Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:52 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102372 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2523, 2524, 2525, 2526, 2527, 2528, 2529 ... 2560  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15474
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Superficially perhaps.


As much as was reasonable given the massive holes in it. Equal before the law remember. Do you want the police to do full investigations of all cases of similar age and with similar sized holes? Maybe you do.


One of the people who said he heard about it the time claimed it was from an eye witness who wasn't Ramirez. While that 'eye witness' has said they don't remember the incident, they were never contacted by the FBI, let alone questioned, despite the FBI being made aware. You think it's reasonable to ignore a potential eye witness?


Hmm. You're building a powerful case there. Let's put it in a wider context.

If the original alleged victim doesn't know that it happened in the first place, and has gaps in their memory in any case, and it happened so long ago that there is no possibility of physical evidence, and other eye witnesses deny that it happened, I might judge that following up a piece of hearsay is unlikely to overturn all of those problems. Let's say they found an eye witness who said it happened. Would that Trump all of those problems?


You're assuming that's the only evidence/witness that exists. We simply don't know because the investigation was clearly limited by political considerations.


Santa loves this old shtick. An investigation too place, witnesses were spoken to and evidence gathered, therefore the investigation was exhaustive and the evidence is definitive, case closed. Of course it doesn't work like that in a proper court of law.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15474
eldanielfire wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
The Economist diagnoses conflict at the NYT between journos and editorial staff over how much to 'go for' Trump

spoilered for length
Spoiler: show
Notwithstanding the help he got from fake news reports, Donald Trump probably owes his presidency more to the traditional kind. Only a small minority of voters absorbed made-up accounts of Hillary Clinton’s endorsement by Islamic State, lesbianism and links to a child-sex ring. Yet most were subject, indirectly or directly, to an incessant drumbeat of negative reporting by mainstream outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post and network news channels on the Democratic candidate’s wooden public speaking and the largely confected scandals she was said to be embroiled in.

In a multi-part study of the media’s role in the election, Thomas Patterson of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government found that Mrs Clinton’s use of a private email account at the State Department, among lesser supposed scandals, received four times as much coverage as Mr Trump’s alleged record of harassing women. That unrelenting focus opened the gates for Mr Trump’s wilder attacks on his opponent. It also helped persuade many voters, who had initially balked at the Republican’s character, that the two candidates were comparably flawed. “If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a levelling effect that opens the door to charlatans,” wrote Mr Patterson.

Could history be about to repeat itself? Hostile coverage of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign suggests it might. The septuagenarian former vice-president is increasingly coming across in the same mainstream outlets as outdated, forgetful and sloppy with the truth. The question of his relative fitness for Mr Trump’s office, by contrast, has rarely surfaced. Last month an inaccurate account Mr Biden gave of a conversation with a war hero—in which he conflated exchanges with two different medal-winners, mashing up their heroism—made the Washington Post’s front page. Meanwhile the paper consigned to page ten the president’s use of a crudely doctored government map to try to justify his false and apparently politically motivated insistence that Alabama lay in the path of a hurricane. Such coverage will exacerbate an existing argument among left-leaning journalists and academics over whether America’s mainstream journalistic traditions, which strive for non-partisanship and balance, can handle such an unconventional figure as Mr Trump.

It was evident in the leaked transcript of a meeting of the New York Times newsroom last month, in which the paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, fielded criticism from reporters who wanted to call the president a “racist” more unambiguously and often. Mr Baquet pushed back because—as a native of the segregated South—he said the word lost its power with frequent use. In a subsequent interview he suggested that preserving the Times’s hard-pressed reputation for non-partisanship was another concern. “We don’t want to change all our structures and rules so much that we can’t put them back together—we don’t want to be oppositional to Donald Trump.”

Yet that is what many left-wing commentators, and perhaps a good few in Mr Baquet’s newsroom, want. Some consider the risk of becoming aligned with the Democratic Party worth running in an effort to give the most accurate measure of Mr Trump’s failings. Others just want to be aligned with it, either out of political conviction or, as Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs magazine has argued, because they also believe the increasing strain apparent in the mainstream outlets’ claim to be non-partisan is undermining public trust in them. Only by being more upfront about their leanings, as the Republican Party moves to the right and their newsrooms to the left, it is argued, can such outlets hope to restore it.

Without wishing to minimise the challenges of covering American politics—with which this newspaper also grapples, not always successfully—these arguments should be dismissed as the attempted left-wing power-grab they are. The media has much less potential to give Mr Trump an unwarranted advantage over his opponent next year than it had in 2016. The election is likely to be a referendum on his presidency, not a face-off between two novel candidates, and most voters have already made up their minds on that. This is not ground for emergency media measures.

Americans’ calamitous loss of trust is also fuelled by the extreme partisanship that has made their politics and related institutions so dysfunctional. The fact that a dwindling number of mainstream outlets have retained readers and viewers from both sides of the divide makes them, despite their imperfections, the closest thing to a neutral arbiter going. This was underlined by a study suggesting Mr Trump performed best in 2016 in areas with the lowest levels of subscription to newspapers, whether of the centre-left or centre-right. A more partisan media environment is the last thing America needs. Those who doubt that should consider that it would be squarely in Mr Trump’s interest. The president’s attempt to gin up his supporters by depicting the media as biased is one of his most powerful lines. Why vindicate it for him?

Plumbing the mainstream
Retrofitting American political journalism to defend it against populists—to which, mind, the left has historically been as susceptible as the right—calls for more modest change. It should start with an acknowledgment that the country’s style of election coverage can seem frivolous—especially compared to the rigour of its reporting on government. The characteristic features, including an obsessive focus on the candidate’s personality and details of the campaign—especially glitches—are as entertaining as any soap-opera, but rarely useful in appraising the relative merits of a politician’s qualities for public office. This is a lesson with broad application. Mr Trump’s relentless attacks on America’s institutions have, by and large, done damage only where he has hit on some pre-existing weakness. For those who would defend them, steely self-criticism may be more effective than outrage.■


Interesting article. The last paragraph echos what many left leaning but non-establishment supporting Dems have said since 2016, Trumps effective because when he attacks his enemies he articulates some element about them that that could be truthful depending on your own bias and therefore resonates with the public. Hence his fake news retort being so effective, because for all his own utter BS he can legitimately say his media criticics are biased against him. It doesn't help when those political figures and press deny this only for internal emails, memos or wikileaks to show it's true. There was a good article a few days ago about how if the US media actually admitted their biased they may reach out more to readers of a different political path:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... its-honest

Also Bernie makes a god point about the trends in media that cause truth in the media to fal:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -democracy


Just though I'd clarify that for you. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15474
Quote:
Donald Trump has said the US is "locked and loaded" and ready to respond to attacks on a petroleum processing facility in Saudi Arabia, as US officials said the evidence pointed to Iranian involvement.


Great. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8487
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
You're assuming that's the only evidence/witness that exists. We simply don't know because the investigation was clearly limited by political considerations.


No I'm not. I was quite explicit that other eye witnesses refute her allegations. How many other eye witnesses would you need to overturn the gaps in her story and the refuting eye witnesses? I mean I admit that there might be video of the whole thing plus Kav bragging about it later but it seems unlikely.

Anyway this has been done to death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16583
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
You're assuming that's the only evidence/witness that exists. We simply don't know because the investigation was clearly limited by political considerations.


No I'm not. I was quite explicit that other eye witnesses refute her allegations. How many other eye witnesses would you need to overturn the gaps in her story and the refuting eye witnesses?


These refuting witnesses, were they interviewed by the FBI?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8487
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
You're assuming that's the only evidence/witness that exists. We simply don't know because the investigation was clearly limited by political considerations.


No I'm not. I was quite explicit that other eye witnesses refute her allegations. How many other eye witnesses would you need to overturn the gaps in her story and the refuting eye witnesses?


These refuting witnesses, were they interviewed by the FBI?


Don't know.

https://reason.com/2018/09/23/brett-kav ... al-miscon/

Quote:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events: "We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this."

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn't see it; I never heard of it happening."


Anyway, this story is going nowhere so that's all from me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16583
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
You're assuming that's the only evidence/witness that exists. We simply don't know because the investigation was clearly limited by political considerations.


No I'm not. I was quite explicit that other eye witnesses refute her allegations. How many other eye witnesses would you need to overturn the gaps in her story and the refuting eye witnesses?


These refuting witnesses, were they interviewed by the FBI?


Don't know.

https://reason.com/2018/09/23/brett-kav ... al-miscon/

Quote:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events: "We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this."

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn't see it; I never heard of it happening."


Anyway, this story is going nowhere so that's all from me.


Ok, but I'll close with a few more points.

1 - They weren't interviewed to my knowledge.
2 - Those statements aren't eye witness refutations as they're not actually saying "We were there at the exact time it's alleged to have happened". Now that sort of refutation may not be possible (due to vagueness over the date) but regardless that's not actually an eye witness account saying nothing happened.
3 - 7 people did hear about it at the time, so people saying "I never heard about it and I would have" are wrong. Even if it didn't happen, they just weren't in the loop to hear the accusations.

Your statement that it was a reasonable investigation is laughable and as for 'equal before the law', that's a complete joke in this case where the FBI basically had both hands tied behind their back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8487
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
You're assuming that's the only evidence/witness that exists. We simply don't know because the investigation was clearly limited by political considerations.


No I'm not. I was quite explicit that other eye witnesses refute her allegations. How many other eye witnesses would you need to overturn the gaps in her story and the refuting eye witnesses?


These refuting witnesses, were they interviewed by the FBI?


Don't know.

https://reason.com/2018/09/23/brett-kav ... al-miscon/

Quote:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events: "We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this."

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn't see it; I never heard of it happening."


Anyway, this story is going nowhere so that's all from me.


Ok, but I'll close with a few more points.

1 - They weren't interviewed to my knowledge.
2 - Those statements aren't eye witness refutations as they're not actually saying "We were there at the exact time it's alleged to have happened". Now that sort of refutation may not be possible (due to vagueness over the date) but regardless that's not actually an eye witness account saying nothing happened.
3 - 7 people did hear about it at the time, so people saying "I never heard about it and I would have" are wrong. Even if it didn't happen, they just weren't in the loop to hear the accusations.

Your statement that it was a reasonable investigation is laughable and as for 'equal before the law', that's a complete joke in this case where the FBI basically had both hands tied behind their back.


Last one as I need t sleep.

You don't think the two people who were alleged to be involved were eye witnesses to the event in which they were alleged to be involved? It's a novel approach I'll give you that.

As for reasonable, well the FBI investigated it as far as they normally investigate in these kinds of matters. That is a matter of fact. A proper criminal investigation would have been done by the police given that the alleged crimes were not federal, and given the holes in the story, the age of the allegation, ,the paucity of physical evidence, and the existence of refuting claims I doubt any police force would take it on as a serious investigation. You disagree. Hey ho.

As to your point three, you're basically saying that you believe the pro-allegers and disbelieve the refuters. The 7 people did hear about it? No. They say they heard about it. That is all we can say for certain. The people saying "I never heard about it" are wrong? No. They are making a counter claim. I make no assertion about the veracity of either view, I just note that there are competing claims, and given the age of the allegation, likely no other evidence than competing claims. And most of those competing claims appear to be based on hearsay.

Enough to convict one's political enemies but maybe not a good basis for a system of law.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16583
I wasn't aware the two you mentioned were actually alleged to have been present at the time (I missed that line in the quoted text) If they were, fair cop. But that doesn't negate the lax nature of the 'investigation' (if you can call talking to the alleged victim an investigation) -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:12 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15589
What I find difficult to understand is that this story is apparently beneficial to Trump's 2020 reelection.

Given the fact that a good percentage of voters are women, I fail see how putting Kavanaugh's drunken behaviour under the spotlight would be beneficial, even considering the time elapsed or the size of his cock.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9343
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:

The ommission is an absolute scandal. It's a complete abrogation of journalistic ethics. It is very close to a lie.



Even if that's true, that claim was the least serious of the claims against him. Sure, hang the NYT out to dry for their poor journalism, but they didn't break the Ramirez story and their reporting doesn't affect the validity or otherwise of her claims.


Interesting development. Apparently the story authors included the exculpatory information in the story they submitted. NYT editors removed it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32801
They will do whatever they can to demean you, to libel you. They try to blacklist, coerce, cancel or destroy anyone who gets in their way. Look at what they are doing today to Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh. 

Did you see the New York Times? Did you see what they are doing? Did you see what Democrats -- they're calling for his resignation. They are calling for his impeachment. And the woman involved said she did not know anything, but they still -- the New York Times had to put out a major apology and change their story. The woman said, I do not remember that. And they still want him to be impeached. And I just put out a statement -- and he is a great man, by the way. A great talent. A great, brilliant man, Brett Kavanaugh. 

I just put out a statement on social media that said -- I do not think they will do it, but they should, for the good of the nation. I called for the resignation of everybody at the New York Times involved in the Kavanaugh smear story. And while you are at it, the Russian witch hunt hoax, which is just as phony a story. 

They've taken the Old Gray Lady -- you know, the New York Times, for years, the Old Gray Lady, so prestigious. They have taken the Old Gray Lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue, and ruined her reputation. She can never recover and will never return to greatness under current management. The Times is dead. Long live the New York Times. Long live the New York Times. I do want it to live, but they have to change their ways.

The poor old gray lady. Sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9343
I note also that the NYT had the story that Leland Keyser (Christine Blasey Ford's lifelong friend who didn’t back her story and was named by Ford as present at the alleged incident) was bullied and threatened to back Ford's story and was ultimately smeared when she didn’t.

Apparently this wasn’t the story they wanted to print.

CBS have gone with it though.

Quote:
@JanCBS

We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16583
I think it's pertinent to actually review some of Kavanaugh's testimony at this point.

https://twitter.com/BlairImani/status/1 ... 9351572480


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6275
Location: the Confederacy of Dunces
Ted. wrote:
Quote:
Donald Trump has said the US is "locked and loaded" and ready to respond to attacks on a petroleum processing facility in Saudi Arabia, as US officials said the evidence pointed to Iranian involvement.


Great. :?


the bankers et al doing doing the Aramco IPO must be taking a growing interest in what goes on Yemen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6275
Location: the Confederacy of Dunces
Rinkals wrote:
What I find difficult to understand is that this story is apparently beneficial to Trump's 2020 reelection.

Given the fact that a good percentage of voters are women, I fail see how putting Kavanaugh's drunken behaviour under the spotlight would be beneficial, even considering the time elapsed or the size of his cock.


they're okay with pussy grabbers, a "lad" taking out his "lad" isn't going to be much of an issue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22635
Ted. wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
The Economist diagnoses conflict at the NYT between journos and editorial staff over how much to 'go for' Trump

spoilered for length
Spoiler: show
Notwithstanding the help he got from fake news reports, Donald Trump probably owes his presidency more to the traditional kind. Only a small minority of voters absorbed made-up accounts of Hillary Clinton’s endorsement by Islamic State, lesbianism and links to a child-sex ring. Yet most were subject, indirectly or directly, to an incessant drumbeat of negative reporting by mainstream outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post and network news channels on the Democratic candidate’s wooden public speaking and the largely confected scandals she was said to be embroiled in.

In a multi-part study of the media’s role in the election, Thomas Patterson of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government found that Mrs Clinton’s use of a private email account at the State Department, among lesser supposed scandals, received four times as much coverage as Mr Trump’s alleged record of harassing women. That unrelenting focus opened the gates for Mr Trump’s wilder attacks on his opponent. It also helped persuade many voters, who had initially balked at the Republican’s character, that the two candidates were comparably flawed. “If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a levelling effect that opens the door to charlatans,” wrote Mr Patterson.

Could history be about to repeat itself? Hostile coverage of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign suggests it might. The septuagenarian former vice-president is increasingly coming across in the same mainstream outlets as outdated, forgetful and sloppy with the truth. The question of his relative fitness for Mr Trump’s office, by contrast, has rarely surfaced. Last month an inaccurate account Mr Biden gave of a conversation with a war hero—in which he conflated exchanges with two different medal-winners, mashing up their heroism—made the Washington Post’s front page. Meanwhile the paper consigned to page ten the president’s use of a crudely doctored government map to try to justify his false and apparently politically motivated insistence that Alabama lay in the path of a hurricane. Such coverage will exacerbate an existing argument among left-leaning journalists and academics over whether America’s mainstream journalistic traditions, which strive for non-partisanship and balance, can handle such an unconventional figure as Mr Trump.

It was evident in the leaked transcript of a meeting of the New York Times newsroom last month, in which the paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, fielded criticism from reporters who wanted to call the president a “racist” more unambiguously and often. Mr Baquet pushed back because—as a native of the segregated South—he said the word lost its power with frequent use. In a subsequent interview he suggested that preserving the Times’s hard-pressed reputation for non-partisanship was another concern. “We don’t want to change all our structures and rules so much that we can’t put them back together—we don’t want to be oppositional to Donald Trump.”

Yet that is what many left-wing commentators, and perhaps a good few in Mr Baquet’s newsroom, want. Some consider the risk of becoming aligned with the Democratic Party worth running in an effort to give the most accurate measure of Mr Trump’s failings. Others just want to be aligned with it, either out of political conviction or, as Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs magazine has argued, because they also believe the increasing strain apparent in the mainstream outlets’ claim to be non-partisan is undermining public trust in them. Only by being more upfront about their leanings, as the Republican Party moves to the right and their newsrooms to the left, it is argued, can such outlets hope to restore it.

Without wishing to minimise the challenges of covering American politics—with which this newspaper also grapples, not always successfully—these arguments should be dismissed as the attempted left-wing power-grab they are. The media has much less potential to give Mr Trump an unwarranted advantage over his opponent next year than it had in 2016. The election is likely to be a referendum on his presidency, not a face-off between two novel candidates, and most voters have already made up their minds on that. This is not ground for emergency media measures.

Americans’ calamitous loss of trust is also fuelled by the extreme partisanship that has made their politics and related institutions so dysfunctional. The fact that a dwindling number of mainstream outlets have retained readers and viewers from both sides of the divide makes them, despite their imperfections, the closest thing to a neutral arbiter going. This was underlined by a study suggesting Mr Trump performed best in 2016 in areas with the lowest levels of subscription to newspapers, whether of the centre-left or centre-right. A more partisan media environment is the last thing America needs. Those who doubt that should consider that it would be squarely in Mr Trump’s interest. The president’s attempt to gin up his supporters by depicting the media as biased is one of his most powerful lines. Why vindicate it for him?

Plumbing the mainstream
Retrofitting American political journalism to defend it against populists—to which, mind, the left has historically been as susceptible as the right—calls for more modest change. It should start with an acknowledgment that the country’s style of election coverage can seem frivolous—especially compared to the rigour of its reporting on government. The characteristic features, including an obsessive focus on the candidate’s personality and details of the campaign—especially glitches—are as entertaining as any soap-opera, but rarely useful in appraising the relative merits of a politician’s qualities for public office. This is a lesson with broad application. Mr Trump’s relentless attacks on America’s institutions have, by and large, done damage only where he has hit on some pre-existing weakness. For those who would defend them, steely self-criticism may be more effective than outrage.■


Interesting article. The last paragraph echos what many left leaning but non-establishment supporting Dems have said since 2016, Trumps effective because when he attacks his enemies he articulates some element about them that that could be truthful depending on your own bias and therefore resonates with the public. Hence his fake news retort being so effective, because for all his own utter BS he can legitimately say his media criticics are biased against him. It doesn't help when those political figures and press deny this only for internal emails, memos or wikileaks to show it's true. There was a good article a few days ago about how if the US media actually admitted their biased they may reach out more to readers of a different political path:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... its-honest

Also Bernie makes a god point about the trends in media that cause truth in the media to fal:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -democracy


Just though I'd clarify that for you. ;)


I'd say both of us are partly true. The media have certainly got some things wrong about Trump as the article points out and have certainly looked to attack Trump in ways they didn't attack others. The latter point of course helps enforces the point you made that those people with certain biases will see the media a certain way (and of course ignores Trumps frequent very distant relationship with the truth).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8487
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
I think it's pertinent to actually review some of Kavanaugh's testimony at this point.

https://twitter.com/BlairImani/status/1 ... 9351572480


Look I appreciate the effort. If it's not a gang rape get him on an unsubstantiated 30 year old vague allegation. If not that try a 20 year old one. If not that try a different 20 year old one that the victim doesn't remember. If not that cherry pick something from his testimony. I like this way of selecting public servants and look forward to the consistent application of such measures.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8487
Aaanyway, the upshot is that after nearly a year of digging, on top of all the digging last year, all the Resistance can managed is a new third party allegation from a former Clinton lawyer about a victim who apparently doesn't recall any crime.

And based on that we get a call for impeachment. The third call for impeachment this term.

That's it. That is where we are. That is the new norm. This is a productive new direction. Thank you for your service, Resistance.


Last edited by Santa on Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32801
Here's tucker on this, and there is an amazing clip from msnbc at 1.30 that has to be seen to be believed.

https://youtu.be/xCmL_91HyU8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:17 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15589
ticketlessinseattle wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
What I find difficult to understand is that this story is apparently beneficial to Trump's 2020 reelection.

Given the fact that a good percentage of voters are women, I fail see how putting Kavanaugh's drunken behaviour under the spotlight would be beneficial, even considering the time elapsed or the size of his cock.


they're okay with pussy grabbers, a "lad" taking out his "lad" isn't going to be much of an issue


Obviously most of the men who support Trump will see no problem with this sort of behaviour, even viewing it favourably (as Utokolshe did in alluding to the possible size of his cock above), but surely, given that an equitable number of voters are bound to be women, it's a little foolhardy to revisit it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32801
Rinkals wrote:
ticketlessinseattle wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
What I find difficult to understand is that this story is apparently beneficial to Trump's 2020 reelection.

Given the fact that a good percentage of voters are women, I fail see how putting Kavanaugh's drunken behaviour under the spotlight would be beneficial, even considering the time elapsed or the size of his cock.


they're okay with pussy grabbers, a "lad" taking out his "lad" isn't going to be much of an issue


Obviously most of the men who support Trump will see no problem with this sort of behaviour, even viewing it favourably (as Utokolshe did in alluding to the possible size of his cock above), but surely, given that an equitable number of voters are bound to be women, it's a little foolhardy to revisit it?


One day I hope to pass over into the dimension you inhabit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11920
In DC at the moment. Had a good chuckle at this when going to check out the orangehouse:

Image

He's getting a wall built somewhere at least.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:07 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15589
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
ticketlessinseattle wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
What I find difficult to understand is that this story is apparently beneficial to Trump's 2020 reelection.

Given the fact that a good percentage of voters are women, I fail see how putting Kavanaugh's drunken behaviour under the spotlight would be beneficial, even considering the time elapsed or the size of his cock.


they're okay with pussy grabbers, a "lad" taking out his "lad" isn't going to be much of an issue


Obviously most of the men who support Trump will see no problem with this sort of behaviour, even viewing it favourably (as Utokolshe did in alluding to the possible size of his cock above), but surely, given that an equitable number of voters are bound to be women, it's a little foolhardy to revisit it?


One day I hope to pass over into the dimension you inhabit.

I wouldn't bother. You're probably better off remaining in your own alternative reality where Trump is a 4D chessmaster and Tucker Carlson a powerful intellectual force.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9767
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Deadtigers wrote:
Santa wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
There must be more to the Kavanaugh outrage beyond he was a drunken fudge up in college? How long ago was that and why does it matter now?


Just be aware that DT is playing fast and loose with the facts in order to make his case.


I aspire to be like you in that aspect.


I am coming back to this because again, Santa to no one's surprise is lying. Ramirez listed 25 witnesses, it was another victim that couldn't recall but the person was named by a witness of the second incident.

The Times has been busy apologizing for how they presented the story as part of an opinion section piece and story of not fitting in. Plus playing down Ramirez when she first came out a year ago.

Talk about playing fast and loose with the facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8487
So the NYT appears to have left out other key revelations from the Kav book that appear to support Kav's version of the Blasey allegations. Probably a word limit thing.

Quote:
Leland Keyser, a high school friend of Christine Blasey Ford, cast doubt on Ford's claims of being sexually assaulted by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at a high school party in the 1980s.

“I don’t have any confidence in the story,” Keyser told New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly in their new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Examiner.

Last summer, Keyser seemed to say that, although she didn’t remember the event, she still believed Ford.

“Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account,” Keyser’s attorney wrote last year. “However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

But Keyser now says she lacks confidence in Ford’s account. “We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or others like it,” Pogrebin and Kelly wrote. “In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy.”

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just didn't make any sense," Keyser told the authors.


Moreover, she says she was pressured to change her story to support Blasey:

Quote:
A few days before the hearing, Keyser’s attorney said, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

"Keyser later said she felt pressure by both [Ford classmate Lucy] Gonella and Ford's friend Monica McLean to change her story," Pogrebin and Kelly wrote.

"I was told behind the scenes that certain things could spread about me if I didn't comply," Keyser told the authors.

A group text recounted in the book between Ford’s friends following the hearing included discussions on how to convince Keyser to modify her story. Cheryl Amitay, a grade behind Ford at Holton, urged Keyser’s friends to talk to Keyser. “Maybe one of you guys who are friends with her can have a heart to heart,” Amitay texted. “I don’t care, frankly, how f---ed up her life is.”

Amitay called Keyser “a major stumbling block.”

Another Ford classmate, Lulu Gonella, said she was to meet with Keyser within an hour.

Another friend, a man who’d gone to Holton’s brother school, suggested making Keyser's "addictive tendencies" — the authors describe in the book her struggles with alcohol and drugs — widely known. “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is,” the man texted.


I'm sure these omissions were just an accidental oversight like the other omission. Maybe when they tried to delete the new 'victim's' name they accidentally deleted 7 pages of writing.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... lasey-ford


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1068
Location: Saint Paul
Seneca of the Night wrote:
They will do whatever they can to demean you, to libel you. They try to blacklist, coerce, cancel or destroy anyone who gets in their way. Look at what they are doing today to Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh. 

Did you see the New York Times? Did you see what they are doing? Did you see what Democrats -- they're calling for his resignation. They are calling for his impeachment. And the woman involved said she did not know anything, but they still -- the New York Times had to put out a major apology and change their story. The woman said, I do not remember that. And they still want him to be impeached. And I just put out a statement -- and he is a great man, by the way. A great talent. A great, brilliant man, Brett Kavanaugh. 

I just put out a statement on social media that said -- I do not think they will do it, but they should, for the good of the nation. I called for the resignation of everybody at the New York Times involved in the Kavanaugh smear story. And while you are at it, the Russian witch hunt hoax, which is just as phony a story. 

They've taken the Old Gray Lady -- you know, the New York Times, for years, the Old Gray Lady, so prestigious. They have taken the Old Gray Lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue, and ruined her reputation. She can never recover and will never return to greatness under current management. The Times is dead. Long live the New York Times. Long live the New York Times. I do want it to live, but they have to change their ways.

The poor old gray lady. Sad.


Channeling your inner Trump?

Actually, that screed is remarkably lucid for Trump


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5497
Location: The void
The Beto effect.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you- ... uns-public


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9266
Location: Texas
More importantly

Quote:
Sean Spicer's Spice Girls spectacle on 'DWTS' is not okay

Even though the lines between politics and entertainment have been blurred from the beginning in the Trump administration, Sean Spicer twirling the frills on the sleeves of his neon, lime-green shirt on "Dancing With The Stars" ("DWTS") have brought us to a collective new low.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4601
Great News !!!!!


The Orange one has decided to indulge in a little more environmental vandalism; & revoke CAs right to set it's own emission standards for cars !

Now ordinarily; one might consider this a bad thing, but (i) the motor industry will just completely ignore the cretin, & just keep applying the same standards, & (ii) by fucking around with the rights of States to legislate for themselves, he's opening up a Pandora's box of unimaginable proportions, & if the GOP don't break his hands before he try's to sign this into law, they'll be facing a new Democrat President intervening in States right to legislate on Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, & Gun Control !

Oh Joyous day :D :D :D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10320
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
States' rights are all the rage until the donors' profits take a hit...

The GOP needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. If it were a person, someone would have staged an intervention by now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9343
fishfoodie wrote:
Great News !!!!!


The Orange one has decided to indulge in a little more environmental vandalism; & revoke CAs right to set it's own emission standards for cars !

Now ordinarily; one might consider this a bad thing, but (i) the motor industry will just completely ignore the cretin, & just keep applying the same standards, & (ii) by fucking around with the rights of States to legislate for themselves, he's opening up a Pandora's box of unimaginable proportions, & if the GOP don't break his hands before he try's to sign this into law, they'll be facing a new Democrat President intervening in States right to legislate on Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, & Gun Control !

Oh Joyous day :D :D :D :D :D


Not commenting on the wisdom or not of this move, but he’s not f**king around with State's rights, he’s revoking a waiver that the federal government issued allowed California to apply higher standards than the federal government. It is the federal government that has the right, in law, to set standards.

One can easily see the problem that having two standards in place at a Federal and State level can cause i.e. in this case one state would, in practical terms, be setting the standard for all states. If California is becoming more aggressive on these standards then the challenge is bigger.

Also, changing the standard does not in any way prevent the automakers from voluntarily aiming for or achieving a higher standard themselves.

All that said, it doesn’t seem the most strategically useful of fights to pick. 🤷‍♂️


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4601
zt1903 wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Great News !!!!!


The Orange one has decided to indulge in a little more environmental vandalism; & revoke CAs right to set it's own emission standards for cars !

Now ordinarily; one might consider this a bad thing, but (i) the motor industry will just completely ignore the cretin, & just keep applying the same standards, & (ii) by fucking around with the rights of States to legislate for themselves, he's opening up a Pandora's box of unimaginable proportions, & if the GOP don't break his hands before he try's to sign this into law, they'll be facing a new Democrat President intervening in States right to legislate on Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, & Gun Control !

Oh Joyous day :D :D :D :D :D


Not commenting on the wisdom or not of this move, but he’s not f**king around with State's rights, he’s revoking a waiver that the federal government issued allowed California to apply higher standards than the federal government. It is the federal government that has the right, in law, to set standards.

One can easily see the problem that having two standards in place at a Federal and State level can cause i.e. in this case one state would, in practical terms, be setting the standard for all states. If California is becoming more aggressive on these standards then the challenge is bigger.

Also, changing the standard does not in any way prevent the automakers from voluntarily aiming for or achieving a higher standard themselves.

All that said, it doesn’t seem the most strategically useful of fights to pick. 🤷‍♂️


There aren't two standards, that's the whole point !

The California standard is the de facto Federal Standard, because other places get smog too, & you know what, if American Motor companies want to compete with foreign ones, emissions doesn't even appear on the list of things that the consumer cares about.

This is standard, LOOK AT MEEEEEE !!!!!! bullshit by the arsehole.

No one, repeat, NO ONE, is asking for this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:41 am
Posts: 1313
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Santa wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
You're assuming that's the only evidence/witness that exists. We simply don't know because the investigation was clearly limited by political considerations.


No I'm not. I was quite explicit that other eye witnesses refute her allegations. How many other eye witnesses would you need to overturn the gaps in her story and the refuting eye witnesses?


These refuting witnesses, were they interviewed by the FBI?


Don't know.

https://reason.com/2018/09/23/brett-kav ... al-miscon/

Quote:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events: "We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this."

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn't see it; I never heard of it happening."


Anyway, this story is going nowhere so that's all from me.


Ok, but I'll close with a few more points.

1 - They weren't interviewed to my knowledge.
2 - Those statements aren't eye witness refutations as they're not actually saying "We were there at the exact time it's alleged to have happened". Now that sort of refutation may not be possible (due to vagueness over the date) but regardless that's not actually an eye witness account saying nothing happened.
3 - 7 people did hear about it at the time, so people saying "I never heard about it and I would have" are wrong. Even if it didn't happen, they just weren't in the loop to hear the accusations.

Your statement that it was a reasonable investigation is laughable and as for 'equal before the law', that's a complete joke in this case where the FBI basically had both hands tied behind their back.

Riddle me this - why didn't Max Stier (Bill Clinton's defence attorney) raise these allegations in 2006 when Brett Kavanaugh was being confirmed as a Judge of the Court of Appeals, DC Circuit - the second highest court in the US?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16583
Well, I mean if you work for Clinton maybe you don't think people getting their junk out is a big deal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:43 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15589
Who knows, and why is it relevant?

With regard to Trump's action against fuel emissions laws, I appreciate that 97% of climate scientists could be wrong, but surely climate change denial cannot be a vote winner in the US?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32801
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Well, I mean if you work for Clinton maybe you don't think people getting their junk out is a big deal?


Back in the go go years of the 90s when Big Hoss was in the Big House junk was being laid out in strips all across the beltway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10320
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Rinkals wrote:
Who knows, and why is it relevant?

With regard to Trump's action against fuel emissions laws, I appreciate that 97% of climate scientists could be wrong, but surely climate change denial cannot be a vote winner in the US?


No, but fossil fuel companies have the best government money can buy and have infested the EPA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9343
fishfoodie wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
fishfoodie wrote:
Great News !!!!!


The Orange one has decided to indulge in a little more environmental vandalism; & revoke CAs right to set it's own emission standards for cars !

Now ordinarily; one might consider this a bad thing, but (i) the motor industry will just completely ignore the cretin, & just keep applying the same standards, & (ii) by fucking around with the rights of States to legislate for themselves, he's opening up a Pandora's box of unimaginable proportions, & if the GOP don't break his hands before he try's to sign this into law, they'll be facing a new Democrat President intervening in States right to legislate on Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, & Gun Control !

Oh Joyous day :D :D :D :D :D


Not commenting on the wisdom or not of this move, but he’s not f**king around with State's rights, he’s revoking a waiver that the federal government issued allowed California to apply higher standards than the federal government. It is the federal government that has the right, in law, to set standards.

One can easily see the problem that having two standards in place at a Federal and State level can cause i.e. in this case one state would, in practical terms, be setting the standard for all states. If California is becoming more aggressive on these standards then the challenge is bigger.

Also, changing the standard does not in any way prevent the automakers from voluntarily aiming for or achieving a higher standard themselves.

All that said, it doesn’t seem the most strategically useful of fights to pick. 🤷‍♂️


There aren't two standards, that's the whole point !

The California standard is the de facto Federal Standard, because other places get smog too, & you know what, if American Motor companies want to compete with foreign ones, emissions doesn't even appear on the list of things that the consumer cares about.

This is standard, LOOK AT MEEEEEE !!!!!! bullshit by the arsehole.

No one, repeat, NO ONE, is asking for this.


Exactly my point.

And fwiw I agree with you, no one is asking for this (publicly) so it’s a strange battle to pick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6275
Location: the Confederacy of Dunces
RuggaBugga wrote:
In DC at the moment. Had a good chuckle at this when going to check out the orangehouse:

Image

He's getting a wall built somewhere at least.


:lol: are the Mexicans paying for it....or just building it ?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102372 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2523, 2524, 2525, 2526, 2527, 2528, 2529 ... 2560  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 45jumper, bimboman, CarrotGawks, diarm, feckwanker, flaggETERNAL, Flockwitt, Google Adsense [Bot], HighKingLeinster, holbob, iRich, Ivor, JB1981, johnstrac, kingswood, Mad-Scientist, Mog The Almighty, mr flaps, New guy, Nolanator, Plato'sCave, Property, Raggs, Raison D'etre, RandomNavigat0r, Rinkals, RodneyRegis, rugga., Saint, SaintK, Seez, tabascoboy and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group