fe2a

Unlike your previously cited authority, this dude actually has some knowledge of video, but is either very selectively forgetful of what he knows (or should know in a professional position like his), or is being intentionally dishonest and misleading.

He's looking for, and wanting to find, a conspiracy. He's avoiding the simplest of obvious explanations in favor of forcing ones that are not only much more complex, but don't actually comply with reality or explain the "anomalies" that he thinks that he's seeing. He has taken an online video at a different frame rate and resolution, and is comparing it to a high-resolution original, while ignoring (for someone in his professional position, it seems that it must be intentional) the inevitable effects of converting frame rates and resolutions (and then re-converting back up when making the side-by-side comparison).

Take ANY video, and compress its frame rate and resolution for web, and then compare it to the original, and you'll end up with the exact same "anomalies" (ghosting, blurs, etc.) that this "expert" points out in the "doctored" video, especially in areas which include quick bursts of motion. Doesn't this "expert" know these things? Does he understand that, in bringing the two videos together for comparison, he himself necessarily altered the "doctored" video in certain ways? Does he have the capacity to identify which of the "artifacts" may have been added by his own computer's software in investigating the videos?

The funniest thing to me is that the "expert" doesn't see, or is intentionally avoiding pointing out to viewers, the lag between the videos in their entirety, but wants us to believe that the lag only begins when the slow "karate chop" happens. Heh. Like the previous visual idiot whom you referenced, Billy, this one has failed to properly sync the vids, and apparently hopes that no one has the presence of mind to compare movement prior to the point that he draws attention to, including not just the movements of Acosta and the woman whose arm he aggressively pushed, but also the movements of others in the room.

This stupidity is reminiscent of conspiracy theorists' analyses of the Zapruder film. An "expert" analyzes a 30 frame per second video copy of a 24 frame per second film copy of a 16 frame per second conversion of the original 18.3 frame per second film, and then announces that there are unexplained "anomolies" that must be proof of intentional, nefarious manipulation, when they are simply the logical result of the processes that the copy of the copies went through. "Why, what are these jumps and blurs which are not in the original? Someone is trying to hide something and fool us! We're being manipulated!"

Same thing with footage from 9/11.

Anyhoo, with all of this overzealous effort to downplay Acosta's slow "karate chop," what does it all amount to? The lag between the videos is three thirtieths of a second -- one tenth of a second? So, in other words, to the left and its "experts," ten percent less force than what everyone thought that Acosta had used against the woman makes Acosta's action completely acceptable? There's apparently a very specific amount of motion per second and pounds of force per square inch that the left has already established as being the cutoff for assault, and it just happens to turn out that Acosta restrained himself just enough -- within fractions of a second and fractions of pounds of force -- to avoid crossing the line! Whew! So, therefore, all of this is just evil nonsense lies that icky Republicans are telling about sweet, innocent, leftist Acosta.

Tee hee hee.

J

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others in the media are now also trying to play Acosta's game. Heh. Trump is taking full advantage of it. They look like naughty children being corrected by a patient teacher. No, April, you're interrupting. I called on Tommy. It's his turn now. No, no, April, we don't interrupt. Sit down. Return to your seat, and behave yourself.

Leftist media activists have followed the Narrative™ once again and reported the lie that Trump's treatment of the naughty children was "raging," just as elementary school students, when punished for naughtiness, explain to their parents that they dindu nuffin, and that the teacher is mean, and is picking on them.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assault or not is just distraction.

Acosta used physical force on White House staff in order to defy explicit instructions from his host, the President.

He will never set foot in the White House again.

The End.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Assault or not is just distraction.

Acosta used physical force on White House staff in order to defy explicit instructions from his host, the President.

He will never set foot in the White House again.

The End.

 

No, no, no.

"Experts" have mis-synchronized a copy of a video in comparison to its original, and have pretended to squeeze a tenth of a second out of it. The result is that Acosta dindu nuffin. What we see in the original video didn't happen. He didn't touch her. Sanders was lying. Any video that you look at now is fake. You can't trust your own eyes. Trust liberals instead. Acosta is innocent, and he's a great man, as the rest of the leftist press will confirm. Trump is just being mean to him. Everyone knows that no one in the press ever does anything wrong.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Acosta were a good man and a true professional, what would he do now? What is the honorable thing to do after having behaved as he did? He acted like a child, speaking out of turn and interrupting, and he laid his hand on the woman who came for the microphone, and aggressively shoved her arm.

And now he and the leftist press are trying to portray him as a victim. That's not the grownup thing to do.

Billy, do you know the answer? What would be the mature, responsible thing to do?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

He seems long ago to have abandoned even trying for the appearance of being here in good faith for genuine discussion.

"[Y]ou are a lying, deranged, leftist scumbag"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...