Politics anyone?

[Austin Ellen]

While we're waiting for that mindless koolaid drinker to respond....Here's the other one...Yessup, you're cracking me up. You're so frustrated you can't even spell right!!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Angry RWWipes frustrated by the behavior of the man-baby on the throne.

I don’t blame you, It’s gotta be hard justifying Twitler’s erratic, unpredictable dramas from day to day.

Keep hollering fake news.

With the downfall of American ethics, family values and “Christian” morality, It’s all you have left.

Of course if you march lockstep with Twitler, then your day of reckoning will be here sooner or later,

You have good reason to be afraid.

And don’t mind Ellen. The frustration is fainted all over her face.

[Austin Ellen]

Ha! You're just mad because your tribe rejected you!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yay for that?

Recruiting whackos from other cities won’t work for you, AE. Not in Beto-land.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Angry RWWipes frustrated by the behavior of the man-baby on the throne.

I don’t blame you, It’s gotta be hard justifying Twitler’s erratic, unpredictable dramas from day to day.

Keep hollering fake news.

With the downfall of American ethics, family values and “Christian” morality, It’s all you have left.

Of course if you march lockstep with Twitler, then your day of reckoning will be here sooner or later,

You have good reason to be afraid.

And don’t mind Ellen. The frustration is fainted all over her face.

That Times cover is bona fide propaganda: "fake news". Those who try to defend it are the ones frustrated by the facts to the point of ranting delusionally against Trump.

[I B Hankering]

Weapons of Mass Manipulation
By MICHELLE MALKIN June 20, 2018 6:30 AM

The New Yorker’s fact-checker failed to check her own bias and smeared a military hero....

With a single tweet, The New Yorker's professional fact-checker smeared Justin Gaertner, a combat-wounded war veteran and computer forensic analyst for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Lavin, the professional fact-checker, rushed to judgment. She abused her platform. Amid the national media hysteria over President Donald Trump’s border-enforcement policies, Lavin derided a photo of Gaertner shared by ICE, which had spotlighted his work rescuing abused children. Scrutinizing his tattoos, she claimed an image on his left elbow was an Iron Cross — a symbol of valor commonly and erroneously linked to Nazis.

The meme spread like social-media tuberculosis: Look! The jackboots at ICE who hate children and families employ a real-life white supremacist.

Only it wasn’t an Iron Cross. It was a Maltese Cross, the symbol of double amputee Gaertner’s platoon in Afghanistan, Titan 2. He lost both legs during an IED-clearing mission and earned the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Combat Valor and the Purple Heart before joining ICE to combat online child exploitation.

When actual military veterans, whom Lavin failed to consult before defaming Gaertner so glibly, pointed out that the image looked more like a Maltese Cross, Lavin deleted her original tweet 'so as not to spread misinformation.'

Too damned late. The harm to Gaertner’s name and honor is irreparable and cannot be unseen, unread, or unpublished.

(The National Review)

.

“The New Yorker has just learned that a staff member erroneously made a derogatory assumption about ICE agent Justin Gaertner’s tattoo. The personal social-media accounts of staff members do not represent the magazine, and we in no way share the viewpoint expressed in this tweet,” a spokesperson told The National Review. “The tweet has been deleted, and we deeply regret any harm that this may have caused Mr. Gaertner.”

(HAARETZ)

[Agent220]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That Times cover is bona fide propaganda: "fake news". Those who try to defend it are the ones frustrated by the facts to the point of ranting delusionally against Trump.

The biggest proponent of fake news is Trump. Fact checker ranked him the least truthful telling person with Hillary a close 2nd.

Then on top of that, he takes credit for things that he had no influence over. All things aside, his greatest win right now is North Korea. His biggest two losses are his Cabinet and his buildup of the tariff war.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Agent220

The biggest proponent of fake news is Trump. Fact checker ranked him the least truthful telling person with Hillary a close 2nd.

Then on top of that, he takes credit for things that he had no influence over. All things aside, his greatest win right now is North Korea. His biggest two losses are his Cabinet and his buildup of the tariff war.

Here's a fact for you: it's a fact that fact checkers are notoriously liberals who did not/do not equitably fact check Hillary and Obama the way they go after Trump. E.g.,

1. There were just FOUR intelligence agencies that reported Russian interference, but the liberal propagandists at Politifact rated Hillary's claim that it was 17 as "True". Four does not equal seventeen; hence, the liberal propagandists at Politifact are blatant liars in the bag for Hillary.

2. Democrat liar-in-chief, Hillary, made the statement that all of her emails had been released -- which is a demonstrably untrue statement. Nevertheless, the liberal propagandists at Politifact equivocate and lie when they rule it "half-true". Judicial Watch is still finding emails (at least 530) that Hillary did not release! So, it's obvious that liberal propagandists at Politifact are liars covering for Hillary.

So your claim that your choice of liars are legitimate referees is itself a lie.

[Agent220]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here's a fact for you: it's a fact that fact checkers are notoriously liberals who did not/do not equitably fact check Hillary and Obama the way they go after Trump. E.g.,

1. There were just FOUR intelligence agencies that reported Russian interference, but the liberal propagandists at Politifact rated Hillary's claim that it was 17 as "True". Four does not equal seventeen; hence, the liberal propagandists at Politifact are blatant liars in the bag for Hillary.

2. Democrat liar-in-chief, Hillary, made the statement that all of her emails had been released -- which is a demonstrably untrue statement. Nevertheless, the liberal propagandists at Politifact equivocate and lie when they rule it "half-true". Judicial Watch is still finding emails (at least 530) that Hillary did not release! So, it's obvious that liberal propagandists at Politifact are liars covering for Hillary.

So your claim that your choice of liars are legitimate referees is itself a lie.

These were independent sources with no ties. They called out BOTH candidates for mistruths.

The candidates that were the most truthful: Bernie Sanders and John Kasich

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Agent220

These were independent sources which lie. They called out BOTH candidates for mistruths.

The candidates that were the most truthful: Bernie Sanders and John Kasich

FTFY. You're intentionally ignoring how Politifact covered for Hillary. When Politifact, et al, on the one-hand mislabel Hillary's lies as "truth" or "half truths" or fail entirely to address some of Hillary's lies at all, while on the other hand they don't let a single thing Trump says go uncriticized, it skews the results (that's why liberals are so ready to cite sources like Politifact -- they have a liberal bias and with a skew that fits their agenda). Politifact called Ben Carson a liar for saying Hillary lied about what happened in Benghazi, even though it is now obvious that Hillary intentionally did mislead the American people about what happened. CBS' Scott Pelley reported that Hillary, et al, were blaming the Benghazi attack on a video; so, it's obvious even Pelley was deceived. The definition of "lie" is "to create a false or misleading impression," and Hillary Clinton most assuredly did that. But Politifact didn't and won't call her on it!

Hence, claiming fact checkers like Politifact reflect anything other than their predisposed liberal bias is manifestly a lie.

[Dev Null]

I think it's a crying shame that this nation has gotten so polarized. It's a mob mentality rife with tribalism. I remember the days when liberals and conservatives could argue the issues and still maintain some modicum of decency.

Nowadays it's all mudslinging, and "why Jane, you ignorant slut" kind of discourse. Or what passes for discourse.

Claims of liberal bias are hurled at anyone that doesn't follow the conservative story-line, which is often manufactured from whole cloth.

We are a nation that requires for both left and right steering linkages to be functional so that we can keep a fairly straight path, and we are in danger of going off the road, because our right steering linkage has become unhinged.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Dev Null

I think it's a crying shame that this nation has gotten so polarized. It's a mob mentality rife with tribalism. I remember the days when liberals and conservatives could argue the issues and still maintain some modicum of decency.

Nowadays it's all mudslinging, and "why Jane, you ignorant slut" kind of discourse. Or what passes for discourse.

Claims of liberal bias are hurled at anyone that doesn't follow the conservative story-line, which is often manufactured from whole cloth.

We are a nation that requires for both left and right steering linkages to be functional so that we can keep a fairly straight path, and we are in danger of going off the road, because our right steering linkage has become unhinged.

Authenticated instances of liberal bias have been cited above. So your notion that they are not substantive is itself not supported by the evidence. Wikileaks exposed to one and all how the lame-stream media is in bed with the Democrats, and any and all attempts to claim otherwise are pure, unadulterated lies.

[Dev Null]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Authenticated instances of liberal bias have been cited above. So your notion that they are not substantive is itself not supported by the evidence. Wikileaks exposed to one and all how the lame-stream media is in bed with the Democrats, and any and all attempts to claim otherwise are pure, unadulterated lies.

[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Both sides spin. The question is, which side is spinning out of control.

And hyperbole is not helpful. Lame-stream media? That is so 2008, with hints of Sarah Palin. It just doesn't inspire confidence in your argument.

Sorry, dude, but you're coming off as an ideologue. That's how we got into this mess, and perpetuating it isn't solving any actual problems.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Dev Null

Both sides spin. The question is, which side is spinning out of control.

And hyperbole is not helpful. Lame-stream media? That is so 2008, with hints of Sarah Palin. It just doesn't inspire confidence in your argument.

Sorry, dude, but you're coming off as an ideologue. That's how we got into this mess, and perpetuating it isn't solving any actual problems.

You want "ideologue? Look at the cover of Time magazine. It ran a propaganda piece, and when they got caught, they doubled-down on their propaganda piece. Peter Fonda is preaching rape. Madonna advocated blowing up the White House. 52% of the INS border patrol is Latino; yet, the so-called "fact-checker" for the New Yorker is calling them Nazis ... and that is the definition of "lame"! The ideologues are on the left, and they are physically attacking people in public they disagree with.

[Dev Null]

Brian: Do you ever listen to yourself?

Peter: No, I tune out mostly.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Dev Null

Brian: Do you ever listen to yourself?

Peter: No, I tune out mostly.

You mean the way liberals "tuned out mostly" pictures taken in 2014 until those same pictures resurfaced in 2018 with some else's name mendaciously attached to them?

[supercold1]

You're listening to liars from Infowars, like all the Koolaid drinking cultists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/im...milies-n884856

While it is embarrassing that they used an older photo, it doesn;t do anything to excuse Trump's actions. And it's important to remember context, as well. The children in the 2014 photo were found separated from their parents, and officials were trying to find them. Unlike Trump's policy, which was to forcefully separate them. You can not excuse you racism.