39 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I'd never even heard of Hannity until Cohen's lawyer apparently mentioned him as a possible (ex)client according to CNN, CBS, etc. a week or so ago.

Have you ever heard of Fox News?

4 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I'd never even heard of Hannity until Cohen's lawyer apparently mentioned him as a possible (ex)client according to CNN, CBS, etc. a week or so ago.

If the matters surrounding Hannity and Cohen have taught us anything its not to take the denials illiberals toss around on face value.

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Have you ever heard of Fox News?

Not that I was talking to you but, yes, I've heard of Fox news. I don't get to watch TV though as I have no subscriptions to cable or satellite services. I watch taped interviews of politicians and think for myself. I don't rely on someone else's opinion of what a senator or congressman or the president said when I can listen to their own words.

18 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Not that I was talking to you but, yes, I've heard of Fox news. I don't get to watch TV though as I have no subscriptions to cable or satellite services. I watch taped interviews of politicians and think for myself. I don't rely on someone else's opinion of what a senator or congressman or the president said when I can listen to their own words.

Not that you are talking to me... but.

 

So these taped interviews, who makes these tapes, who edits the tapes, where do you come across these tapes?

1 minute ago, Andaman Al said:

You lie as unconvincingly as Trump. Credibility - zero points. 

I think we need to be careful calling people (even illiberals) liars. 

 

When people in internet forums make statements, that appear to be completely unbelievable my usual response is to either provide evidence that demonstrates they are wrong, or when as in this case the comments refer to personal knowledge of something/lack there of, I tend to accept they've said something, acknowledge I've heard what they've said but in the light of no means of corroborating what they've said attribute the statement as background noise. 

 

The statement may or not be true, if it is all well and good, if it is not then it is for the person making the false statement to engage some personal introspection into why they would lie. 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not that you are talking to me... but.

 

So these taped interviews, who makes these tapes, who edits the tapes, where do you come across these tapes?

Fact is, I WAS talking to you and NOT the other person, "bristolboy". Mostly on YouTube. As for who makes or edits them, that's anybody's guess but I try and look for full speeches as opposed to snippets.

I did find 1 that I found incredulous where some "journalist" asked Nikki Haley after the latest Syrian strike if she believed President Trump was opposed to the use of chemical weapons but was "OK" with the killing of women and children by conventional weapons. I really thought she was going to call him a dumbass for asking such an asinine question.

4 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Fact is, I WAS talking to you and NOT the other person, "bristolboy". Mostly on YouTube. As for who makes or edits them, that's anybody's guess but I try and look for full speeches as opposed to snippets.

I did find 1 that I found incredulous where some "journalist" asked Nikki Haley after the latest Syrian strike if she believed President Trump was opposed to the use of chemical weapons but was "OK" with the killing of women and children by conventional weapons. I really thought she was going to call him a dumbass for asking such an asinine question.

And do you believe the 'feed' of youtube videos you receive is random or do you accept that the 'feed' is managed?

How is it unbelievable that I had never heard of someone? I've been here for over 16 years and I don't watch TV. I didn't watch TV much before I moved here. I used to watch Walter Cronkite and that other guy when I was a kid because my parents did.

Some of you people are beyond insulting.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And do you believe the 'feed' of youtube videos you receive is random or do you accept that the 'feed' is managed?

Not sure what you mean by "Feed" but I just do a search on a name and see what comes up. If it looks like a speech I check it out. If it turns out to be an interview then I listen to the answers. Like when the Nunes Memo came out-I listened to republican law makers talk about it and I listened to democratic law makers talk about it. Then I decided whom I chose to believe.

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

How is it unbelievable that I had never heard of someone? I've been here for over 16 years and I don't watch TV. I didn't watch TV much before I moved here. I used to watch Walter Cronkite and that other guy when I was a kid because my parents did.

Some of you people are beyond insulting.

It's unbelievable because you are very clearly (as demonstrated by your many posts) following the news of the Trump/Russia investigation. 

 

Hannity has played a leading role in supporting Trump's attempts to undermine Mueller's investigation, undermine the FBI, Department of Justice, Courts and anyone on the prosecution side of the investigation.

 

Now you've made your statements on Hannity, I and others regard the statement as unbelievable (my reasoning above), I've put it under the heading 'background noise'.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It's unbelievable because you are very clearly (as demonstrated by your many posts) following the news of the Trump/Russia investigation. 

 

Hannity has played a leading role in supporting Trump's attempts to undermine Mueller's investigation, undermine the FBI, Department of Justice, Courts and anyone on the prosecution side of the investigation.

 

Now you've made your statements on Hannity, I and others regard the statement as unbelievable (my reasoning above), I've put it under the heading 'background noise'.

 

 

I follow it on here. As for you and others opinions, you're entitled but you are NOT entitled to insult others for having a different opinion.

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

Not sure what you mean by "Feed" but I just do a search on a name and see what comes up. If it looks like a speech I check it out. If it turns out to be an interview then I listen to the answers. Like when the Nunes Memo came out-I listened to republican law makers talk about it and I listened to democratic law makers talk about it. Then I decided whom I chose to believe.

The 'Feed' is the results you get when you search. 

 

This is managed by algorithms that analyse your search history and by 'popularity' ratings. The algorithm will feed 'like minded videos' and the popularity ratings are subjected to manipulation. Example a third party may wish to ensure that a particular video gets a high ranking, they generate 'bot searches' of that video to push it up the ranking - hey presto it turns up in your feed. 

Flame post removed.

5 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I follow it on here. As for you and others opinions, you're entitled but you are NOT entitled to insult others for having a different opinion.

I don't believe I've ever insulted you for having a different opinion, why would I, I absolutely agree we are all entitled to different opinions. 

 

However, we are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not entitled to our own facts.

 

Nobody should expect to post nonsense claiming it as fact and expect not to be challenged, when that nonsense is propaganda or blatant lies then don't expect kid gloves.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The 'Feed' is the results you get when you search. 

 

This is managed by algorithms that analyse your search history and by 'popularity' ratings. The algorithm will feed 'like minded videos' and the popularity ratings are subjected to manipulation. Example a third party may wish to ensure that a particular video gets a high ranking, they generate 'bot searches' of that video to push it up the ranking - hey presto it turns up in your feed. 

Doesn't that still leave it up to the viewer to view or move on to something else?

1 minute ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Doesn't that still leave it up to the viewer to view or move on to something else?

It does, but what the viewer gets to choose from is already pre-selected. 

 

So if you view (and you have said you do), you must understand that what you are seeing has been directed at you. Perhaps with intent to misinform.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don't believe I've ever insulted you for having a different opinion, why would I, I absolutely agree we are all entitled to different opinions. 

 

However, we are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not entitled to our own facts.

 

Nobody should expect to post nonsense claiming it as fact and expect not to be challenged, when that nonsense is propaganda or blatant lies then don't expect kid gloves.

So, now it's nonsense because you believe another source or opinion and I don't? Also, the use of "You" was in general terms.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It does, but what the viewer gets to choose from is already pre-selected. 

 

So if you view (and you have said you do), you must understand that what you are seeing has been directed at you. Perhaps with intent to misinform.

So, the same can be said about you as well as everyone else. (non-general use terms) In the end, it's all up to each person to believe or disregard disseminated information.

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

So, now it's nonsense because you believe another source or opinion and I don't? Also, the use of "You" was in general terms.

No.

 

It's nonsense when the source you are giving is unverified and deliberately misleading or when the statement has already been debunked. 

 

There is only one set of facts. 

 

Don't confuse opinion with fact. Especially when someone else gave you the opinion.

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

No.

 

It's nonsense when the source you are giving is unverified and deliberately misleading or when the statement has already been debunked. 

 

There is only one set of facts. 

 

Don't confuse opinion with fact. Especially when someone else gave you the opinion.

 

Someone else gave YOU those facts or did you investigate the matter personally? Confusion of opinion and fact seem to be the new norm.

14 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Someone else gave YOU those facts or did you investigate the matter personally? Confusion of opinion and fact seem to be the new norm.

Here's a FACT.

 

Trump said he would release his tax returns to the public.

 

Here's another FACT.

 

Trump has not released his tax returns to the public.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here's a FACT.

 

Trump said he would release his tax returns to the public.

 

Here's another FACT.

 

Trump has not released his tax returns to the public.

 

 

He's still president and still alive and still capable of fulfilling that ad nausium request that means absolutely nothing given the bigger picture. It took Obama 6 years to find his birth certificate. 

On 24 April 2018 at 11:34 AM, mrwebb8825 said:

On 23 April 2018 at 2:09 PM, Andaman Al said:

Can you let the less well informed of us know which parts of the dossier have been "disproven", I would be most grateful thank you. I am only aware of the parts of the dossier that have now been proven, I simply have not heard of any part of it being disproven.

You mean little things like the fact that President Trump never even spent the night nor used the hotel room for anything more than as a changing room to put on his tux?

Here's another example:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/flight-records-illuminate-mystery-of-trump-s-moscow-nights

 

Oh dear. And you seemed so sure of yourself.

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Someone else gave YOU those facts or did you investigate the matter personally? Confusion of opinion and fact seem to be the new norm.

Do you investigate the "facts" from Donald Trump?  You should, the man is a liar and brags about lying.    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+admits+brags+lying&view=detail&mid=8EF0B7E3C246347E6EEB8EF0B7E3C246347E6EEB&FORM=VIRE

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Someone else gave YOU those facts or did you investigate the matter personally? Confusion of opinion and fact seem to be the new norm.

The difference is when sources like CNN and the NY times get called on misreporting not only do they acknowledge it, but head roll. And it happens very rarely. Whereas sites like breitbart and gateway pundit routinely lie and never acknowldedge their mistakes.

In the case of Trump and his Bloomberg's investigative reporting of Trumps Moscow stay, if their info is wrong we can be sure that fox or someone else will come up with the data to disprove it. So far, nothing.

9 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

He's still president and still alive and still capable of fulfilling that ad nausium request that means absolutely nothing given the bigger picture. It took Obama 6 years to find his birth certificate. 

I wasn't aware that he had ever promised to produce it. Or that he had lied about the reason for not producing it.

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here's another example:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/flight-records-illuminate-mystery-of-trump-s-moscow-nights

 

Oh dear. And you seemed so sure of yourself.

Is this the smoking gun? Is this the accusation that will finally put PT in the  -We finally gotyah  news..!

The 4-25-18 edition of the Washington Post doesn't have anything on their front page. The facts are from Comey's time line, right. If this was the hammer on the nail moment it would of carried the news cycle longer than  1 day . IMOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/

One of the few institutions keeping the US from devolving further (toward Stalinism) is the courts.  

 

I never thought I'd champion Federal and State legal authorities, but lots of odd things are put in motion when dangerous dufouses like Trump and his henchmen get political power.

53 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

One of the few institutions keeping the US from devolving further (toward Stalinism) is the courts.  

 

I never thought I'd champion Federal and State legal authorities, but lots of odd things are put in motion when dangerous dufouses like Trump and his henchmen get political power.

I would agree apart from SCOTUS which is so partisan it is unbelievable, and when politicians see it as a major achievement that they "got a new supreme court judge elected" it is a sad indictment on the whole system of checks and balances. Even today, news is out that the "conservative judges in the supreme court are leaning towards allowing Trump his travel ban against Muslim countries". Why is it the "conservative Judges"? Lets see, but a Judge should Judge on the law nothing more regardless of what their own ideology is or who gave them the job. If there is too much leeway in the interpretation of the law, then the law is bad and the elected officials in congress and the senate should make a new and better law.

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 Why is it the "conservative Judges"? Lets see, but a Judge should Judge on the law nothing more regardless of what their own ideology is or who gave them the job. If there is too much leeway in the interpretation of the law, then the law is bad and the elected officials in congress and the senate should make a new and better law.

 

What you're talking about is strict constructionism. If the Supreme Court ruled in the manner you suggest it would be way more conservative across the board.  Scalia and Thomas (because he parroted Scalia) were really the only constructionists. Maybe Gorsuch will be but it is too early to tell.