This user has been banned.
Godzilla Resurgence
Godzilla Final Wars
Godzilla Vs. Biollante
Destroy All Monsters
The Return Of Godzilla
JEDIT:
Sorry, this is my top 5 favorites, top to bottom = 1 to 5.
The way I say thanks to those numbskulls that got my self-reflection thread locked.
Mothman loves jelly-filled doughnuts.
As Hillary said, she would have been a good president
No. No she wouldn’t have been. She would have been god-awful terrible. Just like Trump is god-awful terrible, but in a different way.
Just because Trump is a joke, and he is, does not mean she would have been good or better.
It was truly a lose-lose situation in this country.
Woah, I think that’s the first thing I agree with you on 😛
And another thing I disagree with both of you on.
If Trump has proven anything, it’s that those who said he would be god-awful terrible were more right than they feared, and those who said he’d be a funny meme who wouldn’t get anything done were very wrong (although thankfully as of today at least one thing has been narrowly prevented).
I cannot fathom how Clinton would have been in anyway worse or even a fraction as bad. Cannot at all.
Everything that people feared from her is showing up in spades. Lying through teeth? Check. Personal interests over country? Check. Lining pockets with foreign dollars? Check. High chance of starting a war or two? Check. Flagrant disregard for the needs of the working class? Check. Gross incompetence that threatens national security? Check. Goldman Sachs? Check. Keeping the swamp full of bureaucratic insiders? Check. Being too tired to put the in the hours necessary? Check.
I guess he isn’t murdering his critics* or running a kiddie porn ring out of a pizza place though.
*yet
Nice opinion piece Dominic, for a minute I thought I was reading a Washington Post or New York Times article, then I realized Hillary Clinton is a member of the forum. LOL.
😉
I am seeing reports that Manafort, Stone, Page have all written letters to the Congressional Committee offering their testimony in the Russian/Campaign Surveillance investigation. This could turn out to be quite a wild time to be alive.
http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/testify-manafort-stone-page-russia-trump/2045/
Okay, this is funny as hell, LOL.
😃
^IMO, you warning people when nothing has yet to happen, makes it look like your baiting those you mentioned to do something so you can report it. That seems to be a bit backwards.
I’m not accusing you of anything. Your words kinda speak for themselves.
btw, is it a violation of rule 6 to applaud in order to show approval of and agreement with a certain action taken by the mods?
warbler did indeed refute what he said wasn’t true.
😉
I feel warning people is a good first step before reporting them.
General Guidelines
This is not a warning, it’s friendly advice.
😉
being awful and mean-spirited.
He certainly did not hold the monopoly on this kind of behavior. Everyone in this thread posting has had bad days and good.
- No Frink vs Jetrell
Just a reminder.
Since you were kind enough to remind us of the rules I’m going to leave you with this little ditty …
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1046627
I reported you for it but because I had been given a temp-ban nothing was done. A breach of your favorite rule I believe (the vaunted #6 Rule) so let’s not mince words here. There is no gas-lighting either so I suggest you just leave it there.
I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.
No-one will or can - as there is no bias or inaccuracy in there.
We are seemingly in an age where people and organisations are trying to present their opinion as fact possibly more than ever before - and when those same people are questioned on it they often cannot come up with facts/evidence to make their point - they generally then claim it as opinion (often under ‘free speech’), or deflect or obfuscate.
What’s even stranger is, like in this case, when factual reporting (literally nothing more than what someone said) is somehow painted as either opinion or a falsehood. It kind of boggles the mind.
Reminds me of how Spicey operates.
Fully agree.
It leads to questioning the mentality/intelligence of the people who say that about factual reporting - or questioning whether they are trying to erode trust in the media - and to what end and purpose (usually to attack a media outlet that may not share values or editorial stance, or perhaps feel that they doing too much of an effective job against them on other matters? etc)
It also gives a ‘free ride’ and diverts attention/focus away from other media that peddle lies, misinformation, hate and intolerance - that do share their ‘values’ etc or want/need their support…
Perhaps this is a subject you and I should not engage in discussion about. I have no qualms with you but since you are not a licensed physician (as far as I know) I take offense to your accusation of my mental status. It is a personal attack and they are against the rules.
Mentality in as in mindset, outlook or way of thinking, not ‘mental status’.
And the post is clearly not about you - it was about Sean ‘Spicey’ Spicer as previously indicated by Frink to which I was replying to.
So you need not take offense, and there is no personal attack, and no rules were gone aginst here.
Thank you for clearing that up. I appreciate it greatly my friend.
I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.
No-one will or can - as there is no bias or inaccuracy in there.
We are seemingly in an age where people and organisations are trying to present their opinion as fact possibly more than ever before - and when those same people are questioned on it they often cannot come up with facts/evidence to make their point - they generally then claim it as opinion (often under ‘free speech’), or deflect or obfuscate.
What’s even stranger is, like in this case, when factual reporting (literally nothing more than what someone said) is somehow painted as either opinion or a falsehood. It kind of boggles the mind.
When anyone can just regurgitate everything from the echo chamber instead of actually using their own mind, words, and feelings to present “facts”, I tend to agree with you.
CNN simply reported what Schiff told them, and only presented it as what they were told by Schiff. That’s called journalism. There are other articles that interpret what Schiff told them. That’s called opinion and/or analysis. Both are perfectly valid but they are two completely different things.
Your condescension aside, again you fail to understand, I spoke of CNN as a whole. I did not site your precious article as proof of anything other than old news being whitewashed to make it look like new news, nothing more.
I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.
No-one will or can - as there is no bias or inaccuracy in there.
We are seemingly in an age where people and organisations are trying to present their opinion as fact possibly more than ever before - and when those same people are questioned on it they often cannot come up with facts/evidence to make their point - they generally then claim it as opinion (often under ‘free speech’), or deflect or obfuscate.
What’s even stranger is, like in this case, when factual reporting (literally nothing more than what someone said) is somehow painted as either opinion or a falsehood. It kind of boggles the mind.
Reminds me of how Spicey operates.
Fully agree.
It leads to questioning the mentality/intelligence of the people who say that about factual reporting - or questioning whether they are trying to erode trust in the media - and to what end and purpose (usually to attack a media outlet that may not share values or editorial stance, or perhaps feel that they doing too much of an effective job against them on other matters? etc)
It also gives a ‘free ride’ and diverts attention/focus away from other media that peddle lies, misinformation, hate and intolerance - that do share their ‘values’ etc or want/need their support…
Perhaps this is a subject you and I should not engage in discussion about. I have no qualms with you but since you are not a licensed physician (as far as I know) I take offense to your accusation of my mental status. It is a personal attack and they are against the rules.
I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.
No-one will or can - as there is no bias or inaccuracy in there.
We are seemingly in an age where people and organisations are trying to present their opinion as fact possibly more than ever before - and when those same people are questioned on it they often cannot come up with facts/evidence to make their point - they generally then claim it as opinion (often under ‘free speech’), or deflect or obfuscate.
What’s even stranger is, like in this case, when factual reporting (literally nothing more than what someone said) is somehow painted as either opinion or a falsehood. It kind of boggles the mind.
When anyone can just regurgitate everything from the echo chamber instead of actually using their own mind, words, and feelings to present “facts”, I tend to agree with you.
I’ll repeat this one last time. And it’s not directed at Fo because that’s clearly a dead end.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
If anyone can point out the bias and inaccuracy in this, feel free.
Aside from you just not letting this go, as usual, I’ll quote myself.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn
And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.htmlCNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.
Read what I wrote, I mention nothing about the “specific article” that you’re obviously quite proud of quoting and reposting. I question CNN itself.
Words/phrases in that article like “claiming” and “I think” don’t lend any credibility to the fact that the article isn’t telling anyone anything new. It’s already heard news that’s just been reworded and rephrased to make it look new.
So, the article I posted about CNN talks about this exact thing, gasbags filling a studio is cheaper and less hot air if they’re going to improve. At this point, CNN just isn’t top echelon reporting when it comes to words, and the one article I posted clearly bears this out. It’s cheap theatrics at best and a ratings grab they cannot master at this point.
The only news I actually follow at this point is H.A. Goodman (who is not a Trump or Clinton supporter) and the live Press briefs.
Before the truth about Watergate was known, were things any different?
Investigative Journalism was a far different thing then. They actually cared about what and how they reported. Now, too many people believe that "maybe and “possibly” articles, are more factual than the weather they see developing right outside their windows.
On a side note, I didn’t realize this site was as old as Nixon would be, if he was still alive.
😉 (this wink denotes the last sentence as me being humorous)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn
And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.htmlCNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.
If someone says they no longer support Trump, how can CNN distort it?
That I get.
The articles I’ve taken issue with from them are subjective as hell considering their verbiage but get posted here and kinda represented as “this actually happened”, “this is the full truth”, “no way anyone can dispute this CNN article” thing and it’s just not true. At this point there is NO full truth about what happened, that is why it’s being investigated. Add to that, you have anonymous Federal Intelligence sources talking to CNN about classified material, any average person should question stories based on such claims.
it wasn’t nearly as unpopular as this.
Was this in an alternate universe? Obamacare was loathed by huge numbers and it was forced through and no fixing was done until after they got it through. At least these folks are trying to sort issues now so how you deem that as a failure on Trump’s part is confusing. This is still only the first phase as well so I think it’s a tad early to be calling the win for Democrats and everyone that doesn’t like Trump.
Obamacare went through the same growing pains as this one will. With politics being so polarized at the moment I don’t know that these “polls” have an accurate algorithm to predict any failure or success at this point.
I’m not badgering you, I’m asking you to support your position with facts relevant to the articles. Since you refuse to do so, I will drop it.
I refused nothing. I’ve stated this thing about CNN in the recent past and this is the only time you’ve decided to “ask” me to support my position. Dropping it would be great.
I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.
http://www.economist.com/node/21563298
CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.
When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).
If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.
This is irrelevant to the articles posted. Again, please point out the bias and inaccuracies in the articles.
Again, they are known for hot air, I am entitled to my opinion whether you agree with it or not. There is no reason for me to have to be badgered about it.
LOL (being politely serious so as not to give anyone the idea that I’m being a jerk.)
I don’t get this either, but that’s fine.
I know you don’t, but that’s fine too. 😃 (speaking politely)
?
That’s right, I forgot, you did say no-one understands anything I say.
LOL (being politely serious so as not to give anyone the idea that I’m being a jerk.)
fixed
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.
“We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation,” Schiff said.
Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said, "I do think that it’s appropriate to say that it’s the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.
“It’s not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you’re trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we’re at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation.”
Trumpy is starting to lose some fans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/health/opioid-trump-supporter-medicaid-health-care-reform/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/23/moss-former-trump-supporter-tapper-lead-intv.cnn
And I think Trumpy owes Chevy Chase a check for stealing his catch phrase.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/trump-time-interview-wiretaps-falsehoods/index.htmlCNN is probably not the best source for unbiased and accurate reporting, IMO anyways.
Feel free to point out the biased and inaccurate parts of those articles.
It’s CNN, that says it all really. I picked a few paragraphs from the article below.
http://www.economist.com/node/21563298
CNN is good at reporting hard news, because it has lots of good reporters. It has 45 bureaus around the world—more than Fox News and MSNBC combined—and about 4,000 employees. Its ratings soar whenever there is a terrorist attack, flood or war. When American embassies were recently stormed in Libya, Yemen and Egypt, for example, CNN got a lift.
When the news is about words rather than action, however, CNN struggles. Conservative viewers like to hear Fox’s Bill O’Reilly fume about “far-left loons”. Liberals like to hear MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow condescend to conservatives. Gasbags in a studio are cheaper than camera crews in the Middle East, which may be why CNN’s profit margins (around 37%) are less than MSNBC’s (46%) and Fox’s (55%).
If the next boss chooses to differentiate CNN further from its rivals, by commissioning more global reporting and less hot air, it will cost a packet. But Mr Whitaker is bullish: “If it got our ratings up substantially, it would be worth it,” he says.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-staffers-investigation-equipment-234586
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/325443-wikileaks-publishes-cia-apple-hacking-tactics
Okay so what’s your guys take on the conspiracy theory that many cats and dogs were hurt and killed filming Milo and Otis? Personally I don’t see any reason not to believe the official story that it’s a single cat and dog for the whole film. But I’m open to a reasonable discussion
I didn’t realize there was such a conspiracy. It’s really a creepy one though.
How would a film crew be killing/hurting and replacing animal actors to make a film without anyone knowing?
