NBC Delayed Story About Trump's Access Hollywood Recording Over Fear That He Might Sue
from the chilling-effects dept
So just this past Thursday, we wrote about Trump's habit of threatening to sue the press over any coverage he considers negative. In the past, we've also covered his stated plans to open up libel laws. The comments on that post got pretty ridiculous after people who can't possibly be regular Techdirt readers complained that I was clearly just stirring up shit because I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter. This despite the fact that pretty much everything we've ever written about her has been critical too -- including her own ridiculous comments mocking free speech and praising censorship. It also ignores that just a few days earlier I had also sided with the Trump campaign when it received a bogus, censorious, cease & desist letter from the city of Phoenix. We're staying pretty consistent here: we don't support censorship, no matter whose team you're on. But, sure, I know. It's crunch time and people are really concerned about supporting their team, rather than actually discussing issues.But this is an important issue. Threatening a free press with bogus defamation lawsuits and SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) claims are a really big problem. Case in point: on Friday, as I'm sure you're already aware, the Washington Post published a video of Donald Trump happily discussing sexually assaulting women, and how it's okay because he's a celebrity. As you also know, this became the story of Friday and the weekend, as it appeared to push a bunch of people who had previously supported Trump over the edge to pull their support (why this story rather than earlier ones, I don't fully understand, but...).
Either way, the story led to a few different varieties of followup stories about how the Washington Post got the story. And all of them note that Access Hollywood found the tape itself last Monday, and realized it was newsworthy. They then took it to their corporate parent, NBC, and some work was done on getting the story out -- but it kept getting pushed back. This led many to ask why it could possibly take so long for NBC to report on this. They knew the tape was authentic, so they didn't need to confirm that.
On Saturday, though, we finally got an answer: NBC held up the story because it was afraid of getting sued.
Although NBC and “Access” both recognized the newsworthiness of the tape and intended to air it, it first had to undergo a review by the company’s lawyers, the executive said. The executive was unaware of any specific legal issue raised by airing an 11-year-old recording of a presidential candidate who was apparently aware at the time that he was being recorded by a TV program.That, right there, is a perfect example of chilling effects in action. Trump has threatened many, many in the press with bogus defamation claims, and sometimes has followed through. He's also happily admitted that he's filed bogus defamation lawsuits just to be a nuisance and cost reporters and publications he doesn't like money. Here's Trump on an earlier lawsuit that was clearly bogus from the start and thrown out as such:
However, the network was concerned that Trump could take legal action; the Republican nominee threatened to sue NBC last year after the network’s entertainment division dropped plans to air the Miss USA beauty pageant in the wake of Trump’s inflammatory remarks about Mexican immigrants. Trump backed off those threats when NBC sold its share of the pageant’s rights to him in September 2015.
"I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I'm happy about."This is why it's so important to call out threats against a free press and free expression. Bogus lawsuits that scare even giant corporate conglomerates away from reporting on something that is clearly news, is a serious problem. I don't care which candidate you support or which candidate you hate. You should stand up against abusive litigation designed to stifle a free press. And you should support the effort in Congress to pass a federal anti-SLAPP law that would make it much more difficult for abusive defamation lawsuits to make reporters' lives miserable.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, first amendment, free speech, journalism, reporting, threats
Companies: nbc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This all sounds familiar...
I have absolutely no sympathy for GawThe Washington Postker and this should serve as a reminder to scandalous media organizations: take a stand for responsible, moral and ethical journalism or face the consequences.
RIP Gawker, may we never see your face again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
Even if it seemed a little timely and tabloidish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
What about your precious Reddit and 4chan (assuming you came from there)? You know those would fall far easier than any of the big press papers to someone like Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
Mark Twain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
Sure, shady things happened in Twains time, but some of them were more covert than now, and some of them were overt. Over time the ideologies with the money change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
I agree that's not something Twain could have foreseen happening on this scale. But it's not the same thing as "the government buying ink" at all; it's private industry buying ink to influence the government, not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
Private industry may withhold advertising from a media company for the purpose of influence, but there are often companies with the opposing ideology who will take up the slack.
When government pushes its weight around, it is from the ideology currently in office, so the timing of any inappropriate influence needs to be considered.
Oh, and the PAC money is money allowed by the government, under the ruse that money is speech. I have a hard time thinking that if you have more money than I then you have the right to more speech than I. I don't think you do, but PAC's do think that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This all sounds familiar...
I never said that. Did you catch what I said downthread about sentences that begin with the word "so" and end with a question mark?
I certainly agree with what you're saying. (Indeed, I remember a Daily Show interview with Woodward and Bernstein where Bernstein spent a great deal talking about this problem, and I remember thinking "He's talking about the guy sitting next to him.") But that's not the same thing as governments buying ink, or as PAC funding. They're related issues, and you're right to point them out, but it wasn't at all clear that you were talking about journalists burying stories to keep access when you brought up PACs.
Indeed, the two most troubling elements of the Citizens United decision are the conclusion that (1) corporations are people and (2) money is speech.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all sounds familiar...
The Washington Post and David Fahrenthold are going to get a friggin Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of this campaign. And it will be well-earned.
Wait.... Does that mean you're actually right about something? Whoa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't the end of the story
I hope someone DOES leak them. We, the American people, have a right to see and hear what's on them. Anyone who stands in the way of that is an enemy of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't the end of the story
He'd have every right to sue someone stealing his property and releasing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Now do be quiet, please. The grown-ups are talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
But it's a moot point, because, as I noted above, he's explicitly said that if the tapes "somehow" get out, he's not going to sue over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
It's got nothing to do with whether or not suing is an option. Burnett won't sue anybody who leaks the video because he wants the video to be leaked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
They got the facts out there. The people are deciding.
The Wikileaks story has been covered. It's being covered. It's true that it's getting less coverage than Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women. But maybe there's a reason for that that's not "the news media are in the tank for Hillary."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Think of it like this: you are presented with 5 buttons, red orange, yellow, green, blue.
Pressing the red button will kill you.
Pressing the blue button is likely to cause harmful side effects, drain your bank account, but keep you fed and healthy.
Pressing the other buttons will cause unknown effects, but likely won't do much.
The media is telling people not to press the red button. Red button supporters are saying that the media isn't bringing enough attention to the fact that the blue button has harmful side effects, and may eventually kill you.
But the media did cover that; they're just wanting everyone to be very clear that the red button will kill you, so people don't make a very grave mistake.
Ignoring the media in this situation doesn't seem like the wise thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Yes, but that isn't the way the nation's founders designed the Constitutional system. They designed the system with multiple firebreaks and substantial redundancy.
Over the years, various Presidents have dismantled the redundancy (equivalent to removing ECC from all computer storage), so that the President can now order the end of civilization on the planet -- all by herself.
A disaster drill is long overdue to make sure that all that redundancy and those backup plans still work.
Trump is the perfect disaster drill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Why would they post something that is not independently verified? Or would you prefer the media post every facebook rumour that is out there as soon as they read it?
Some of the wikileaks stuff has been rumoured to been fake. So good chances are they are taking it seriously and doing good journalistic practice by seeing multiple independent sources.
Also why does "both sides" matter? Specifically why does news on one candidate demand the media look or news on the other? If one candidate has 100 negative things about them but another only has 25, is the media then not allowed to discuss 75 of the negative things about the first candidate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
That would be awesome except that isn't what is happening. Hillary has a million negative things against her that aren't being covered. Just look at the debates, the moderators hounded Trump and left Hillary alone. It is like that every single debate. If they actually covered both we would have the 4th estate back. As it is, they have become mouthpieces for the political parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
“Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order." http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
https://popehat.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-the-sixth-amendment-and-legal-ethics/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Nice try. You're the one making the claim; you're the one who needs to back it up.
Somebody quoted something the other day to the effect of "That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." I believe they referred to it as Hitchens's Law. I have my disagreements with the late Mr. Hitchens, but in this case he's right.
Put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
As for the rest..
Provide evidence for your extraordinary claims. Certainly if it's as easy as you say you can find it very quickly and come back here with a link. Or you could just keep blathering on and proving only that you're a self-deluded preening idiot with an exaggerated sense of your own erudition. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
I was born at night, but not last night, dingus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
You mean like at infowars?
lol
Thanks but no thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
If it's such a rudimentary issue that you feel isn't being covered by the left (e.g. the ability to fucking count), then it should be equally simple for you to point out.
But no, you just say "do your own work" - when in fact, you want us to do YOUR work.
It's YOUR assertion.
Back it up, or just fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Actually I consider that observation comparatively believable without double-checking. From reading other interviews, I'm not surprised the moderator tried 6 times as often in order to manage getting some intelligible response out of Trump than of Clinton. And I suspect he still was less successful overall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
I'm one of the sensible conservatives. We do exist, you know, but end up being either shouted down by the nutbuckets or lumped in with "the left."
What left? There's no real left in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
But of course the back half of Taibbi's argument was that what the current Republican Party is really for is the Republican Party, and it's more interested in scoring political points than making the government work. If Obama's for something, the Republicans are against it, even if it's something they used to be for -- see the Merrick Garland nomination, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Is that because of bias or because Trump will just blurt out anything that comes to mind and Hillary actually thinks before speaking?
Personally I didn't have the stomach to watch the debates and think both candidates are unqualified for the Presidency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
So? Trump evaded the questions EVERY SINGLE TIME and Hillary only evaded them around 9 times. The fact that when she didn't evade she answered in the least direct way possible while also slinging mud is beside the point -- it just gave her less airtime to say anything actually positive and forward looking, with the rest of the airtime spent with the moderator trying to get Trump to say something new that actually made sense in context of the question at hand.
It's impossible to be fair and balanced in a debate when:
a) only two of the parties were allowed to attend
b) both candidates don't want to answer the questions
c) one candidate speaks with lies while the other speaks with innuendo.
I honestly can't figure out why anyone would agree to moderate such a debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Uh, that usually means they didn't answer the damn question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
You don't really think you can take any of this seriously so far detached from sanity this seems. But history has enough examples of sane and reasonable not garnering majority votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Are you saying she hasn't? And/or never talked about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Then you show us these documents. Go ahead. No one here is stopping you,
...
If the "lamestream media" got their hands on documents like that they would be falling over themselves racing to report it, because it would be big news. BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE NEWS EXLUSIVE INTERVIEW BLAH BLAH BLAH. Those driven by ratings would dive at it. Those driven by journalism would also want to expose it.
So.... You say there are documents. Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
For example, the left tried to claim they would have never gone into Iraq the second time. A quick search of YouTube will show countless videos of Hillary, Gore, Kerry, etc all backing the invasion of Iraq. But come election time, they lie about it and the liberal media let them off the hook.
Please, learn to learn for yourself and quit relying on being spoon fed by others, including me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Just to give you one more chance, please watch this video with Hillary and Chris Mathews. It is just one of many, many videos showing her flip flopping and lieing about her postions. You can search for videos of her going after Bill's victims as well. So any more posting about me not having answers will show you for the lazy, unimformed person you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Actually, it shows YOU as the lazy person you are.
They're your assertions - YOU go fucking use the Google and back them up.
One video. Bet that took you hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
I doubt they were asking for views/opinions, they were asking for supporting evidence which backs up your claims - in the absence of which said claims are tossed in the dumper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Why should anyone do what you tell them? You are the one attempting to persuade others into believing what you say is correct - others are calling out your bullshit and all you can do is repeat what you already said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Hillary voted for military action in Iraq. Which up to that point meant the occasional air strike and "Tomahawk therapy", NOT a full invasion and decade-long military occupation.
And she voted for it based on Bush's promise that it was leverage for a push for a diplomatic solution (making Saddam Hussein readmit U.N. weapons inspectors.) Bush broke that promise and didn't allow time for the diplomatic approach to play out.
And of course the vote was based on the evidence presented for Saddam's active WMD program - evidence which turned out to be a lie by the Bush White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
They gave Bush good intelligence, but it wasn't what he wanted to hear.
American intelligence told Bush that the Niger yellowcake story was false. He used it anyway in a State of the Union address. Colin Powell used that and other fake evidence to testify before the UN Security Council anyway
When the world found out it was a lie, the CIA had to fall on their sword and apologize for Bush's lie. When someone didn't follow THAT script, the White House outed his wife as a CIA agent and destroyed her career. (Scooter Libby fell on HIS sword and took the blame, and was promptly pardoned by the White House.)
"The left" and most everyone else had to depend on information from Bush II / Cheney / Rumsfeld, not from the intelligence community. It turned out to be a lie, just like what they promised to do with the vote on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
1) Libby wasn't pardoned, his sentence was commuted. There's a difference; his conviction stands but he was released early. (There's been some conjecture that the reason he wasn't pardoned is that then he could have been compelled to testify against Bush and Cheney.)
2) There were plenty of people on the left who were openly skeptical of the Bush Administration's claims; unfortunately, they were largely unheeded. The New York Times went with Judith Miller's version of the story, which basically parroted the Bush Administration unquestioningly, and for "supporting evidence" used sources like Curveball and Chalabi who obviously stood to gain something by lying.
Unfortunately, hawkish Democrats like Clinton and Kerry went along with the Bush Administration's case for war instead of listening to the skeptics. I did not then, nor do I now, believe that they did this because they truly believed Bush had made an adequate case to go to war; I think they went along with him because they mistakenly believed that the war would be popular and supporting it would be good for their political careers.
3) The intelligence community actually *did* believe Saddam had WMD's, but it believed he still had stockpiles of chemical weapons, not that he had a nuclear weapons program of any kind. (It turns out he had neither; his chemical weapons stockpiles had been destroyed, partly by airstrikes and partly by the passage of time.) But the Bush Administration deliberately conflated the intelligence about chemical weapons with the uncorroborated claims of nuclear weapons, and put both under the umbrella term "weapons of mass destruction".
The distinction is important. Chemical weapons are awful, but even when Iraq had them, they were no threat to the US. Nuclear weapons would of course be a threat to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
http://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/
"Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.”"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/104/text
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Yeah, the liberal media has covered this story so little that when I type clinton supported iraq into Google, I only get 74 million results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Please... one of each of them is more than enough.
But I'm curious what the quality of the votes will be come election day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Everyone's two-facedness regarding Iraq is already well covered; everyone voting already knows that very few candidates have stayed the course on that issue. Guantanamo is even worse. What exactly does it have to do with Hillary's alleged derogatory speech? I'm sure there's some out there, even if it's out of context. But so far, all I've seen is allegations. It's almost like people can't bother to dig that stuff up because they know it's pointless. Hillary hasn't gone around claiming that she loves all Muslims and has never said a bad word about them. Trump keeps inviting fact checking on his statements, and the facts keep rolling in. This difference is mostly due to Hillary's experience in the political arena; she tries to avoid saying/doing things in a way that can make her look bad -- which is why the major claims against her are with regards to destroying evidence.
Trying to smear her character when her only real opponent's character is demonstrated to be significantly worse than hers could ever be, week after week, is pointless. Trying to minimize her experience when her only opponent has virtually none just serves to remind us of this fact; digging up all her failed or questionable decisions will do nothing to change this.
So what really needs to happen is Trump's team needs to stop attacking Hillary in areas where she's demonstrably better than Trump, and start focusing solely on areas where Trump is squeaky clean -- and on the other topics, focus on the positive changes Trump will make if elected, instead of on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket and only someone with his moral fortitude can save the day.
Really; the American Voters aren't that stupid, no matter who gets more airtime in the media and for what. Both candidates are repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot; Trump is just firing faster than Hilary.
As you argue: the information is already all out there. And yet very few people seem to be voting for Jill Stein.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
There must be something, right? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
Speak for yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
You first. Start with 'burden of proof'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump is a living parody
We have made astonishing progress in sciences and technology but in the human field we are walking the slug pace, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump is a living parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump is a living parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump is a living parody
The trouble with allowing corporate interests to embed propaganda in the media, in educational establishments, and in political discourse is that "corporate interests" isn't one cohesive group. Result: money has been poured into promoting conflicting right wing causes by individuals and groups each trying to advance their own agendas. This accounts for the fracturing of discourse while the whole damn lot lurches rightwards.
Meanwhile the Republican party has been courting the fringe loons and using wedge issues to drag people on to their side as part of the Southern Strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
So if you add both together the endgame candidate is either Clinton or Trump, depending on whether you're motivated more by money and power or by privilege and paranoia. There's no way rigging the game could possibly create an alternate scenario with sane, qualified candidates. The entire system needs to be reset and opened up so a more honest conversation can take place, possibly with a view to creating an electoral system based on proportional representation in which people are invited to engage.
A girl can dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump is a living parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump is a living parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trump is a living parody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzzE6XLbC8M
Such people may be tolerated but they're not popular among the elite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cost of hypothetical legal fees defending such a story should easily be a drop in the bucket for such a large corporation. We're not just talking about a small news organization, or just a single TV show here, we're talking about the entire NBC broadcast channel, as well as MSNBC.
If there's anyone who should be immune to threats of nuisance legal threats, it's freaking NBC!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would not be surprised if evidence comes out that executives knew about this behavior and enabled it to continue to have Trump on the Apprentice and other shows. They they initially refused to run the tape because they feared the public backlash and multiple victim lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is what I bet was going through their minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NBC'in ya
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Access Hollywood found the tape itself last Monday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like Healthcare
Maybe the US should look at the Canadian system; just like health care.
(PS. What the heck was Trump talking about in the second debate with Canadian health care? Yes, we have line-ups if your care is not critical, but the only people who go south for care are those with a TON of money or for cutting edge procedures - after all the USA still does have the leading edge hospitals and doctors for new and experimental procedures. If it's an emergency, any citizen gets the best possible health care immediately and it costs them nothing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like Healthcare
Hmm, wonder why that is? Maybe because they aren't government run? Also, I have seen that Canadians can actually pay for better care than the base healthcare system provides. So in effect, those with money can get better care. The very thing liberals decry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like Healthcare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Like Healthcare
But that's not what American healthcare corporation owned and operated congressmen want to hear.
When former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas was running for president in 1992, he lashed out at the Canadian health model. Tsongas had suffered from lymphoma, and claimed that the bone marrow transplant that saved his life was an example of how the American system spurred innovation that would never happen under creativity-stifling Canadian-style health care.
The only problem with his claim was that the key research breakthroughs that led to bone marrow transplants were made in Toronto, and Canadians, at the time Tsongas was speaking, were receiving the procedure more often than Americans.
More recently Newfoundland premier Danny Williams headed south for heart surgery, much to the delight of American Republicans. But the "minimally invasive" robotic surgery that Premier Wilson got, was invented in Canada and was immediately available in at least four centers across Canada. But America has centers that cater to the Very Wealthy, complete with lodgings for family members. Even Canadians admit that America does a better job of catering to the Very Wealthy.
Not that you need to be wealthy to use private healthcare in Canada. I've done it myself. It cost far less than in the US, because the Canadian system covered what it would have cost had I stayed with the public system. My private health insurance through work covered the difference - health insurance that's far cheaper than in the US because of what the public system covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like Healthcare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/10/497087643/the-analyst-who-gambled-and-took-on-trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then you have Drumpf who loves to bully as well, with lawsuits (3500+)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll take people who quote the Wachowskis in support of conservatism seriously just as soon as conservatives stop telling them which bathroom to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, are you not suspect that the guy in NC who is pushing this is a registered sex offender? Is it not curious that he wants access to girls bathrooms and showers?
What about the NBA who has pulled games from NC for human rights issues? Yet they play games in China? And they are opening stores in Qatar, Saudia Arabia and others where they kill homosexuals. It takes 4 men to prove a woman was raped and somehow those 4 male witnesses are not around. If they are so gender neutral, why do they separate the WNBA from the NBA? Shouldn't a 7' tall transgender male be allowed to join the WNBA and play against 6' tall women? She could be the highest paid player in the WNBA.
This is what I mean by no public debate. The pandora's box opened by this is enormous. The motivations of the people behind the issue should be examined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You like The Matrix, right? Okay. Well, it was written and directed by two trans women. Ergo, you have some common ground with some trans people, right? Maybe you can start looking at them as ordinary people who just want to be treated with decency and respect, instead of being treated like they're predators and con artists.
Then again, maybe you like predators and con artists. After all, you're a Trump supporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of topics, how is it that people who practice infanticide believe they are some kind of morally superior people? You dehumanize children in the same way the Dems dehumanized slaves and spent the next 100 years after the civil war fighting their right to vote and equal rights. It is the same attitude used to name call and label and dehumanize people you disagree with. You guys will never learn, not even after more than a hundred years.
Oh, and I am not a Trump supporter. I will vote for him though as a vote against Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a Trump supporter. You just believe you're smarter, more informed, and generally better than all those *other* Trump supporters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Money in politics for one. The whole voting system for another. The fact of political parties for a third. The list goes on and on.
Yet he spends his time defending someone he does not like. Hmm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do realize that a big part of why the national debt exploded as soon as Obama took office is that prior to that, they weren't counting the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars toward the national debt, right?
Bush cut taxes while we were fighting two wars. Republicans sure didn't seem worried about the national debt then. Weird how it only becomes an issue when there's a Democrat in office.
I mean, unless it's Bill Clinton and he reduces the debt. In that case, Republicans don't care about the national debt either, just whether the President's had an affair with an intern.
Yeah, because the last time we had a Republican President, he did a great job of preventing a financial collapse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have not had a financial collapse under a Repub. We have had the ordinary, run of the mill recession. Now the great recession happened under Obama. We had a housing bubble pop. A housing bubble caused by a law Bill Clinton signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't help pointing out the irony of you bitching about people talking about a President who left office eight years ago and then immediately pivot to blaming one who left office sixteen years ago.
But, real talk? The President only has so much control over the economy.
You're right that Bill Clinton helped to cause the recession, with deregulation he passed during his term. And I'm right that George Bush contributed to the national debt by passing a tax cut while fighting two wars.
But it's Congress that writes the bills. And it's corporate America that takes advantage of any leeway it's given, without regard to long-term risks or consequences.
So, to answer your question: if there's a financial collapse under Clinton, whose fault is it? Well, that depends on the nature of the financial collapse, and what policies led to it. It could be something she was responsible for (she certainly was a cheerleader for harmful deregulation of the financial industry); it could be something she wasn't.
I don't know what's going to happen in the future. All I know is what's happened in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet you're the only guy here suggesting that trans people should be denied rights because otherwise they'll grope people in restrooms and cheat at basketball.
True. Which brings us up to the 1960's. Funny how Republicans' history of race relations in America always seems to stop there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are history does not stop in the 60's, it continues into the 70's and to the present with Roe v. Wade. If you want to see the relationship between abortion and racism, please YouTube it. It affects african americans to a much greater degree than Caucasian and that is why it was pushed for by Margaret Sanger. So the Dems racism extends to the very point of aborting them. Don't believe me, check Hillary's remarks praising Margaret.
Or are you going to remain willfully ignorant of the connection and not YouTube it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Margaret Sanger had some pretty disgusting eugenicist views.
But it's possible to believe that somebody was despicable in one respect but that her work also helped a lot of people. There's no contradiction in that; lots of people who have done good work have had deep personal flaws.
Planned Parenthood has done an immense amount of good in helping with family planning and reproductive health -- and the Republicans' obsession with trying to defund it has done real and measurable harm. Pence's crusade against PP led to a massive HIV spike in parts of Indiana. And what about the recent nonsense where the Republicans held up Zika funding because they didn't want any to go to Planned Parenthood -- because when you've got a disease that can be sexually transmitted and which causes birth defects, of course you shouldn't let anybody hand out condoms or birth control pills!
But, y'know, we weren't actually talking about abortion until you brought it up, we were talking about racism. (Which we also weren't talking about until you brought it up, come to think of it.)
Your crocodile tears over the racism of Planned Parenthood notwithstanding, I can't help but notice that Donald Trump's support from African-American voters is in the single digits. It would seem to me that African-Americans do not generally share your views that Democrats are the real racists because Margaret Sanger. I suggest that, rather than talk about what black people should be concerned about, you spend time actually listening to what they are concerned about. Maybe have some real conversations, ask some questions, get to know people, and listen to them respectfully even if their views don't match yours. You might learn something.
I bet you can even find a few videos on the subject on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aaaaannnnnnd... now we see the quality of your "research".
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-sand-wikileaks-dump/
Your claim has been debunked, complete with citation to original sources.
I'd say you've utterly blown your credibility, but... well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't just say: "This is so" or "This isn't so." They actually provide citations to other sources to prove it.
You should try that.
Now I think we're done with you, because you have demonstrated beyond all doubt that you're not merely ignorant, but willfully ignorant. The former can be rectified. The latter is damning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18539
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Adding "illiterate" to "willfully ignorant"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if you are going to make a statement and then bitch and moan when others do not go out to do your work to validate your statement and then asking them to stay silent when they point out you are being lazy ... then you can go fuck yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No you're not, you're attempting to teach him how to do your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although I'm feeling gracious we can call your specious unsubstantiated shit storm a lesson in teaching others to do "research".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do understand that literally anyone can post content to YouTube or have it indexed on Google, yes?
Just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations. You're a taker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A lazy taker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If any of my instructors had shown up and said "you can find everything you need to know about this on YouTube; get your heads out of the sand and do some proper research before you come back to my class" they probably would have been fired in short order.
So yes, I'd agree that so far you've been a taker. Feel free to turn that around and give us something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why you're hiding behind "Dig it up yourself," aren't you? You know damn well that if you provide us with the links to the evidence that backs up your position there's a damn good chance we'll find it's not credible.
That said, I find Hillary odious; she's actually a neocon war hawk. Democrats are not automatically left wing or progressive as such, it's just that the party caters to those people to get their votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a nice storey but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a nice storey but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the timing is too convenient
The fact that this is what causes people to dump trump is laughable. As John Oliver points out, there were many other problems with Trump's conduct and words previous to this video that Trump should have been dumped a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the timing is too convenient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the timing is too convenient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the timing is too convenient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the timing is too convenient
And many professional athletes say they have never heard any such banter in or out of a locker room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My vote this year will be "None of the Above"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That could become I got elected president to make life miserable for people I disagree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait, I'm not Putin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a reason for the phrase "October surprise": events that significantly shift the race this late in the campaign are rare enough that it's surprising when it happens.
Christ, early voting has already started in some states. If you were trying to swing an election, why on Earth would you wait until after people had already started voting?
Never mind that, y'know, this isn't going to swing the election; aggregate polls and betting odds were giving Clinton an 80% chance of winning before this story broke. This is likely to increase her lead even further, and it could impact some down-ballot races that were already close. But Trump would still be in serious trouble even if this story had never broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because he didn't rape one, you casually dismiss the others.
"I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you." - Hillary
But the above quote only applies to people other than Bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe s/Bill/Bill's alleged victims/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trumps lewd comments are certainly walking the morally problematic side of "should have known better", no matter what (Running a pageant, the pressure is even more on the girls since the counterweight to political figures are clear and useful for protection). As much as Bill Clinton cannot be cleared by a court, I would not advise him taking the relativity test against Bill Clinton, since it sentences himself, while making Hillary a victim and not an offender...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My point isn't that Donald Trump isn't a pig (because he is, but a lot of guys are pigs), it is that he wasn't out there assaulting women back then (and probably now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Donald said otherwise. Are you saying he lied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bill is a perve, end of.
Good grief, you Americans have a choice between Strychnine and Cyanide, don't you? Why are we arguing over this? They're both awful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure that is what we had in mind when we asked for of the 4th estate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Republicans have been suspicious of the media for decades. Nixon used to say "The press is the enemy." The phrase "the liberal media" is not a new one.
Indeed, Fox News's conservative slant was deliberately designed to counter the "liberal bias" that many conservatives see in the media. (And then MSNBC eventually positioned itself as a liberal counterbalance to Fox News -- though it's still got a prominent conservative voice in Joe Scarborough.)
I think partisans of any stripe are inclined to claim media bias any time they see a story that criticizes their party or candidate. Sometimes those criticisms are valid, sometimes they aren't.
I think that, in a practical sense, the news media's bias isn't toward Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives, it's toward ratings. Whatever story's going to get the most attention, that's the story they're going to go with.
Often, that means a narrative that depicts some sort of arc, a rise and a fall. In Trump's case, the media gave him a hell of a lot more coverage than any other candidate, and it helped him clinch the nomination; now, it's got a nice juicy story to sink its teeth into, and so it's savaging him over that.
The press has spent plenty of time pillorying Clinton, too; her E-Mail scandal got considerable coverage. The most recent news from Wikileaks is getting less attention (though it's getting some attention), and that's because wall street speeches are less likely to capture viewers' interest than dirty words and groping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is left of really Trump-enthusiastic media is very exclusive and tends to lean towards more conspiratorial thinking than what is found in the mainstream media.
As much as these sources have a claim to fame, they are spinning more obviously and more towards making Clinton unelectable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-snl 2016 first presidential debates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
deflection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: deflection
Sorry, it was only a scarecrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
winderful irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: winderful irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you finally admit it. Not that you needed to, it's painfully obvious that you're sucking her ass by the coverage ratios alone. Yes, you've posted a few token stories about Hillary to project the illusion of "balanced coverage", but when the anti-Trump pieces are weighed against those "anti-"Hillary, your blind allegiance becomes obvious. Shit, you even tried to turn the wikileaks email dumps targeting Hillary into an anti-Trump piece. Otherwise, you've not covered those leaks on a per-se basis even at all. Additionally, and just like Michael Che, you've resorted to flat out lying about Trump to get your baby-assed way. It's not "rape" or "sexual assault" when consent is involved. Seriously, what part of "they let you" does your phucktaded brain not understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still waiting....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, that certainly tells me you're honest and trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mikes nighttime eyemask is Hillary's buttcheeks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mikes nighttime eyemask is Hillary's buttcheeks...
The word you want there is "compliment".
"Complement" means "something that completes something else or makes it better"; e.g.,
"Your bizarre insults are the perfect complement to your colossal ignorance."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mikes nighttime eyemask is Hillary's buttcheeks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mikes nighttime eyemask is Hillary's buttcheeks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mikes nighttime eyemask is Hillary's buttcheeks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerifusina@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THE POT AND THE KETTLE, AND GLASS HOUSES
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THE POT AND THE KETTLE, AND GLASS HOUSES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THE POT AND THE KETTLE, AND GLASS HOUSES
.
Look!... perv!... I'm not gay! And!... I don't know who your "partner double" is for your "double F" offer... but, if all you can provide is a "minus", then why even bother flirting!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popcorn at the rady
I especially like the frequent use of the terms left / liberal.
From my Western European standpoint, Republicans and Democrats are both right wing, its all perspective. If there was only 1 tiny policy difference between the 2 main US parties there would doubtless still be massive partisanship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Popcorn at the rady
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there are many HUGE differences
our politics has the best differences
no one has better differences than our politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re^infinity
Ridiculous? Who're you callin' ridiculous...
P.S. What was this article about again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ANGELINA JOLIE SLAPPs PEREZ HILTON
.
http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/angelina-jolie-to-sue-perez-hilton-for-div orce-coverage-35120713.html
.
To end... although I don't view Perez Hilton as a true representative of the "media"-- as such!-- I found the dialogue intriguing! And I am curious to know what AJ is specifically concerned about!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]